# Hybrid Arts



## KPM

First, one could say that almost every "traditional" martial art started out as a hybrid art.  I doubt any of them were truly created completely from "scratch."   Most are a combination of 2 or more pre-existing arts, or at least were influenced significantly by more than one pre-existing art.  Wing Chun is said to be "snake" and "crane."  Many think that it started out as a crane off-shoot that was then combined with a snake system.  That would make Wing Chun a "hybrid art" at its origins.  Weng Chun claims a direct link to Shaolin and to be a distillation of several of the Shaolin animal styles.  That would make it a "hybrid art" at its origins as well.  Both Judo and Aikido were created from several pre-existing Ju Jitsu systems.   But any art like that becomes an established thing unto itself when it has been taught for a couple of generations.  Then it is no longer considered a "hybrid." 

Another great example are the southeast Asian "Kuntao" systems.   These were Chinese arts taken to Malaysia and Indonesia generations ago.  Over time that were combined with or at least heavily influenced by the native Silat systems.  They became "hybridized."

I have been experimenting with a combination of my Wing Chun with Silat Serak.  I am not the first to recognize that this makes a great hybrid system.  Joseph Simonet did this 20 years ago.  What I have discovered is that the basic body mechanics of Serak may be different from Wing Chun, but they are actually quite similar to Weng Chun.  Thus my studies of Weng Chun have provided an excellent bridge and increased understanding of how this could work.   The basic fighting stance is a forward-weighted shallow "bow stance" with vertical alignment of "toes, knee, and nose."  It provides lots of forward pressure/intent and strong structural alignment.  It really puts an emphasis on moving through the opponent, taking his space, and disrupting his balance and structure.  This is also something emphasized in Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.   The one step further that comes from the Silat are all the various  throws and sweeps once you have entered and disrupted the opponent's balance as well as finishing moves on the ground.  Silat also has a wide range of joint locks and controls that are very useful in modern times when significantly injuring someone could land you in jail.  Serak works in close, so when they are in close range and punching, they often use centerline punches just like Wing Chun. 

My experience has been that Wing Chun is a better punching method, while Silat Serak is a better body manipulation/control and stand-up grappling method.   So a hybrid art of the two becomes very interesting and workable!   Is it still Wing Chun?   We could argue that back and forth all day....it depends upon how you define "Wing Chun."     Maybe it is "Wing Chun Kuntao."  

But again, I certainly wasn't the first to come up with this idea and work along these lines.   Here is some footage of Joseph Simonet:


----------



## KPM

Choy Li Fut....a hybrid of Cho Ga, Li Ga, and Fut Ga Kung Fu.

Some more Simonet:


----------



## Tames D

Thanks for posting the vids. I'm a big fan of Joseph Simonet.


----------



## geezer

I'm _not_ a big fan of Simonet. His hybrid martial art may work, but he completely misunderstands WC. I only watch his clips for aesthetic enjoyment  ...i.e. Addy Hernandez.


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> I'm _not_ a big fan of Simonet. His hybrid martial art may work, but he completely misunderstands WC. I only watch his clips for aesthetic enjoyment  ...i.e. Addy Hernandez.


---------------------------------------------------
Another commercial attempt to piggy back on wing chun. His dummy work is indeed for dummies.


----------



## geezer

I just got back from training for a week with a kung fu brother in another state. I also conducted PCE Escrima workshops with his students. Many aspects of this system of Escrima segue seamlessly into Wing Chun. So I totally understand this "hybrid" idea. But why create another chop suey hybrid rather than just doing some honest cross training so that you feel confident with weapons, long range H2H, close range H2H, clinch, grappling and groundfighting?

Personally, I find there is _more depth_ in the WC I'm training than I can ever master in this lifetime. So I'm not about to invent yet another hybrid!


----------



## anerlich

My first KF instructor, David Crook, with whom I started in 1977, taught a hybrid of Wing Chun, Choy Li Fut, and Northern Sil Lum. It worked very well for him and his students. He is still teaching successfully today. Not an easy thing to do well but he certainly did  it. Multiple ranges, mixing straight and circular techniques, etc. He developed his own forms, which I still practise today.

He's no slouch with a stick or combat folder either, and is a firearms enthusiast to the point of packing his own ammunition. His son, as well as making other precision metal parts for various machines, is a high end gunsmith.

I only left his tutelage because work took me away from Canberra (where he lives) and to Sydney. I still meet up with him occasionally. I've met a number of top shelf martial artists in my time, and he's right up there, especially in regard to desire to continually improve and seek new knowledge, his ability to teach effectively and relate to his students.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> I just got back from training for a week with a kung fu brother in another state. I also conducted PCE Escrima workshops with his students. Many aspects of this system of Escrima segue seamlessly into Wing Chun. So I totally understand this "hybrid" idea. But why create another chop suey hybrid rather than just doing some honest cross training so that you feel confident with weapons, long range H2H, close range H2H, clinch, grappling and groundfighting?
> 
> Personally, I find there is _more depth_ in the WC I'm training than I can ever master in this lifetime. So I'm not about to invent yet another hybrid!



I would go a step further.  Now admittedly in studying Lacoste-Inosanto Kali I already study a hybrid in the spirit of JKD.  Now my Mataw-Guro/Sifu also teaches Wing Chin as well in the same class.

The thing is though, if you are going to create a hybrid art (al la Dan Inosanto) or teach more than one art with the intent of hybridization, you need, imo a true understanding of the arts you are putting into the mix. 

Example my Guro is also well versed in Aiki-Jujutsu.  If he was to add that into the mix I would be "okay cool" but if he was to try and add say Karate it wouldn't make sense because his understanding there is lacking.

As for all martial arts being a hybrid I would debate that.  Some may be an evolution, but evolution and hybrid aren't the same thing imo.  This to say there aren't some traditional MAs that are hybrids of early ones, only that this is not Universal.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

geezer said:


> I'm _not_ a big fan of Simonet. His hybrid martial art may work, but he completely misunderstands WC. I only watch his clips for aesthetic enjoyment  ...i.e. Addy Hernandez.



Silat people feel the same way geezer.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> I would go a step further.  Now admittedly in studying Lacoste-Inosanto Kali I already study a hybrid in the spirit of JKD.
> 
> ...The thing is though, if you are going to create a hybrid art (al la Dan Inosanto) or teach more than one art with the intent of hybridization,* you need, imo a true understanding of the arts you are putting into the mix*.



I totally agree with the bolded part in the quote above. That is why I'm not a fan of Simonet's Wing Chun elements in this hybrid. IMO he has taken some movements from WC to incorporate in his martial system, but they are not applied as they would be in WC. They may_ look_ like WC techniques, but have become something _very_ different ...at least from the WC I train.

I have great respect for Guro Dan, but but sometimes I see the same thing in videos of his. Consider that early on he came from a kenpo background. To me, Hawaiian/American kenpo systems (Mitose/Chow/Parker/Tracy, et.al.) are the best known example of a modern hybrid approach to martial arts. They often try to incorporate a little bit of everything.

One "Kenpo-Karate" school I used to drive past everyday back in the 90s had a large sign stating that they taught "Karate, Kung-fu, Boxing, Kickboxing, Jiu-jutsu, Tai Chi..." If they are still around, I'm sure they will have added, BJJ and MMA. Frankly, perhaps you _can_ teach a hybrid with bits drawn from those styles, but you can't teach them all and have them retain their original character.

First of all, it's just too much material for anybody to get a grasp on and actually use under stress. Secondly, and more importantly, many of these systems are based on different, even contradictory concepts. To try to practice them all as intended would guarantee confusion and failure.

In Guro Dan's case, I believe he is a gifted athlete, and a bright man with a curious disposition who has spent a lifetime exploring many different styles. I give hime credit. Heck, he was a major inspiration to me. His early books and movie appearances were a major influence in my choice to study Eskrima. But as I have continued in the martial arts these many years, I've come to realize that few of us have the potential to be like Dan Inosanto or Bruce Lee. Secondly, _the "more is better" approach_ of many hybrid martial arts is the exact _opposite _of what my WC and Eskrima teachers taught.



Juany118 said:


> As for all martial arts being a hybrid I would debate that.  Some may be an evolution, but evolution and hybrid aren't the same thing imo.  This to say there aren't some traditional MAs that are hybrids of early ones, only that this is not Universal.



I agree with this too. Yip Man's WC is a good example of this. Legend has it that WC evolved from much more complicated, and "hybridized" Shaolin roots. And we know for certain that in the last century, Yip Man further simplified and narrowed the scope of WC, shortening forms (compared to what we still see practiced in Fo'shan, etc.) and concentrating on efficiency and functionality. WC _evolved _by becoming more focused as a highly integrated and unified Chinese boxing system and less like it's hybrid roots.


----------



## geezer

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Silat people feel the same way geezer.



About Simonet, ...or about this young lady:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-storefronts-production/sites/5233/images/nOQHTgWhSoWljehPXJ0F_addy knife.jpg

http://kifightingconcepts.com/images/items/ACA_med.jpg


----------



## Tony Dismukes

geezer said:


> I have great respect for Guro Dan, but but sometimes I see the same thing in videos of his. Consider that early on he came from a kenpo background. To me, Hawaiian/American kenpo systems (Mitose/Chow/Parker/Tracy, et.al.) are the best known example of a modern hybrid approach to martial arts. They often try to incorporate a little bit of everything.


From what I've seen of Guro Dan's art, it is a solid system where the various concepts and principles and techniques are integrated seamlessly. That said, I agree that whatever WC influences are still within the system have been transformed into something different from their original purpose.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

geezer said:


> About Simonet, ...or about this young lady:
> 
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-storefronts-production/sites/5233/images/nOQHTgWhSoWljehPXJ0F_addy knife.jpg
> 
> http://kifightingconcepts.com/images/items/ACA_med.jpg



About Simonet.


----------



## geezer

Brian R. VanCise said:


> About Simonet.



Yeah well personally, I would have stopped watching Simonet's clips after a few minutes if it hadn't been for Addy! 

Although, one this that really bugged me is that in a lot of his videos he demonstrates his techniques on her. IMO watching a big muscular guy beat up a small, slender woman doesn't send the right message.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> ...
> In Guro Dan's case, I believe he is a gifted athlete, and a bright man with a curious disposition who has spent a lifetime exploring many different styles. I give hime credit. Heck, he was a major inspiration to me. His early books and movie appearances were a major influence in my choice to study Eskrima. But as I have continued in the martial arts these many years, I've come to realize that few of us have the potential to be like Dan Inosanto or Bruce Lee. Secondly, _the "more is better" approach_ of many hybrid martial arts is the exact _opposite _of what my WC and Eskrima teachers taught.



Oh we agree on this.  I would NEVER suggest that someone do what Guro Dan did.  It takes a unique talent, to do what he did and create a cohesive martial art from diverse elements. You need the curiosity not only for the techniques but the philosophy behind them.  I don't see him as creating a "more is better" system.  What I think he did, oddly enough, is create a simpler, let's call it South Pacific MA, than say PTK or Silat by taking the related and less complicated techniques of many arts.  I think he just did so via a complicated "construction process" due to the intense curiosity and thirst for MA knowledge.  As a  matter of fact this very simplification has me on occassion saying "I really like this but is their a PTK or Solar instructor nearby?  This works really well but I want to go 'deeper'."

Now when a lot of people who try to replicate what Guro Dan did I think they can go too far a field.  IMO one of the things that makes L-IK work, to be "solid" as @Tony Dismukes said, is that the techniques all share similar roots.  Due to the migration patterns in the South Pacific you see shared elements in MA's from Malaysia, through Indonesia and into the Philippines, there was already a fair amount of cross pollination whether it be Silat, Kuntao, and certain styles of FMA.  This is especially true in Mindanao because ultimately it was colonial powers that said "your island is now part of the Philippines and not Indonesia."  This pre-existing cross pollination makes hybridization into a consistent Martial Art easier.   

I see some people though who simply look at other Martial Arts, maybe even arts with little historical or cultural connection, and say "hey that one technique looks really effective over here, that one looks really effective over there."  Now sometimes that can work, often times though it doesn't.  At least imo one of the things that makes a MA really work is that the techniques can flow into one another naturally.  Even when it does work though, it's rarely nice to look at, especially in the case where you recognize a technique from the art you study and you are forced to say "no no no that's just...not right."


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------
> Another commercial attempt to piggy back on wing chun. His dummy work is indeed for dummies.


 

He can explain every move and show you multiple applications of each.  And he can make it all work.  That certainly can't be said for many Wing Chun people.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> I just got back from training for a week with a kung fu brother in another state. I also conducted PCE Escrima workshops with his students. Many aspects of this system of Escrima segue seamlessly into Wing Chun. So I totally understand this "hybrid" idea. But why create another chop suey hybrid rather than just doing some honest cross training so that you feel confident with weapons, long range H2H, close range H2H, clinch, grappling and groundfighting?
> 
> Personally, I find there is _more depth_ in the WC I'm training than I can ever master in this lifetime. So I'm not about to invent yet another hybrid!


 
If you crosstrain to the point that you can seamlessly integrate what you are doing in multiple aspects as you have described, have you not created a hybrid martial art of your own?   If you can change your Wing Chun or your Escrima a bit so that the seamless integration works that much better...are you not doing something new and valuable?   Why should we limit things to just what other people have hybridized and developed in the past?  Why would we not innovate on things in modern times?  Chances are that a lot of the past "masters" that came up with some of the "traditional" martial arts we have today had a lot less practical fighting experience than many modern people that have had access to goed protective gear and people willing to spar and train without it being a "death match."   The Dog Brothers certainly discovered this in repects to FMA.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> He can explain every move and show you multiple applications of each.  And he can make it all work.  That certainly can't be said for many Wing Chun people.



If you put together your own system, you ought to be able to explain every move! On the other hand, if you are a student of a traditional martial art handed down through an old lineage, it only stands to reason that there would be things that you don't fully understand yet. 

BTW Keith, I posted something on short-staff down in the General FMA section with a reference to Paulus Hector Mair. I believe you translated that short-staff section into English? Awesome.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> As for all martial arts being a hybrid I would debate that.  Some may be an evolution, but evolution and hybrid aren't the same thing imo.  This to say there aren't some traditional MAs that are hybrids of early ones, only that this is not Universal.


 
I never said "all" martial arts were hybrids.  Just a great many!  From the FMA arena......Remy Presas's "Modern Arnis"...hybrid style.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> If you crosstrain to the point that you can seamlessly integrate what you are doing in multiple aspects as you have described, have you not created a hybrid martial art of your own?   If you can change your Wing Chun or your Escrima a bit so that the seamless integration works that much better...are you not doing something new and valuable?   Why should we limit things to just what other people have hybridized and developed in the past?  Why would we not innovate on things in modern times?



If I agree with you, I might tick some people off. So I should just keep quiet. 

....OK, I've never been very good at quiet. You are right.


----------



## KPM

KPM said:


> I never said "all" martial arts were hybrids.  Just a great many!  From the FMA arena......Remy Presas's "Modern Arnis"...hybrid style.


 
Edgar Sulite's "Lameco Escrima".....hybrid style.  And a modern one at that.


----------



## KPM

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Silat people feel the same way geezer.


 
And why is that?  I never understood why so many Silat people have it out for Simonet.  I find his explanation of the Jurus to be rather straight-forward and common sense.


----------



## KPM

_If you put together your own system, you ought to be able to explain every move!_

---Very true!  And unfortunately the people that put together the Wing Chun dummy forms are long gone and a lot has either been forgotten, or lost in "translation." And some of modern understanding of the traditional forms is just flat wrong. 

--- I also think it is just flat wrong to denigrate someone's dummy form simply because  it isn't the same as the "traditional" forms.   I'm pretty sure Simonet could beat the crap out of a whole lot of "traditional" guys out there using his stuff.   Wing Chun guys in particular.  


_On the other hand, if you are a student of a traditional martial art handed down through an old lineage, it only stands to reason that there would be things that you don't fully understand yet. _

---Well, I have also come to the conclusion that there is a lot in "traditional" martial arts that we will likely never understand simply because people just don't fight that way any more.


_BTW Keith, I posted something on short-staff down in the General FMA section with a reference to Paulus Hector Mair. I believe you translated that short-staff section into English? Awesome. _

---Yep.  I translated a lot of Paulus Hector Mair's fighting manual.  Quite a bit of it is floating about on the internet now.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

KPM said:


> And why is that?  I never understood why so many Silat people have it out for Simonet.  I find his explanation of the Jurus to be rather straight-forward and common sense.



They do not feel he is one of them and they feel he is mediocre at best.


----------



## JP3

I, too, agree that nearly every system now in play is, or at least was once considered to be, a hybridization of 2 or more other then-thought to be original systems.

   Personally, in my journey, I've moved through aikido, to straight-line karate, into taekwondo, then hapkido, turned into muay thai, got into judo and ended up back in aikido, which I sort of express with a bit of meanness so mine is probably more like aikijutsu.

  When I find myself in an open fun contest with another experienced person, and we'r eplaying around with an anything goes philosophy (but not trying to hurt one another, just exploring) it's interesting. I end up with this we're blend of the thai-boxing stance working into aikido/hapkido hand traps and then end up in judo for throwing techniques, depending on if I can close or the other guy is able to maintain distance or also wishes to close.  Definitely a blended type of thing.


----------



## KPM

Brian R. VanCise said:


> They do not feel he is one of them and they feel he is mediocre at best.


 

Could it be a bit of resentment since he has chosen to go his own way and do his own thing?  You know....left the family so he is "persona non grata"?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Who knows KPM.  I have just hung out with enough people that this is what I have heard over and over again.  Personally, it doesn't affect me so I do not worry about it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> As for all martial arts being a hybrid I would debate that.  Some may be an evolution, but evolution and hybrid aren't the same thing imo.  This to say there aren't some traditional MAs that are hybrids of early ones, only that this is not Universal.



I think that's a useful distinction. NGA is a hybrid - apparently based in movements and principles from Daito-ryu, plus Shotokan(?) Karate, Judo, and perhaps even some of Ueshiba's Aikido (via Shioda, most likely). Shojin-ryu is an evolutionary step away. While I've borrowed movements (yes, movements, moreso than principles - keeping the principles from NGA) from other arts and styles (some few directly from Daito-ryu and Ueshiba's Aikido, some from bits of FMA, some from bits of CMA), the primary base is still NGA with some adaptations from my own refinement. I couldn't rightly call it a hybrid, as it is clearly based mostly in mainline NGA.


----------



## Vajramusti

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Who knows KPM.  I have just hung out with enough people that this is what I have heard over and over again.  Personally, it doesn't affect me so I do not worry about it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid wing chun? Its one own concoction. Caveat emptor. Lots of cherry picking under a word- label.
Training well in different arts is different from a so called hybrid. Jordan and Barkley played basketball well.
They also played golf- but they did not misuse the names basketball or golf-though they had their own different
approaches to basket ball.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hybrid wing chun? Its one own concoction. Caveat emptor. Lots of cherry picking under a word- label.
> Training well in different arts is different from a so called hybrid. Jordan and Barkley played basketball well.
> They also played golf- but they did not misuse the names basketball or golf-though they had their own different
> approaches to basket ball.


 
That's a pretty dumb analogy.  As I said....Wing Chun likely started out as a hybrid art....if you put any stock in its own legends at all.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> That's a pretty dumb analogy.  As I said....Wing Chun likely started out as a hybrid art....if you put any stock in its own legends at all.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demented, and dumb -such labels  and name calling are improper in this forum imo. and it does not help to make whatever point you are trying to make.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> That's a pretty dumb analogy.  As I said....Wing Chun likely started out as a hybrid art....if you put any stock in its own legends at all.



If you believe one particular legend.  There is another legend where the nun was simply the last survivor of 5 masters who were trying to create a new martial art that would train a competent Kung Fu practitioner in a shorter period of time. 

There are also people who see similarities between Wing Chun and Hung Ga and thus may see WC as an evolution of Hung Ga.

Back to the analogy you ad hominem attacked.  Let's explain what they were trying to say a bit more specifically.  My school teaches WC and Lacoste-Inosanto Kali in tandem.  So, until you have advanced far enough in WC to learn the Butterfly knives and Long Pole, the mind set is that you transition between arts.  
-If I have a knife, stick or sword I use Kali.  
-If unarmed I use WC until I can get one.  
-If I am using WC in a "stand up fight" and find myself suddenly in a ground fight, again to Kali.

(@geezer can correct me if his ideas are different since he teaches rather than simply studies the same concepts I am learning)
The reason for this is that while Kali does have unarmed techniques for the most part these techniques have a philosophy of "use them brutally until you can get to a weapon." They are good, damn effective BUT limited and if you are facing another well trained unarmed fighter you can find yourself with fewer options in a "stand up" fight than the dedicated unarmed practitioner.

It is not a hybrid art I learn, I am studying both in a complete form and then learning how and when to transition, or as I like to say dance, between the two as the situation dictates.  

In order to create a true hybrid art you need to have a deep understanding of all of the arts involved in order to create a proper system.  The people with that kind of understanding, even in the days long past were few and far between.  Why else would what history (not legends) speak of say Shaolin Temple having different Monks being the Master of form "X" in the singular.  

I think part of the problem may be we forget that in the East that Martial Arts were seen in a way similar to any other Art. We look at them as a Science.  Science is a logical progression and at times a combination of different sciences to achieve a goal.  Art however does not need to follow such a logical progression.  Martial Arts can be equal part science and self-expression and so a "new" art can simply be inspired by previous arts al la Raphael being inspired by Da Vinci Leonardo da Vinci's influence on Raphael - The Mona Lisa Foundation

The lines are a lot more blurred so unless explicitly called a hybrid, I would hesitate to apply the label.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think that's a useful distinction. NGA is a hybrid - apparently based in movements and principles from Daito-ryu, plus Shotokan(?) Karate, Judo, and perhaps even some of Ueshiba's Aikido (via Shioda, most likely). Shojin-ryu is an evolutionary step away. While I've borrowed movements (yes, movements, moreso than principles - keeping the principles from NGA) from other arts and styles (some few directly from Daito-ryu and Ueshiba's Aikido, some from bits of FMA, some from bits of CMA), the primary base is still NGA with some adaptations from my own refinement. I couldn't rightly call it a hybrid, as it is clearly based mostly in mainline NGA.



I definitely agree with this and, correct me if wrong, I think it similar to my Sifu.  Now while we learn both WC and Kali in tandem (maybe a bit more than you do in that regard), but it's the mindset and method that I think are shared. 

When we fight/spar, we do so with a Kali method/mindset.  Both arts, while using different terms, share the idea of the centerline theory but also see it in a different light.  So we may use some WC techniques but the centerline as an example, is a means to an end.  We attack the center to unbalance and stun our opponents so we can, if unarmed, then move to joint destruction, where as, in my experience, a person with the WC mindset will be seeing the opponent's center as both the means and the end.  

So while we learn and can test in both arts separately,  the way we learn to fight is Kali in it's heart and soul, even if there is some bleed over in terms of WC techniques.  So he isn't making it even more of a hybrid than L-I Kali already is, it maintains the essence.

Most hybrid martial arts (as opposed to fighting systems) that I have seen do not only bring in different techniques, they also tend to blur/blend the philosophy or essence of the arts involved so that the new hybrid art has a new heart or "core" at the center of it.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Demented, and dumb -such labels  and name calling are improper in this forum imo. and it does not help to make whatever point you are trying to make.


 
It was no less disrepectful than what you wrote.  I didn't call anyone a name.  I simply said that your analogy was dumb.  You said essentially the same thing about the idea of a "hybrid Wing Chun."  So what's the difference?   You made no point either, other than stating that you didn't think any "hybrid" art was a good idea.  You didn't say why you thought that or what the problem would be.  Your post added nothing to this discussion.


----------



## KPM

_If you believe one particular legend.  There is another legend where the nun was simply the last survivor of 5 masters who were trying to create a new martial art that would train a competent Kung Fu practitioner in a shorter period of time._

----And that particular legend states that Wing Chun was a culmination of the 5 animal systems taught at Shaolin.  So, once again, a hybrid martial art!  


_Back to the analogy you ad hominem attacked._

---Basketball and Golf are nothing alike.  Why would either man do a Golf move on the basketball court?  So yeah, a dumb analogy.



_Let's explain what they were trying to say a bit more specifically.  My school teaches WC and Lacoste-Inosanto Kali in tandem.  So, until you have advanced far enough in WC to learn the Butterfly knives and Long Pole, the mind set is that you transition between arts.  
-If I have a knife, stick or sword I use Kali.  
-If unarmed I use WC until I can get one.  
-If I am using WC in a "stand up fight" and find myself suddenly in a ground fight, again to Kali._

---Nothing wrong with this.  But the two have a different biomechanic.  Shifting back and forth between 2 different biomechanics can be confusing.  It may not be instinctive enough when the pressure is own and you really need to use it.    Go from a standing art to a ground-fighting/grappling art is an easy transition because they don't mix biomechanical methods....as would two different standing/striking arts.



_In order to create a true hybrid art you need to have a deep understanding of all of the arts involved in order to create a proper system_. 

---Not necessarily.  Bruce Lee's JKD started out as a hybrid art.   He only knew Wing Chun up to the dummy form and never completed the entire system.  He did some western boxing, but nothing beyond an amatuer level.  He used nothern CMA style kicking, but he never mastered any northern style.  I don't think he learned western fencing "hands on" at all, but incorporated a lot of the theory.   What is really required is to have a systematic approach in mind and to recognize where aspects of another art either fit, or overlap.  Knowing the base art with a deep understanding will allow you to recognize how you can vary it and change it by the addition of aspects of another art. 


_ The people with that kind of understanding, even in the days long past were few and far between._ 

---I disagree.  You give far to much credit to past masters and not enough to modern people.  Modern people are just as smart as past masters.  Modern people likely have a wider exposure to different systems, and a more systematic approach to analysis and training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> _If you believe one particular legend.  There is another legend where the nun was simply the last survivor of 5 masters who were trying to create a new martial art that would train a competent Kung Fu practitioner in a shorter period of time._
> 
> ----And that particular legend states that Wing Chun was a culmination of the 5 animal systems taught at Shaolin.  So, once again, a hybrid martial art!
> 
> 
> _Back to the analogy you ad hominem attacked._
> 
> ---Basketball and Golf are nothing alike.  Why would either man do a Golf move on the basketball court?  So yeah, a dumb analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> _Let's explain what they were trying to say a bit more specifically.  My school teaches WC and Lacoste-Inosanto Kali in tandem.  So, until you have advanced far enough in WC to learn the Butterfly knives and Long Pole, the mind set is that you transition between arts.
> -If I have a knife, stick or sword I use Kali.
> -If unarmed I use WC until I can get one.
> -If I am using WC in a "stand up fight" and find myself suddenly in a ground fight, again to Kali._
> 
> ---Nothing wrong with this.  But the two have a different biomechanic.  Shifting back and forth between 2 different biomechanics can be confusing.  It may not be instinctive enough when the pressure is own and you really need to use it.    Go from a standing art to a ground-fighting/grappling art is an easy transition because they don't mix biomechanical methods....as would two different standing/striking arts.
> 
> 
> 
> _In order to create a true hybrid art you need to have a deep understanding of all of the arts involved in order to create a proper system_.
> 
> ---Not necessarily.  Bruce Lee's JKD started out as a hybrid art.   He only knew Wing Chun up to the dummy form and never completed the entire system.  He did some western boxing, but nothing beyond an amatuer level.  He used nothern CMA style kicking, but he never mastered any northern style.  I don't think he learned western fencing "hands on" at all, but incorporated a lot of the theory.   What is really required is to have a systematic approach in mind and to recognize where aspects of another art either fit, or overlap.  Knowing the base art with a deep understanding will allow you to recognize how you can vary it and change it by the addition of aspects of another art.
> 
> 
> _ The people with that kind of understanding, even in the days long past were few and far between._
> 
> ---I disagree.  You give far to much credit to past masters and not enough to modern people.  Modern people are just as smart as past masters.  Modern people likely have a wider exposure to different systems, and a more systematic approach to analysis and training.


The comment about past masters bears emphasis. It was not uncommon for someone to start a new style in their 20's. Granted, they would have had much more training than most of us had by our 20's (different lifestyle), but their brains were no more developed. Someone in their mid-20's creating a new art/style likely has no more understanding of it (barring a few exceptional people) than another equally experienced martial artist today.

We have a tendency (it's a psychological thing) to give much weight to the ability and wisdom of those who founded things in times long past. Likely they were no different than those starting things today.


----------



## Phobius

Hybrid arts can be good or bad, I am certain.

Problem is that the question itself is on an individual level. You can not say all hybrids are either good or bad. Each hybrid art is what it is, and good or bad can either be the hybrid art or the one teaching it not really understanding what he himself has created.

Question is, would it be a good investment of my time to learn such a hybrid art in hopes that it will make me a better fighter? Well the answer to such a question often comes from watching the teacher and in this case I would say a resounding No. Whatever is taught here would not serve me well. Does this mean it is a bad art? Not necessarily, since I do not study it I can never answer that question. Instead I can just know I will never need to ask myself that question because it serves no interest to me.

We put too much effort into labelling stuff good or bad, the answer to that question is most often an individual one and can only be answered once you have tried it. Even the most shitty art could perhaps be the best art for you because it makes you understand something you otherwise would not. What do I know?

Now is a hybrid art any or both of the arts that it consist of? 
Is Wing Chun and Kali mix actually Wing Chun? No it is not, otherwise it would not be called a mix or a hybrid. Studying both at same time does not mean it is a hybrid, mixing the arts into one would mean replacing some parts with something from a different art. This would mean it is a new art. Still does not believe it changes anything of value as I said above.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In your MA toolbox, what MA tools do you need? You will need:

1. Entering strategies (how to move in without being punched and kicked):

- rhino strategy
- octopus strategy,
- double spears strategy,
- zombie arms strategy,
- leading arm jams back arm strategy,
- circle dragging strategy,
- ...

2. Finishing strategies (how to disable your opponent ASAP):

- jab, cross, uppercut, hook, ...
- front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, back kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, leg block, single leg, double legs, ...
- full mount, side mount, arm bar, choke, ...

Is there a single MA system on earth that can offer you all these tools? The answer is no. So where will you obtain all those information beside "cross training" and create your own hybrid art?

May be you don't need all those tools but just a small subset instead. But in order to be able to know how to defense and counter those tools, you will have no choice but to master all those tools so you will know how to counter it. A simple example, you can't learn how to counter a "side mount" if you don't even know how to apply a "side mount" yourself.

If your MA goal is "how to enter" and "how to finish". The word "style" will have very little meaning to you.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _If you believe one particular legend.  There is another legend where the nun was simply the last survivor of 5 masters who were trying to create a new martial art that would train a competent Kung Fu practitioner in a shorter period of time._
> 
> ----And that particular legend states that Wing Chun was a culmination of the 5 animal systems taught at Shaolin.  So, once again, a hybrid martial art!



In some of he legends yes, in others no.  That is the problem with using such legends, depending on your school of thought the legend changes.



> ---Basketball and Golf are nothing alike.  Why would either man do a Golf move on the basketball court?  So yeah, a dumb analogy.


My point was to say there are ways to argue against a poor argument without ad hominem, no more, no less.






> ---Nothing wrong with this.  But the two have a different biomechanic.  Shifting back and forth between 2 different biomechanics can be confusing.  It may not be instinctive enough when the pressure is own and you really need to use it.    Go from a standing art to a ground-fighting/grappling art is an easy transition because they don't mix biomechanical methods....as would two different standing/striking arts.


Actually the biomechanics of the two arts aren't that different.  There are differences of course but not enough to really lend to confusion if taught properly.  You have to remember that FMA, especially in the south, have major bleed over, the same as the rest of South Asia, from southern Chinese arts that brought about Kuntao. Are their unique cultural things yes?  But @geezer actually teaches seminars on how one can seemlessly transition from one to the other as well, his FMA base is a different style than the one I study if I remember rightly but it's still FMA.






> ---I disagree.  You give far to much credit to past masters and not enough to modern people.  Modern people are just as smart as past masters.  Modern people likely have a wider exposure to different systems, and a more systematic approach to analysis and training.



Well there I tend to be in the camp that JKD is a system today for mostly marketing reasons.  If you read the Tao of Jeet Kun Do you see that what we call JKD is actually anathema to Lee's philosophy.  When I think of hybrid arts in modern times I am thinking of L-I Kali, Hapkido, etc.  These are arts that were created by, for lack of a better term, mature practitioners.  The point being, they do exist today it's just those who successfully create a truly  holistic hybrid are few and far between.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your MA toolbox, what MA tools do you need? You will need:
> 
> 1. Entering strategies:
> 
> - rhino strategy
> - octopus strategy,
> - double spears strategy,
> - zombie arms strategy,
> - leading arm jams back arm strategy,
> - circle dragging strategy,
> - ...



I see you left room for more, so let me add the following and leave room for more:

- sloth strategy
- possum strategy
- kangaroo strategy
- skunk strategy
- turtle strategy
- ....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> My point was to say there are ways to argue against a poor argument without ad hominem, no more, no less.


Actually, calling it a "dumb analogy" isn't an ad hominem attack. Saying "you're dumb so the analogy is worthless" would be an ad hominem attack. Calling the analogy dumb is perhaps not the most polite way to word a refutation, but it is an attack on the argument, not the person.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> ---Nothing wrong with this. But the two have a different biomechanic. Shifting back and forth between 2 different biomechanics can be confusing. It may not be instinctive enough when the pressure is own and you really need to use it. Go from a standing art to a ground-fighting/grappling art is an easy transition because they don't mix biomechanical methods....as would two different standing/striking arts.



So fighting combining ground and stand up is shifting between two different biomechanics?

Because people seem to be able to manage that.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, calling it a "dumb analogy" isn't an ad hominem attack. Saying "you're dumb so the analogy is worthless" would be an ad hominem attack. Calling the analogy dumb is perhaps not the most polite way to word a refutation, but it is an attack on the argument, not the person.



Dumb argument.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Actually, calling it a "dumb analogy" isn't an ad hominem attack. Saying "you're dumb so the analogy is worthless" would be an ad hominem attack. Calling the analogy dumb is perhaps not the most polite way to word a refutation, but it is an attack on the argument, not the person.



You are actually correct.  Perhaps I should have simply said "rude" response and "more polite" ways to address the issue.  Thank you for the correction.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> So fighting combining ground and stand up is shifting between two different biomechanics? ...Because people seem to be able to manage that.



Yep. And actually that's exactly what KPM said:



KPM said:


> the two have a different biomechanic.  Shifting back and forth between 2 different biomechanics can be confusing.  It may not be instinctive enough when the pressure is own and you really need to use it.   * Go from a standing art to a ground-fighting/grappling art is an easy transition because they don't mix biomechanical methods....as would two different standing/striking arts*.



_I think he makes a very good point here._ I don't find that grappling conflicts with my stand-up art of WC at all. My PCE/Latosa Escrima also works well with my WC, but some other FMAs I've trained _did not._ Two very different striking arts that have conflicting methods can be a problem. As KPM said, you don't want to have to decide between too many different ways of doing things when the pressure is on.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Yep. And actually that's exactly what KPM said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I think he makes a very good point here._ I don't find that grappling conflicts with my stand-up art of WC at all. My PCE/Latosa Escrima also works well with my WC, but some other FMAs I've trained _did not._ Two very different striking arts that have conflicting methods can be a problem. As KPM said, you don't want to have to decide between too many different ways of doing things when the pressure is on.




I agree with the last bit, my issue was with the first bit.



> Nothing wrong with this. But the two have a different biomechanic. Shifting back and forth between 2 different biomechanics can be confusing...



KPM appeared to assume, and I may have misread, that FMA was in a way universal and that part of that was a biomechanical incompatibility in terms of stand up striking.  In my experience, it is quite easily to flow between L-I Kali and WC, they are very complimentary.  Now I think part of this may come from the fact that, in reality, there are at least as many, if not more, styles of FMA than there are CMA.  I have also found, from talking to more than a few Wing Chun Practitioners, that while my circumstance is uncommon (both taught in the same 90+ minute class) that studying and mixing both is not uncommon in the least.

In my experience I see a lot of similarities, at least with my Kali.  While Kali may emphasize checking/tapping more than trapping, Kali still has a fair amount of trapping, the methods between the two are very similar, it's simply a matter of prioritization.  I would even perhaps call hubud a "poor" man's chi sau, in some ways as well as it is trying to train some of the same concepts.  

The only difference of real substance that I find is the footwork in Kali can be a lot more dynamic, but that really only comes forth full force when you are training with weapons in largo (well you need to step more if a sword or stick is coming at your head  ) but the footwork itself changes as you pass back and forth between largo, medio and corto.  So once you are in corto it isn't much different than my WC, it's small steps trying to get out of my opponent's centerline of attack so I can attack his center from a blindside/flank.  

Now as I said, not all FMA's are the same.  Mine is admittedly a hybrid and while it's takes checking and trapping from FMA and Silat, it also takes a more linear path to these goals, I suspect due to the influence of Kuntao which has it's origins in Southern CMA (Silat tends to be more circular).  To illustrate the difference there is actually a video from back in the 70's, that i sadly lost.  It showed Suro Mike Inay and Guro Dan Inosanto flow sparring with empty hands.  Guro Dan was very linear and direct where as Suro Mike used more oblique attacks.  Both were clearly effective, but Guro Dan's was also clearly more compatible with WC.

So, tl;dr, @KPM I totally agree with your last point, as to the first point, mileage may vary due to the plethora of FMA styles, both born in the Home Country and then compounded by some of the styles that were developed/refined in the States.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> So fighting combining ground and stand up is shifting between two different biomechanics?
> 
> Because people seem to be able to manage that.



Yes it is.  And people manage it quite well!  But my point was that they are so different that your responses don't confuse them.  At least not as likely as you might if, say, you go to counter and punch and suddenly your mind says "should I do a Kali 'brush, grab, sweep' motion while angling off-line or a Wing chun 'Tan Da' motion while driving up the center?"


----------



## KPM

_KPM appeared to assume, and I may have misread, that FMA was in a way universal and that part of that was a biomechanical incompatibility in terms of stand up striking.  In my experience, it is quite easily to flow between L-I Kali and WC, they are very complimentary._

---I was speaking in a general sense, not about any specific art.  But if your L-I Kali and WC are so similar, when you get in the flow of things how do you distinguish between the two?  And if you can't distinguish between the two, have you not then created a "hybrid" version of both?


_ So once you are in corto it isn't much different than my WC, it's small steps trying to get out of my opponent's centerline of attack so I can attack his center from a blindside/flank._ 

---So if you are doing empty-hand and moving smoothly from corto with Wing Chun to medio or largo with Kali, is that not a  hybrid method?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _KPM appeared to assume, and I may have misread, that FMA was in a way universal and that part of that was a biomechanical incompatibility in terms of stand up striking.  In my experience, it is quite easily to flow between L-I Kali and WC, they are very complimentary._
> 
> ---I was speaking in a general sense, not about any specific art.  But if your L-I Kali and WC are so similar, when you get in the flow of things how do you distinguish between the two?  And if you can't distinguish between the two, have you not then created a "hybrid" version of both?
> 
> 
> _ So once you are in corto it isn't much different than my WC, it's small steps trying to get out of my opponent's centerline of attack so I can attack his center from a blindside/flank._
> 
> ---So if you are doing empty-hand and moving smoothly from corto with Wing Chun to medio or largo with Kali, is that not a  hybrid method?



I would say not necessarily because, as I said, at its Hart what I do is Kali.  Do I use some WC techniques in Corto?  Yep.  But does WC do gunting?  Nope.  A hybrid, imo, is like breeding a Lion with a Tiger (when has happened btw).  We don't do that, we train WC and Kali separately, and only have some bleed over in a fight/sparing scenario, because as I said many of the techniques between the two arts (depending on you FMA school) are damn similar.

You can simply Google search how many people find specific FMA styles to share methodology (not dogma) with WC.  Is it due to biomechanics?  Is it due to the constant flow, historically of people and ideas from India and China to South Asia and the Archipelagos?  No clue.  The point is, if you study WC next to the right "other" MA (I can't imagine FMA is alone) you would be surprised at, while WC has some uniqueness to it no doubt, just how much it shares with other arts as well.

Then you add in what @Tony Dismukes said.   The techniques he adds to his technique is built on NGA, the techniques added from WC are built on Kali, and tbh the techniques aren't that many that are unique.  The "forms" we use to practice maybe, but the practical application, not so much.

Maybe I see the distinction because we learn each separately before we do practical application.  I do not exaggerate btw.  One day a class will be 50/50 (meaning 45 minutes WC and then 45 minutes Kali), another day all Kali another day all WC, other days everything in between.  If I test at my school I only test in Kali, if I want to test WC I have to drive a hour to our "mother school" that is how seperate we keep them BUT they seem siblings in practice, at worst 1st cousins.  I don't know... My school is weird I will admit and so maybe it gives me a different perspective.  To me a "hybrid" is a lion/tiger cross breed (yes they exist), these two arts, as I experience them are from the same family. /Shrug.

PS...this, again, doesn't universally apply to all FMA, I only know the FMA I study.


----------



## geezer

@KPM -- I believe my experience linking FMA to WC is similar Juany's. At largo, especially with a weapon I use larger, front-weighted escrima footwork. As I close, especially empty handed, I find myself flowing into WC stances and footwork. Both systems work off a triangular pattern. If you look at the FMA "male-triangle" for example, you see that the farther out from your opponent ( who's at the apex of the triangle) you are, the larger the movements. As you close towards your opponent's center, that is approaching the apex, the movements become very tight and efficient, like WC. 

If you set up YGKYM near the apex of the triangle or stand in a longer stance toward the base of the triangle you will see what I mean. Does this make what I do a _hybrid?_ I don't know. WC weapons also work at longer ranges and use similarly expanded stances as you increase your range. 

So for now I'm _not_ calling it a hybrid because a) I don't think I'm doing anything special that isn't already in the system ...more or less, and b) because I really don't think the world needs yet another "new" system when people don't grasp what's already there. Oh, and most of all because c) I don't want to give any more ammo to that "true believer" contingent (if they ever show up again) who like to say that everything we do is diluted, and isn't the "real WC"!


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Yes it is.  And people manage it quite well!  But my point was that they are so different that your responses don't confuse them.  At least not as likely as you might if, say, you go to counter and punch and suddenly your mind says "should I do a Kali 'brush, grab, sweep' motion while angling off-line or a Wing chun 'Tan Da' motion while driving up the center?"



Switching between mechanics is like anything else.  If you are unfamiliar doing it then it will be uncomfortable.

If you practice it.  It becomes more natural.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I would say not necessarily because, as I said, at its Hart what I do is Kali.  Do I use some WC techniques in Corto?  Yep.  But does WC do gunting?  Nope.  A hybrid, imo, is like breeding a Lion with a Tiger (when has happened btw).  We don't do that, we train WC and Kali separately, and only have some bleed over in a fight/sparing scenario, because as I said many of the techniques between the two arts (depending on you FMA school) are damn similar.
> 
> .



Well, I am a big advocate of the idea that you should fight the way you train and train the way you fight.  That is the most efficient way do things in terms of both time management and learning theory.  So if you are finding your Kali and your Wing Chun merging when you are working on application in a fight/sparring scenario, then doesn't it make sense to specifically train what you find actually emerging under pressure?   I would say that both you and Geezer are only about half a step away from a hybrid system.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Well, I am a big advocate of the idea that you should fight the way you train and train the way you fight.  That is the most efficient way do things in terms of both time management and learning theory.  So if you are finding your Kali and your Wing Chun merging when you are working on application in a fight/sparring scenario, then doesn't it make sense to specifically train what you find actually emerging under pressure?   I would say that both you and Geezer are only about half a step away from a hybrid system.



Well to the first part... I do indeed agree that you train how you fight, heck I have had that pounded into my head due to my career choices for 25 years to the point it is a way of life.  The above system I explained to you actually makes that work though. Many times during class we will do a WC, of Kali technique and Sifu will point out that the same technique or principle exists in the other art.  Now this isn't to say they aren't unique arts with unique techniques but the two are so similar that there really is no issue.  We punch the same, palm strike the same, _biu jee_ the same, kick the same. A "check" is the same a _pak_, the trapping is also the same, we just tend to check more in Kali because we focus more on "gunting" (limb destruction).   Then, trapped into not being able to get a weapon (we do a lot of training on using open hand combat to provide an opening to draw a knife as an example, we use A LOT of elbows, either for further gunting or strikes, the elbows being little different to WC.  

It's then interesting to then watch how from there the WC unique techniques flows naturally.  If you check/pak and then punch, in Corto, if the opponent's other hand is coming, your punch naturally flows into a _tan_ (as one example). With so much shared to begin with, and the way you easily flow between them, when you train in both as individual and complete systems you are really training as you fight.  The thing is the mindset is Kali when we spar.

As for your last I will not deny that part of what makes what I learn not a hybrid is how we learn it.  If Sifu simply filled in gaps in Kali with specific WC techniques then I would say "yep, hybrid" but even if the day is going to be 100% Kali, we always warm up with SLT.  

Also, as geezer said, simply because what we put into practice may have at it's heart Kali, the WC we study is WC in its totality.  I am sure you recall how much in the way of flack I caught on the one WC thread that the WC I study under GM Cheung isn't "real" WC to start with though and I don't want to provide even more ammo.  I guess the easiest way for me to describe my current education is that "I learn WC and Kali as separate and complete arts but when I fight it is Kali because my Kali doesn't feel like a different species to WC, rather they feel like cousins.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Well, I am a big advocate of the idea that you should fight the way you train and train the way you fight.  That is the most efficient way do things in terms of both time management and learning theory.  So if you are finding your Kali and your Wing Chun merging when you are working on application in a fight/sparring scenario, then doesn't it make sense to specifically train what you find actually emerging under pressure?   I would say that both you and Geezer are only about half a step away from a hybrid system.



You would think.  But it tends not to be the case. This comes up in mma a lot.  When they do things like gi jujitsu. Which intuitively you really shouldn't bother with.

My best guess is that you are isolating skill sets and so forcing competency within a certain dynamic.

Then when you are free to move as you want you have developed better skills in which to pursue that.

It is the other concept of train hard fight easy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> you should fight the way you train and train the way you fight.


I agree you should fight the way you train. But you should train "much harder" than the way you fight.

I used to believe in both until one day I felt that I didn't get tired enough by using this approach. If you train as you fight, you may not push your body to the maximum limitation.

For example, when you fight, if you throw 3 punches, because you want to throw as fast as you can, your body may not be twisted to the maximum. Before your body has extend to the maximum, you have already pull your body back and send out your next punch.

IMO, you should train "big" and fight "small".


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree you should fight the way you train. But you should train "much harder" than the way you fight.
> 
> I used to believe in both until one day I felt that I didn't get tired enough by using this approach. If you train as you fight, you may not push your body to the maximum limitation.
> 
> For example, when you fight, if you throw 3 punches, because you want to throw as fast as you can, your body may not be twisted to the maximum. Before your body has extend to the maximum, you have already pull your body back and send out your next punch.
> 
> IMO, you should train "big" and fight "small".



By definition though "train like you fight" means going all out though.  Example, when we spar Sifu doesn't stand for people "dancing around." He may limit us to specific targets, such as limbs depending on the protection we are wearing because a thrust from a solid core foam covered stick, plastic sword or knife can still do serious damage.  This isnt a big deal though because one of the main tactics of Kali is to focus on attacking the limbs, so it is still "training like you fight." Regardless he expects you to go all out.  If you aren't completely smoked when you are done sparing you did something wrong.  

The proof is also in the bruises and swelling that sometimes happens, even with the padding.  More than once when I got home and was getting changed my wife has asked "how did that happen?" I tell her and her response is "I don't know if I like you doing this." She knows how much I love it though so she gets over it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> By definition though "train like you fight" means going all out though.


Here are some examples that you should train "harder" than you fight.

To train "how to break your opponent's elbow joint", you may need to go into the woods and break 1,000 tree branches. In fighting, you may never break your opponent's elbow joint in your life time (unless you want to go to jail for it).

On the wrestling mat, you may only need to deal with a 200 lb opponent. But in training, you will need to train with a 300 lb weight equipment.






When you throw your opponent, you may only need to bend your body this low.







But in training, you will need to bend your body much lower.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here are some examples that you should train "harder" than you fight.
> 
> To train "how to break your opponent's elbow joint", you may need to go into the woods and break 1,000 tree branches. In fighting, you may never break your opponent's elbow joint in your life time (unless you want to go to jail for it).
> 
> On the wrestling mat, you may only need to deal with a 200 lb opponent. But in training, you will need to train with a 300 lb weight equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you throw your opponent, you may only need to bend your body this low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in training, you will need to bend your body much lower.



Well first let me explain my training regimen.  I also make sure I do lots of cardio (someone will always be stronger), heavy bag work (to be used to hitting something that may well move less than the "average" human etc.  Beyond that though beyond going all out I dont think there is much you can do.  If I don't have a 300 lbs person to practice armbands/locks and takedowns on, I can't train for that.  All I can do is go all out on the 200lbs guy and know that since I went all in on 200lbs, it will work on a 300lbs person since I am not trying to lift them I am using leverage.  The same goes for how far I may have to drop for a shorter opponent.  With the techniques I am trained to use, simply bending down, even using a resistance band isn't going to help me because the dynamics of taking a person down using many of the techniques I study.  Without the weight of a resisting subject it is almost impossible, imo, to be prepared to properly take a person down while still maintaining your own center of balance and control.  The methods you note (the gon twisting and the last photo) I think are excellent for strength training, flexibility and balance, all of which are very important in the Martial Arts (another reason I like using a heavy bag and speed bag, to train generic strength, balance, speed and accuracy.) But in terms of a direct connection to properly performing techniques, at least for my arts I don't see the connection.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well first let me explain my training regimen.  I also make sure I do lots of cardio (someone will always be stronger), heavy bag work (to be used to hitting something that may well move less than the "average" human etc.  Beyond that though beyond going all out I dont think there is much you can do.  If I don't have a 300 lbs person to practice armbands/locks and takedowns on, I can't train for that.  All I can do is go all out on the 200lbs guy and know that since I went all in on 200lbs, it will work on a 300lbs person since I am not trying to lift them I am using leverage.  The same goes for how far I may have to drop for a shorter opponent.  With the techniques I am trained to use, simply bending down, even using a resistance band isn't going to help me because the dynamics of taking a person down using many of the techniques I study.  Without the weight of a resisting subject it is almost impossible, imo, to be prepared to properly take a person down while still maintaining your own center of balance and control.  The methods you note (the gon twisting and the last photo) I think are excellent for strength training, flexibility and balance, all of which are very important in the Martial Arts (another reason I like using a heavy bag and speed bag, to train generic strength, balance, speed and accuracy.) But in terms of a direct connection to properly performing techniques, at least for my arts I don't see the connection.



To perform a movement correctly takes more than just knowing the movement your body also has to be able to physically do that movement. And sometimes that will take some dedicated training.

Hence why people do things like stability,flexability and core training along with their strength and cardio.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> ---So if you are doing empty-hand and moving smoothly from corto with Wing Chun to medio or largo with Kali, is that not a  hybrid method?


I'd say not. It's just two arts with principles that mate well. I actually know an instructor here (Wally Jay lineage, IIRC) who combined Japanese Jujutsu with FMA in what he calls Integrated Martial Arts. His is a hybrid, but when I studied with him for a while, I wasn't hybridizing - the movements were close enough to things I already knew that I simply used those similar movements to execute the techniques. What I did was integrate the new techniques with what I already knew. What Brian did was create a hybrid of at least two arts. The difference is that I didn't systematize what he taught with what I teach. I simply picked up a few new ways to apply the principles.


----------



## wckf92

Isn't Krav Maga a 'hybrid'?

From what I know, it's just a compilation of other arts/systems, etc.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^  Yes, it is.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^^^  Yes, it is.



It's weird though. While I agree it is a hybrid there is a hardcore ex-IDF instructor in my area.  By hardcore I mean he teaches his class in a local park, rain or shine, 12 months out of the year so you are training in "real" conditions.  Sadly my work schedule started to not match his class times.  During our first conversation he rather sharply corrected me as follows..."Krav Maga is not a Martial art, it is a fighting system."  I have met other instructors who say the same, as such I sometimes purposefully remove it from conversations about "Martial Arts" and only raise it in conversations about "self-defense."


----------



## KPM

I thinks its all just semantics.  He probably wants to divorce his Krav Maga from the typical strip-mall dojo whose primary clientele is below the age of 16 and where lessons about being a good citizen are common.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> It's weird though. While I agree it is a hybrid there is a hardcore ex-IDF instructor in my area.  By hardcore I mean he teaches his class in a local park, rain or shine, 12 months out of the year so you are training in "real" conditions.  Sadly my work schedule started to not match his class times.  During our first conversation he rather sharply corrected me as follows..."Krav Maga is not a Martial art, it is a fighting system."  I have met other instructors who say the same, as such I sometimes purposefully remove it from conversations about "Martial Arts" and only raise it in conversations about "self-defense."


I've heard this from other KM folks. In my opinion, it's marketing. It's to differentiate it from those schools that teach a lot of fairly esoteric bits, those that focus on competition rather than self-defense, etc. As most of us would define "martial art", KM definitely fits the definition. Nearly any art could be simplified down to the most commonly "practical" effective moves, leaving out those movements that are used to teach principles or to help understand the history of the art or just to provide another area for learning the art once you have the basics down. I think that's the crux of what they point to as the difference.


----------



## Juany118




gpseymour said:


> I've heard this from other KM folks. In my opinion, it's marketing. It's to differentiate it from those schools that teach a lot of fairly esoteric bits, those that focus on competition rather than self-defense, etc. As most of us would define "martial art", KM definitely fits the definition. Nearly any art could be simplified down to the most commonly "practical" effective moves, leaving out those movements that are used to teach principles or to help understand the history of the art or just to provide another area for learning the art once you have the basics down. I think that's the crux of what they point to as the difference.



I got the feeling from this guy though from additional conversations that he saw a "Martial Art" as something that had a philosophical and degree of tradition behind it.  He didn't appear to be elitist, at least this guy.  It was more like "I am modern, I don't have history.  I was developed by exploiting the history of others."

Now this might be this is an ex-IDF guy who is 60ish and so really gets it from the source and not from the marketing?  All the other instructors I have spoken to on this are also his students so I may well b e hearing what amounts to the same voice.  What confused me I think was the humility implied by it.  I kinda read it as "our stuff works at least as well, if not better, but we are missing that one thing."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> 
> 
> 
> I got the feeling from this guy though from additional conversations that he saw a "Martial Art" as something that had a philosophical and degree of tradition behind it.  He didn't appear to be elitist, at least this guy.  It was more like "I am modern, I don't have history.  I was developed by exploiting the history of others."
> 
> Now this might be this is an ex-IDF guy who is 60ish and so really gets it from the source and not from the marketing?  All the other instructors I have spoken to on this are also his students so I may well b e hearing what amounts to the same voice.  What confused me I think was the humility implied by it.  I kinda read it as "our stuff works at least as well, if not better, but we are missing that one thing."



If that's his distinction, he's right, though the same could be said of NGA a mere 70 years ago, and it would have been called a martial art from the beginning. Perhaps he's talking about the traditions and some of the cultural carry-over seen in many Eastern MA. Since many people do, in fact, equate "martial art" with "Eastern martial art", that's a distinction that some will make, and would be a valid distinction for Krav Maga. However, if we do that, we have to exclude boxing, Savate, and fencing, because they aren't Eastern. Okay, we could leave fencing in if we acknowledge the level of tradition and ritual is similar to many Eastern-based arts. But then we're working the distinction between "traditional martial arts" and "non-traditional (or modern) martial arts".

In any case, by my definition, KM counts as a "martial art". I've yet to come up with a decent definition for "system" that doesn't end up being roughly the same as my definition for "martial art".


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> If that's his distinction, he's right, though the same could be said of NGA a mere 70 years ago, and it would have been called a martial art from the beginning. Perhaps he's talking about the traditions and some of the cultural carry-over seen in many Eastern MA. Since many people do, in fact, equate "martial art" with "Eastern martial art", that's a distinction that some will make, and would be a valid distinction for Krav Maga. However, if we do that, we have to exclude boxing, Savate, and fencing, because they aren't Eastern. Okay, we could leave fencing in if we acknowledge the level of tradition and ritual is similar to many Eastern-based arts. But then we're working the distinction between "traditional martial arts" and "non-traditional (or modern) martial arts".
> 
> In any case, by my definition, KM counts as a "martial art". I've yet to come up with a decent definition for "system" that doesn't end up being roughly the same as my definition for "martial art".



I think the only thing that makes me hesitate at calling KM, MMA etc a "martial art" vs a system is that I admittedly have an obsession with history (pops being a History Professor will do that to ya).  As such I tend to see things in a very progressive step by step sorta way.  So will they eventually become "martial arts?". Indeed they will.  I at least don't square MA with the east.  Savate, Fencing (my first MA actually), these are Martial Arts but, and this may seem corny, I think like a good wine or whiskey they need time to "mellow", to find that truly unique space.  That time is not fixed mind you, each becomes "right" in its own time, but to me it is the honest Master's of the style that are the best judge of when that is just like the honest Vintner.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think the only thing that makes me hesitate at calling KM, MMA etc a "martial art" vs a system is that I admittedly have an obsession with history (pops being a History Professor will do that to ya).  As such I tend to see things in a very progressive step by step sorta way.  So will they eventually become "martial arts?". Indeed they will.  I at least don't square MA with the east.  Savate, Fencing (my first MA actually), these are Martial Arts but, and this may seem corny, I think like a good wine or whiskey they need time to "mellow", to find that truly unique space.  That time is not fixed mind you, each becomes "right" in its own time, but to me it is the honest Master's of the style that are the best judge of when that is just like the honest Vintner.


I don't see how history differentiates KM from NGA by any significant factor. 70 years ago, NGA was brand new, a hybrid art based largely on Daito-ryu, with some heavy influences from other arts (reportedly Shotokan, Judo, perhaps Shioda's Aikido). Today, KM is a relatively new hybrid art. 

I won't call MMA a martial art for two reasons. The first is sheer stubbornness, based upon the term "Mixed Martial Arts". This one is pure semantics. To me, MMA still refers to a type of competition. The second reason is the more well-grounded: most folks training for MMA competition still train in concepts from more than one art, and there's no complete system in most MMA gyms, just an active blending of several styles (and not the same styles in all places). There are some gyms, however, where they've put together a complete system. If we looked at just those, I'd have to call MMA an art, just like I'd call boxing a martial art.

For me, the distinction between "system" and "art" is mostly that the system is the concepts and principles behind the art. A fairly vague difference in my mind.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Personally, I would call current MMA a "hybrid martial art."  It is a hybrid of some variation of kickboxing with wrestling and BJJ.  Some put more emphasis on one aspect than another.  But to leave one of those 3 out completely typically means the fighter doesn't get very far in competition.  So all of the good MMA gyms train all three and are pretty complete.  A fighter may have a  different background in the version of kickboxing he uses, but when they actually get in the ring they are often hard to tell apart.  I saw a fight recently where one of the guys was from Capoeira, which is about as different from the "mainstream" as you can get as far as a striking style!  But when he got in the ring his kickboxing looked just like everyone else.


----------



## Dinkydoo

I would put MMA in whatever category JKD is in - a hybrid MA container encapsulating other concepts and styles.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I don't see how history differentiates KM from NGA by any significant factor. 70 years ago, NGA was brand new, a hybrid art based largely on Daito-ryu, with some heavy influences from other arts (reportedly Shotokan, Judo, perhaps Shioda's Aikido). Today, KM is a relatively new hybrid art.
> 
> I won't call MMA a martial art for two reasons. The first is sheer stubbornness, based upon the term "Mixed Martial Arts". This one is pure semantics. To me, MMA still refers to a type of competition. The second reason is the more well-grounded: most folks training for MMA competition still train in concepts from more than one art, and there's no complete system in most MMA gyms, just an active blending of several styles (and not the same styles in all places). There are some gyms, however, where they've put together a complete system. If we looked at just those, I'd have to call MMA an art, just like I'd call boxing a martial art.
> 
> For me, the distinction between "system" and "art" is mostly that the system is the concepts and principles behind the art. A fairly vague difference in my mind.



Well as you said, it is largely based on Daito-ryu, KM doesnt have such a broad foundation and is, for the most part imo, little different than the formalized "combatives" of many organizations.  It started with boxing, wrestling and basic street fighting skills in WWII Poland.  In the 60s they added Judo, then added some Aikido techniques in the 70's.  Also, imo, due to its evolution and it's primary place of teaching (the security forces) tends to have it lack the cultural elements that make it a "martial art" vs a "system". KM wasn't taught in a civilian context until the 1970s.  If we call KM a martial art then we would, again just my opinion, have to call Law Enforcement combatives like LOCKUP and PPCT Martial Arts.

I sympathize with your ideas on MMA btw, but I think, due to the rules, MMA is well on its way to becoming a codified martial art.  There are even MMA academies now teaching largely the same way to fight in that Octagon, as you note.  One of the desk officer I work with takes off for every UFC PPV fight and we talk all the time, sadly, about how the days of a multitude of different MA styles meeting in the Octagon is all but gone.


----------



## KPM

Wing Tai.  Another modern hybrid system that makes use of Wing Chun:


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Wing Tai.  Another modern hybrid system that makes use of Wing Chun:




I will bow out now because I have watched videos involving DK Yoo (first video) and have yet to find one that isn't "completely stupid and passive opponent making me look good."


----------



## Juany118

I will bow out at this point only because my views of this system are tainted by the fraud DK Yoo.  He sells himself in a few videos as a Master of all of the arts that = the system.  Hey when I saw him say "I am doing Wing Chun" he completely violated centerline theory and then when he did FMA I wish we were in the same room so I could throw him through a window.


----------



## KPM

Good feedback.  I wasn't trying to comment on the value or validity of what he is doing.  Only that hybrid arts are still out there.  And what the heck is that Klingon-looking weapon that they use??!!!


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Good feedback.  I wasn't trying to comment on the value or validity of what he is doing.  Only that hybrid arts are still out there.  And what the heck is that Klingon-looking weapon that they use??!!!



Precisely that I believe.


----------



## geezer

I call _*Bogus *Bat'leth!_ (See 0:46 in the second clip above). Real Klingons don't use polypropylene-trainers. They start their kids off with one of these:


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> I call _*Bogus *Bat'leth!_ (See 0:46 in the second clip above). Real Klingons don't use polypropylene-trainers. They start their kids off with one of these:
> 
> View attachment 20018



Beat me to it but I have always been a bigger fan of the Mek'leth myself.  This could actually be a practical weapon (if it had a more ergonomic handle  )


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Good feedback.  I wasn't trying to comment on the value or validity of what he is doing.  Only that hybrid arts are still out there.  And what the heck is that Klingon-looking weapon that they use??!!!



Below is the video I was referencing.  Originally this guy sold himself as a Systema guy but still a master of multiple arts.  However you have the classic passive, relaxed, crash test dummy opponents.  The guy certially is smooth, coordinated and fit but yeah...  Now, perhaps because Systema has a questionable reputation atm, the same guy pops up under Wing Tai but I hear much the same regarding this as I have Systema.


----------



## O'Malley

Stumbled on this thread while looking up some enlightened opinions on what DK Yoo does.

I'd like to correct what juany said about the Wing Tai videos: the person seen there is simply not DK Yoo, his name is Mark Stas and he teaches Wing Tai here in Belgium.

I actually asked about Wing Tai on here some years ago, it's a martial art whose founder used to be an instructor at EWTO (don't know which rank he used to hold). He jammed together the Wing Chun and Eskrima stuff he used to teach as a "Crash course" then threw in some kickboxing and called the result "Wing Tai".

I don't like the way they (very) heavily market their art and the general "money hungry" vibe they have. Also it seems that they try to pass it off as an ancient martial art for marketing purposes, the history written by the "founder" on the Belgian website is embarrassing: History of Wing Tai

I don't know WC enough to comment on their moves, though.


----------



## Juany118

O'Malley said:


> Stumbled on this thread while looking up some enlightened opinions on what DK Yoo does.
> 
> I'd like to correct what juany said about the Wing Tai videos: the person seen there is simply not DK Yoo, his name is Mark Stas and he teaches Wing Tai here in Belgium.
> 
> I actually asked about Wing Tai on here some years ago, it's a martial art whose founder used to be an instructor at EWTO (don't know which rank he used to hold). He jammed together the Wing Chun and Eskrima stuff he used to teach as a "Crash course" then threw in some kickboxing and called the result "Wing Tai".
> 
> I don't like the way they (very) heavily market their art and the general "money hungry" vibe they have. Also it seems that they try to pass it off as an ancient martial art for marketing purposes, the history written by the "founder" on the Belgian website is embarrassing: History of Wing Tai
> 
> I don't know WC enough to comment on their moves, though.



If I misidentified the person in the WingTai videos my bad. I did later post a video, from which stills also are all over, identifying the practitioner in question as DK Yoo.  I had actually just stumbled onto the DK Yoo stuff and so I might have made a "snap" identification which resulted in a mistake.  I'll do some more digging into Wing Tai so I am a bit more well informed.


----------



## O'Malley

No problem, I just wanted to correct this assumption. ^^

What is your opinion regarding DK Yoo?

To go back to the original topic, I think that every martial art has its origin in the mixing of some concepts and moves to make a coherent system. I've trained in Kajukenbo which is literally a mix of *Ka*rate *Ju*do/Jujutsu *Ken*po and Western/Chinese *Bo*xing, with other things thrown in when found interesting by the teacher (lua, eskrima, silat, etc.).

The crucial point, when you mix styles, IMHO, must be how the teacher understands what makes each style work in reality and if he's able to transfer those important concepts into his synthesis, not merely the moves.

And when it comes to fighting, I believe that you won't use a system, you'll just do what you can with your current knowledge and body. A Tai Chi stylist might just do a haymaker out of instinct. If you've studied more than one style I doubt you'll be switching between "judo mode" and "kung fu mode", you'll just fight. And even if you're a "pure" one-MA-in-your-entire-life person, your karate will not exactly be the same as your teacher's, even though the training methods are the same.


----------



## Juany118

O'Malley said:


> No problem, I just wanted to correct this assumption. ^^
> 
> What is your opinion regarding DK Yoo?
> 
> To go back to the original topic, I think that every martial art has its origin in the mixing of some concepts and moves to make a coherent system. I've trained in Kajukenbo which is literally a mix of *Ka*rate *Ju*do/Jujutsu *Ken*po and Western/Chinese *Bo*xing, with other things thrown in when found interesting by the teacher (lua, eskrima, silat, etc.).
> 
> The crucial point, when you mix styles, IMHO, must be how the teacher understands what makes each style work in reality and if he's able to transfer those important concepts into his synthesis, not merely the moves.
> 
> And when it comes to fighting, I believe that you won't use a system, you'll just do what you can with your current knowledge and body. A Tai Chi stylist might just do a haymaker out of instinct. If you've studied more than one style I doubt you'll be switching between "judo mode" and "kung fu mode", you'll just fight. And even if you're a "pure" one-MA-in-your-entire-life person, your karate will not exactly be the same as your teacher's, even though the training methods are the same.




First on DK... I think he is a very physically gifted person but if the videos label his stuff correctly... "Here he does Wing Chun... here he does FMA" I see issues, it looks the part when fast usually but when slowed down you see issues.

To your last point, depending on the art and circumstance you can switch modes so to speak in my experience.  When I am holding a weapon I am Kali no doubt and if unarmed facing a weapon same.  If I am unarmed and striking someone unarmed I am largely Wing Chun.  If I am on the ground it's kinda a mash up of Judo, Aikido and Kali though I will admit.  It's not a conscious decision, it just happens because Wing Chun doesn't have a ground game (as one example) so WC doesn't even come to mind, the ground fighting I learned from other arts do.  So it's like switching gears in an automatic transmission, it switches as the circumstances demand.

I think the main benefit of a hybrid martial art is that it can more efficiently teach you to deal with these circumstances because most arts have a focus.  It may be 60-40 or 70-30 etc but a hybrid tries to bring it all together in one.  The path I took to be real world effective imo (by no means a "teacher" just effective in getting the job done) in the various circumstances I have had to study different TMAs for over a decade worth of formal training and far more than that practicing even when not attending a school

Now some may say while I didn't train hybrid this method means that I have a de facto personal hybrid at and I wouldn't argue against it, just say it doesn't feel that way to me because when I am in class or doing forms, shadow boxing and drilling in the basement, I am doing one art at a time so it doesn't "feel" that way to me.


----------



## drop bear

It is worthwhile knowing how to link the different martial arts up. You get away with switching for a while. But at a certain level you need to have the transitions correct.


----------



## Juany118

@O'Malley responding to your thread made me think a bit and maybe @gpseymour can participate since he teaches what is a hybrid of Japanese arts.  Note, I am clarifying the purpose here because I have learned if I don't it creates a pissing match.

Clarification this is a friendly "spit balling" intellectual exercise.  Spirited arguments are cool but remember, it's about an exchange of ideas to encourage open minded thinking.

So to the idea.  We all know if you study purpose built hybrid arts your practice will be a hybrid.  By definition if you study or have studied but continue the practice of multiple arts that have a different primary focus do you in essence create your own hybrid art or are you practicing individual arts at the optimal moment?

I know it's ideas like this that annoy my wife. Lol


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It is worthwhile knowing how to link the different martial arts up. You get away with switching for a while. But at a certain level you need to have the transitions correct.


There are nuances.  The biggest blurring I have is between Kali and WC since my current teacher teaches both in a manner where the transition from standing WC to using Kali to avoid going to ground is pretty seemless.  The main point was though, once on the ground, Wing Chun is lost because it has nothing.  

In terms of unarmed and armed TWC and the Kali I study are very close so the swap to unarmed vs weapon doesn't take a lot.  It's more a mind set change.  WC tends to be singularly "tight" in its thought and movement.  Kali "widens" out a bit naturally because of a different mindset.  WC has weapons but the main focus is on the open hand.  Kali is actually an MMA in and of itself but it assumes people are armed or can quickly arm themselves and thus it widens but that is more of a mental switch than a technique based one.  

Studying those two arts side by side actually made me notice something. Physically they are very similar however the mindset changes.  So if unarmed I think "check" near the elbow is a punch is coming in.  If the other guy is armed my body uses the exact same "check" but my brain/instinct tells me to do it closer to the wrist with wider footwork because of the knife.  So sometimes the same movement, with a different trained mindset mindset making a small alteration is all it takes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> There are nuances.  The biggest blurring I have is between Kali and WC since my current teacher teaches both in a manner where the transition from standing WC to using Kali to avoid going to ground is pretty seemless.  The main point was though, once on the ground, Wing Chun is lost because it has nothing.
> 
> In terms of unarmed and armed TWC and the Kali I study are very close so the swap to unarmed vs weapon doesn't take a lot.  It's more a mind set change.  WC tends to be singularly "tight" in its thought and movement.  Kali "widens" out a bit naturally because of a different mindset.  WC has weapons but the main focus is on the open hand.  Kali is actually an MMA in and of itself but it assumes people are armed or can quickly arm themselves and thus it widens but that is more of a mental switch than a technique based one.
> 
> Studying those two arts side by side actually made me notice something. Physically they are very similar however the mindset changes.  So if unarmed I think "check" near the elbow is a punch is coming in.  If the other guy is armed my body uses the exact same "check" but my brain/instinct tells me to do it closer to the wrist with wider footwork because of the knife.  So sometimes the same movement, with a different trained mindset mindset making a small alteration is all it takes.


This makes sense to me. In my NGA (I have started thinking of my own practice that way, because I can't be certain of the larger NGA community), there's not a lot of technical difference between armed and unarmed. I like to control punches as if there was a knife in them, just in case. However, when I _know _a knife is present, thing do - as you say - widen. In my case, that's mostly to create a bit more room for error around the blade.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> @O'Malley responding to your thread made me think a bit and maybe @gpseymour can participate since he teaches what is a hybrid of Japanese arts.  Note, I am clarifying the purpose here because I have learned if I don't it creates a pissing match.
> 
> Clarification this is a friendly "spit balling" intellectual exercise.  Spirited arguments are cool but remember, it's about an exchange of ideas to encourage open minded thinking.
> 
> So to the idea.  We all know if you study purpose built hybrid arts your practice will be a hybrid.  By definition if you study or have studied but continue the practice of multiple arts that have a different primary focus do you in essence create your own hybrid art or are you practicing individual arts at the optimal moment?
> 
> I know it's ideas like this that annoy my wife. Lol


I've integrated some bits from other arts (some Judo, some FMA, some BJJ/MMA, even a bit of Tang Soo Do, etc.) into my NGA. For me, there has always been a "primary" art, and I integrate new material into that. So "my NGA" is an expanding hybrid art. If I practice a new art on an ongoing basis (as with the FMA/JJJ hybrid I studied for a while), I practice it separately, but immediately start integrating bits into "my NGA". If I found a new art that sang to me (StyleX) and became my new primary art, all that NGA (and the other stuff) would eventually get integrated into that, creating "my StyleX".

That's not always the case, though. One of my training partners at the dojo I was at longest trained in NGA and Shotokan Karate at the same time for most of those years (still does the Shotokan, I think, and is still at that NGA dojo). He also studied Iaido for a few years, but I think he stopped that one. I never saw a lot of the Shotokan influence in his NGA, except a tendency to take angles others wouldn't use as often. He seemed to keep them mostly separated, which seems a loss for both him and his partners. Having someone with that much skill in Shotokan should make him a highly desirable training partner, for the added challenge he can present.
_
NOTE: Because of my experience with that partner, I've made a point of helping students integrate what they already know into NGA. I have a student with several years of Shotokan, and I help him dissect the differences in movement, try to do little to displace his current learning on strikes (which are are as good as any I would teach him, and pretty close analogs to all of ours), and examine where each is a good fit, so he can integrate the two into a more cohesive personal style. Unlike some instructors, I don't want him to leave his Shotokan outside and pick it up on the way out. I want him to bring it in. I'll ask him to set it aside if there's something specific he needs to work on as a new tool, but I want to see that Shotokan come out when an NGA technique fails._


----------



## Vajramusti

gpseymour said:


> I've integrated some bits from other arts (some Judo, some FMA, some BJJ/MMA, even a bit of Tang Soo Do, etc.) into my NGA. For me, there has always been a "primary" art, and I integrate new material into that. So "my NGA" is an expanding hybrid art. If I practice a new art on an ongoing basis (as with the FMA/JJJ hybrid I studied for a while), I practice it separately, but immediately start integrating bits into "my NGA". If I found a new art that sang to me (StyleX) and became my new primary art, all that NGA (and the other stuff) would eventually get integrated into that, creating "my StyleX".
> 
> That's not always the case, though. One of my training partners at the dojo I was at longest trained in NGA and Shotokan Karate at the same time for most of those years (still does the Shotokan, I think, and is still at that NGA dojo). He also studied Iaido for a few years, but I think he stopped that one. I never saw a lot of the Shotokan influence in his NGA, except a tendency to take angles others wouldn't use as often. He seemed to keep them mostly separated, which seems a loss for both him and his partners. Having someone with that much skill in Shotokan should make him a highly desirable training partner, for the added challenge he can present.
> _
> NOTE: Because of my experience with that partner, I've made a point of helping students integrate what they already know into NGA. I have a student with several years of Shotokan, and I help him dissect the differences in movement, try to do little to displace his current learning on strikes (which are are as good as any I would teach him, and pretty close analogs to all of ours), and examine where each is a good fit, so he can integrate the two into a more cohesive personal style. Unlike some instructors, I don't want him to leave his Shotokan outside and pick it up on the way out. I want him to bring it in. I'll ask him to set it aside if there's something specific he needs to work on as a new tool, but I want to see that Shotokan come out when an NGA technique fails._


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW- I am interested in many things and arts- bout I do not compromise my wing chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW- I am interested in many things and arts- bout I do not compromise my wing chun.


I'm not even sure what that means.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> I'm not even sure what that means.



Guess that is typo. Wing Chun is the base and wanting compromise that.


----------



## Vajramusti

gpseymour said:


> I'm not even sure what that means.


-------------------------------------- Simple-
I dont import other systems into my wing chun.
Nota condemnation of others who do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------- Simple-
> I dont import other systems into my wing chun.
> Nota condemnation of others who do.


Ah, that makes sense. I don't see it as "compromising" an art to bring ideas (and even techniques) from elsewhere. No art started without outside influence, and bringing in new ideas is what keeps an art current and adaptive.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> This makes sense to me. In my NGA (I have started thinking of my own practice that way, because I can't be certain of the larger NGA community), there's not a lot of technical difference between armed and unarmed. I like to control punches as if there was a knife in them, just in case. However, when I _know _a knife is present, thing do - as you say - widen. In my case, that's mostly to create a bit more room for error around the blade.


Well, I think it goes a bit beyond having room for error.  The weapon even just a pocket knife, provides longer reach so if you check/allow to pass a knife perfectly (because you can't safely control the attacking limb) you need that extra bit of space to ensure you don't get caught by it.  The same applies if you are armed.  The idea isn't to just "stop" a sword or baton but, if the angle of attack allows, to deflect.  If you block or deflect to widely you open yourself to an easy riposte, so you still need to move and now your facing something that can have a reach of 2 feet or longer so remembering to be "wider" is even more important.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Well, I think it goes a bit beyond having room for error.  The weapon even just a pocket knife, provides longer reach so if you check/allow to pass a knife perfectly (because you can't safely control the attacking limb) you need that extra bit of space to ensure you don't get caught by it.  The same applies if you are armed.  The idea isn't to just "stop" a sword or baton but, if the angle of attack allows, to deflect.  If you block or deflect to widely you open yourself to an easy riposte, so you still need to move and now your facing something that can have a reach of 2 feet or longer so remembering to be "wider" is even more important.


That's really what I meant by "room for error". I can let a punch pass an inch or so away, and that's plenty. That same hand holding a knife? Not enough room. I need to allow enough room for the knife, plus my usual margin for error (and probably some extra of that, too).


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That's really what I meant by "room for error". I can let a punch pass an inch or so away, and that's plenty. That same hand holding a knife? Not enough room. I need to allow enough room for the knife, plus my usual margin for error (and probably some extra of that, too).



Gotcha

As an interesting side point I even say "my WC" or "my Kali" etc in relation to my current school.  It goes as far as stances, not even preferred techniques.  As an example, while we train of course to use many stance, front or neutral, but when sparring I sometimes annoy my partner's because while in drills we often do "same side same side" and my Sifu is a bigger fan of neutral stances I always use the left front stance.  The reason for this is because I am right hand dominant and so my sidearm is on my right hip.  As I will always be left side leading during encounters at work, that's how I spar.  Why it annoys some of the partners I don't know but it does.


----------



## Vajramusti

gpseymour said:


> Ah, that makes sense. I don't see it as "compromising" an art to bring ideas (and even techniques) from elsewhere. No art started without outside influence, and bringing in new ideas is what keeps an art current and adaptive.



----------------------------------------------------------
Yes- but I was talking about Ip Man's version of the art.. Although people drop his name-omly a handful of people developed a deep
understanding of  his art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Yes- but I was talking about Ip Man's version of the art.. Although people drop his name-omly a handful of people developed a deep
> understanding of  his art.


Yip Man, if I understand correctly, did not simply take exactly what he was given. He refined. Would it not be in the spirit of his refinement to continue to refine as needs and environment change?

This is not a condemnation, please understand that. This is a challenge I put to all martial artists who are pursuing combat effectiveness. We cannot afford to preserve for preservation's sake - we should preserve for functional reasons, just as we should alter, refine, and renew for functional reasons.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Gotcha
> 
> As an interesting side point I even say "my WC" or "my Kali" etc in relation to my current school.  It goes as far as stances, not even preferred techniques.  As an example, while we train of course to use many stance, front or neutral, but when sparring I sometimes annoy my partner's because while in drills we often do "same side same side" and my Sifu is a bigger fan of neutral stances I always use the left front stance.  The reason for this is because I am right hand dominant and so my sidearm is on my right hip.  As I will always be left side leading during encounters at work, that's how I spar.  Why it annoys some of the partners I don't know but it does.


That's the sort of adaptation that should occur. It's irrelevant to most of the students, but would be highly relevant for any who have their CCW, as it is for LEO's like yourself.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> There are nuances.  The biggest blurring I have is between Kali and WC since my current teacher teaches both in a manner where the transition from standing WC to using Kali to avoid going to ground is pretty seemless.  The main point was though, once on the ground, Wing Chun is lost because it has nothing.
> 
> In terms of unarmed and armed TWC and the Kali I study are very close so the swap to unarmed vs weapon doesn't take a lot.  It's more a mind set change.  WC tends to be singularly "tight" in its thought and movement.  Kali "widens" out a bit naturally because of a different mindset.  WC has weapons but the main focus is on the open hand.  Kali is actually an MMA in and of itself but it assumes people are armed or can quickly arm themselves and thus it widens but that is more of a mental switch than a technique based one.
> 
> Studying those two arts side by side actually made me notice something. Physically they are very similar however the mindset changes.  So if unarmed I think "check" near the elbow is a punch is coming in.  If the other guy is armed my body uses the exact same "check" but my brain/instinct tells me to do it closer to the wrist with wider footwork because of the knife.  So sometimes the same movement, with a different trained mindset mindset making a small alteration is all it takes.



I treat them all as a lock I am trying to pick. If I get the right sequences I dismantle the other guys defences. And the other guy will have a bad day. Mindset for me doesnt change.

It is just learning the basic rules of the situation.


----------



## drop bear

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------- Simple-
> I dont import other systems into my wing chun.
> Nota condemnation of others who do.



You need a lot of influences to practice an art. It does not exist in a vacuum. 

There is a thought process where you identify what is by exploring what isnt.

So you can work out why the world is round by looking at the world if it was donut shaped and comparing the differences.


----------



## Vajramusti

drop bear said:


> You need a lot of influences to practice an art. It does not exist in a vacuum.
> 
> There is a thought process where you identify what is by exploring what isnt.
> 
> So you can work out why the world is round by looking at the world if it was donut shaped and comparing the differences.


-----------------------------------------------
I understand that. I never said that one shouldnt explore that.You can do that by confronting people from other styles.


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------
> I understand that. I never said that one shouldnt explore that.You can do that by confronting people from other styles.



I think this is one of the things people miss.  TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict.  Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries.  The problem rises in that one of the reasons they worked was not just because they were pressure tested BUT because they were very often pressure tested against other styles.  Without challenging other styles you can end up on the short end if you suddenly find yourself forced into such an encounter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think this is one of the things people miss.  TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict.  Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries.  The problem rises in that one of the reasons they worked was not just because they were pressure tested BUT because they were very often pressure tested against other styles.  Without challenging other styles you can end up on the short end if you suddenly find yourself forced into such an encounter.


They were also developed for the period they were in. While the body mechanics don't change, the types of attacks they'll face do. And the art - if being used for combat effectiveness - should continue to do what it did in the beginning: explore what does and doesn't work against what it's most likely to face. Even as new as NGA is, if I ignored the changing landscape of our culture, I'd keep NGA exactly as it was when Morita Shodo assembled it, rather than continually looking at what else is available to better refine it. I have access to things Morita didn't have access to (because of YouTube and our more mobile society, and the fact that I live in the US rather than an island in Asia). I do what the founder of NGA would have done if he were developing the art today.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> They were also developed for the period they were in. While the body mechanics don't change, the types of attacks they'll face do. And the art - if being used for combat effectiveness - should continue to do what it did in the beginning: explore what does and doesn't work against what it's most likely to face. Even as new as NGA is, if I ignored the changing landscape of our culture, I'd keep NGA exactly as it was when Morita Shodo assembled it, rather than continually looking at what else is available to better refine it. I have access to things Morita didn't have access to (because of YouTube and our more mobile society, and the fact that I live in the US rather than an island in Asia). I do what the founder of NGA would have done if he were developing the art today.



By the way.  On that note of time tested by centuries of whatever. That vibravision stuff would qualify.

I think the methods of testing are a bit stricter these days as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> By the way.  On that note of time tested by centuries of whatever. That vibravision stuff would qualify.
> 
> I think the methods of testing are a bit stricter these days as well.


I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.


And then you can go to the HK roof top fights where it was pretty much make up the rules as you go.  I THINK @drop bear may have been talking about a standardization of sorts that we have now in competitive martial arts.  Thing is more than a couple TMAs were actually Military TMAs so they were standardized by necessity as well. 

If he is talking about just pressure testing in general being better... When a National Government (China) in the early 20th century has to outlaw Lei Tai because too many people are dying.  Yeah that's pressure testing.  The Lei Tai of today is not of that leading into the 20th century.  It was often literally no holds barred then and in those cases it is not a myth death waivers were required.


----------



## wayfaring

My viewpoint on this topic has changed over time.  My primary art is wing chun.  My secondary art is BJJ or submission grappling.  I used to try and find the universal concepts both and cross-apply them.  It rarely worked.  Once I had solid fundamentals down in each, there are a few situations to cross apply concepts.  But very few compared to the many where the fundamentals from one don't work in the other.

Currently I appreciate each art for what it is.   I enjoy both.  People say "what about when you spar?  Aren't you confused?  How do you put them together/"

Basically, I don't put them together.  Wing chun is a close quarter striking art.  BJJ is a close quarter grappling art.  They have different goals and aims.  For sparring of a striking, or MMA nature, I approach with my primary art, until the point where I find myself in a situation that my application of my primary art isn't working, then I may drop back to my secondary art.   And in BJJ you spar every class, so I learned to do that too.  

In a self defense situation, my natural reaction will be my primary art.  I will stick to that until it doesn't work for me or I'm outside of it's context (i.e. I get taken down).  Then the secondary kicks in.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.



You look at some of those cultures they are still using magic charms.  That have also battlefield tested.

So i tend to take that reasoning with a grain of salt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> My viewpoint on this topic has changed over time.  My primary art is wing chun.  My secondary art is BJJ or submission grappling.  I used to try and find the universal concepts both and cross-apply them.  It rarely worked.  Once I had solid fundamentals down in each, there are a few situations to cross apply concepts.  But very few compared to the many where the fundamentals from one don't work in the other.
> 
> Currently I appreciate each art for what it is.   I enjoy both.  People say "what about when you spar?  Aren't you confused?  How do you put them together/"
> 
> Basically, I don't put them together.  Wing chun is a close quarter striking art.  BJJ is a close quarter grappling art.  They have different goals and aims.  For sparring of a striking, or MMA nature, I approach with my primary art, until the point where I find myself in a situation that my application of my primary art isn't working, then I may drop back to my secondary art.   And in BJJ you spar every class, so I learned to do that too.
> 
> In a self defense situation, my natural reaction will be my primary art.  I will stick to that until it doesn't work for me or I'm outside of it's context (i.e. I get taken down).  Then the secondary kicks in.


I think the reason you couldn't find common principles is that you were looking at striking vs. grappling. Within NGA, there aren't common principles between the striking side and the grappling side. There are, however, principles that bridge. An example is breaking the attacker's structure. In striking, I want to drive his body off the spine (by driving the head back, perhaps). In grappling, I want to do the same, perhaps by drawing his arm forward to bring his shoulder forward and down. 

There are principles that cross many (most?, all?) fighting systems. Hybrid arts are built on those principles, using techniques from various sources that link together and bridge easily. WC striking looks to me like a good fit for linking with a grappling art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You look at some of those cultures they are still using magic charms.  That have also battlefield tested.
> 
> So i tend to take that reasoning with a grain of salt.


Which reasoning? The part where I said I didn't have any significant evidence either way? The part where I said I couldn't speak to their validation methods?


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think the reason you couldn't find common principles is that you were looking at striking vs. grappling. Within NGA, there aren't common principles between the striking side and the grappling side. There are, however, principles that bridge. An example is breaking the attacker's structure. In striking, I want to drive his body off the spine (by driving the head back, perhaps). In grappling, I want to do the same, perhaps by drawing his arm forward to bring his shoulder forward and down.
> 
> There are principles that cross many (most?, all?) fighting systems. Hybrid arts are built on those principles, using techniques from various sources that link together and bridge easily. WC striking looks to me like a good fit for linking with a grappling art.



I agree but there may be an issue.  If you are referring to the video I posted as an example of WC striking, all Lineages aren't the same and some people may look at Sifu Keith doing that Jamming entry from which you can either continue to strike or transition to control/takedowns and say "that's supposed to be WC?" In some quarters TWC is seen as a red headed step child thanks to lineage politics. /Shrug


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You look at some of those cultures they are still using magic charms.  That have also battlefield tested.
> 
> So i tend to take that reasoning with a grain of salt.



The magic charm thing is a non-sequitur.  What was battle tested was the fighting techniques.  The pagan charm is no different than a cop wearing a St. Michael the Archangel medallion.  It will give the devout a psychological boost but the win is based on your method, skill in it and Murphy's law


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> The magic charm thing is a non-sequitur.  What was battle tested was the fighting techniques.  The pagan charm is no different than a cop wearing a St. Michael the Archangel medallion.  It will give the devout a psychological boost but the win is based on your method, skill in it and Murphy's law



Murphy's law. More applied to the opponent.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Murphy's law. More applied to the opponent.


Oh I have found Murphy just sees people impartially lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I agree but there may be an issue.  If you are referring to the video I posted as an example of WC striking, all Lineages aren't the same and some people may look at Sifu Keith doing that Jamming entry from which you can either continue to strike or transition to control/takedowns and say "that's supposed to be WC?" In some quarters TWC is seen as a red headed step child thanks to lineage politics. /Shrug


Every WC/VT I've looked at looks promising for its ability to set up for a transition to takedowns. There are some significant differences I see between the branches of the art (like comparing Shioda's Aikido to Kohei's), but they all look like a good pairing with my grappling. I've been watching videos, looking for concepts and approaches to borrow. Videos like that one you posted are among the best fits, and reflect principles I teach (like assuming the second hand is coming).


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Every WC/VT I've looked at looks promising for its ability to set up for a transition to takedowns. There are some significant differences I see between the branches of the art (like comparing Shioda's Aikido to Kohei's), but they all look like a good pairing with my grappling. I've been watching videos, looking for concepts and approaches to borrow. Videos like that one you posted are among the best fits, and reflect principles I teach (like assuming the second hand is coming).


It may be a difference in teaching method.  As an example I studied WSL/GL-VT.  In that system the official curriculum includes something that falls just short of full on Chin Na.  I say it falls short because it isn't to control.  It is a closing technique to open the way for striking.  TWC uses similar techniques for that purpose BUT also teaches the "follow through" for full control though not really a ground game.

Sometimes trying to work out the follow through on you own, when you have different body structures for the styles, can just feel off.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Which reasoning? The part where I said I didn't have any significant evidence either way? The part where I said I couldn't speak to their validation methods?




This reasoning.

*TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict...*


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The magic charm thing is a non-sequitur.  What was battle tested was the fighting techniques.  The pagan charm is no different than a cop wearing a St. Michael the Archangel medallion.  It will give the devout a psychological boost but the win is based on your method, skill in it and Murphy's law


*
I think this is one of the things people miss. TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict. Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries. The problem rises in that one of the reasons they worked was not just because they were pressure tested BUT because they were very often pressure tested against other styles. Without challenging other styles you can end up on the short end if you suddenly find yourself forced into such an encounter.*

Ok pagan charms have been around for centuries and worked in real world conflicts. Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries.

Considering both methods have been employed for about the same time with the same idea in mind. My guess battlefield use isnt a very good test.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> *I think this is one of the things people miss. TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict. Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries. The problem rises in that one of the reasons they worked was not just because they were pressure tested BUT because they were very often pressure tested against other styles. Without challenging other styles you can end up on the short end if you suddenly find yourself forced into such an encounter.*
> 
> Ok pagan charms have been around for centuries and worked in real world conflicts. Otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries.
> 
> Considering both methods have been employed for about the same time with the same idea in mind. My guess battlefield use isnt a very good test.


That isn't what I said and I believe you know it.  The Crusaders and the Muslims during the Crusades both thought prayers and talismans who save them, that God was on their side.  Their Martial skills, tactics and strategies were what won or lost the day, not faith.  The charms you speak of arrow the same and are thus a strawman argument because they have no real effect.

Just stop because now you are just being silly.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> That isn't what I said and I believe you know it.  The Crusaders and the Muslims during the Crusades both thought prayers and talismans who save them, that God was on their side.  Their Martial skills, tactics and strategies were what won or lost the day, not faith.  The charms you speak of arrow the same and are thus a strawman argument because they have no real effect.
> 
> Just stop because now you are just being silly.



ok. why if both were battle tested both have lasted for centuries both have the same evidence of effectiveness. Does one have any more validity than the other?

And I quoted what you said. That is what you said.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> ok. why if both were battle tested both have lasted for centuries both have the same evidence of effectiveness. Does one have any more validity than the other?
> 
> And I quoted what you said. That is what you said.



Because of this.  One, fighting arts, are something that is "physical" it can be measured and codified.  Ergo it is factual.  Ergo it can be proven or disproven. 

Faith, Religion, Superstition, whatever term you may chose to use can not be analyzed in such a manner.  I can't remember the specific show but I have always remembered what a Jesuit Priest on a History Channel show... First he quoted from the Hebrews.



> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



He then explained less poetically "if it is born of faith by definition it can not be proven."  This concept existed all the way back to Paul's Epistle.  In the post Enlightenment age it takes on even greater meaning

The nature of Talismans is based on faith and thus, even according other religions, are thus by their nature things that can't be measured, thus they can not be tested, thus nothing can be proven.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Because of this.  One, fighting arts, are something that is "physical" it can be measured and codified.  Ergo it is factual.  Ergo it can be proven or disproven.
> 
> Faith, Religion, Superstition, whatever term you may chose to use can not be analyzed in such a manner.  I can't remember the specific show but I have always remembered what a Jesuit Priest on a History Channel show... First he quoted from the Hebrews.
> 
> 
> 
> He then explained less poetically "if it is born of faith by definition it can not be proven."  This concept existed all the way back to Paul's Epistle.  In the post Enlightenment age it takes on even greater meaning
> 
> The nature of Talismans is based on faith and thus, even according other religions, are thus by their nature things that can't be measured, thus they can not be tested, thus nothing can be proven.



No I am using the same proof. Your proof to validate both.  There has been no mesurements and no codification. I am sure if there was there would be a separation from fact and fiction.

But we are using your battlefield proof at the moment. Which while good enough to support your claims is apparently not good enough to support mine.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No I am using the same proof. Your proof to validate both.  There has been no mesurements and no codification. I am sure if there was there would be a separation from fact and fiction.
> 
> But we are using your battlefield proof at the moment. Which while good enough to support your claims is apparently not good enough to support mine.




No you have said something completely illogical..

"People have believed in the unprovable for centuries.  Ergo the unprovable is proven to exist." That isn't only illogical, it is blatantly nonsensical.  Something that is tangential and not provable by verification on its own merits doesn't suddenly become proveable because something that is verifiable is proven.  

On the other hand we have evidence of martial arts used in combat for millennia, some used to this very day and many more used in the last century or so, the body counts, victories and historical records to support their efficacy.  That is what is called proof.

Actually if we wanted to get technical we can say that while my case is still proven yours is not only unprovable but disproven.  A perfect example is Judicial duels ( Trial by combat - Wikipedia).  The theory was basically that God would not let the just lose.  What was the reality?  The person who was, or hired, the better fighter won regardless of who was "just.". All the faith in the world meant very little.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This reasoning.
> 
> *TMAs that have been around for centuries worked in real conflict...*


That wasn't my reasoning, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post to address that reasoning.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That wasn't my reasoning, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post to address that reasoning.



Yeah that was my reasoning.  Thing was it was only because someone started talking about a particular art being objectively proven to be effective.  Well others have too.

The thing is this.  No matter how any particular arts techniques have been proven isn't really the point.  MMA is kicking butt today in the Octagon, PTK is being used successfully today in the Jungles of Mindanao.  But someone can go to their local MMA Gym or to the local PTO school and not train with the correct pressure testing for their purpose, or the right conditioning outside the art etc.  In that case the art will fail.

As an example, and this actually from a Renzo Gracie gym near me.  A friend started training Muay Thai a while ago.  I thought...Wow a DA that is an attractive blond woman and can kick ***?  Some cop's wife is in trouble. . That said I went to the Gracie school's web site and it talks up how hardcore the training is BUT then says this...

"Little or no free-sparring is done in training, due to the devastating nature of the techniques employed." So an art "proven" that may well fail if learned exclusively at that school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Yeah that was my reasoning.  Thing was it was only because someone started talking about a particular art being objectively proven to be effective.  Well others have too.
> 
> The thing is this.  No matter how any particular arts techniques have been proven isn't really the point.  MMA is kicking butt today in the Octagon, PTK is being used successfully today in the Jungles of Mindanao.  But someone can go to their local MMA Gym or to the local PTO school and not train with the correct pressure testing for their purpose, or the right conditioning outside the art etc.  In that case the art will fail.
> 
> As an example, and this actually from a Renzo Gracie gym near me.  A friend started training Muay Thai a while ago.  I thought...Wow a DA that is an attractive blond woman and can kick ***?  Some cop's wife is in trouble. . That said I went to the Gracie school's web site and it talks up how hardcore the training is BUT then says this...
> 
> "Little or no free-sparring is done in training, due to the devastating nature of the techniques employed." So an art "proven" that may well fail if learned exclusively at that school.


That's a shame, especially for an art that has such a solid background in free sparring. I hope they're at least doing a lot of free rolling in their BJJ.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No you have said something completely illogical..
> 
> "People have believed in the unprovable for centuries.  Ergo the unprovable is proven to exist." That isn't only illogical, it is blatantly nonsensical.  Something that is tangential and not provable by verification on its own merits doesn't suddenly become proveable because something that is verifiable is proven.
> 
> On the other hand we have evidence of martial arts used in combat for millennia, some used to this very day and many more used in the last century or so, the body counts, victories and historical records to support their efficacy.  That is what is called proof.
> 
> Actually if we wanted to get technical we can say that while my case is still proven yours is not only unprovable but disproven.  A perfect example is Judicial duels ( Trial by combat - Wikipedia).  The theory was basically that God would not let the just lose.  What was the reality?  The person who was, or hired, the better fighter won regardless of who was "just.". All the faith in the world meant very little.



You have crappy evidence. That does not really prove anything. The same crappy evidence I can use to validate magical charms.

Like evidence that magical charms were used in combat for millennia. A magical charm is not god. It could be validated or invalidated by some pretty simple means. Exactly like a martial arts system. 

But you choose to use historical evidence of battles instead. That prove very little about the effectiveness of magical charms or martial arts systems. Especially the way you come to a conclusion regarding them.

Nothing to do with god which is irrelevant.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That wasn't my reasoning, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post to address that reasoning.



This was your reasoning. which was in relation to juannys reasonong.
*
I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.
*
And I expanded on that concept with the idea that the testing while it may have happened could still lead to ludicrous conlusions becase of the manner in which it can be conducted.

So I cut a guy in half with my sword. Fine. that was the test. But because i know nothing about scientific method I conclude it was my kiai that created the necessary power or something.

And so the misinformation charges down through the ages.

My mates kiai in battle and win fight. 

Their students all train kiais.

I mean if it doesnt work why would people be doing it?

Martial arts moves tested in battle as a blanket statement is pretty inconclusive. 

So not only do you have issue with the information itself. Whether the documents are accurate.

And you also brought up our understanding of science, how the body works and so on has advanced.

But we also have this third issue of conformation bias. As without a grounding in science you quite often come to terrible conclusions.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You have crappy evidence. That does not really prove anything. The same crappy evidence I can use to validate magical charms.
> 
> Like evidence that magical charms were used in combat for millennia. A magical charm is not god. It could be validated or invalidated by some pretty simple means. Exactly like a martial arts system.
> 
> But you choose to use historical evidence of battles instead. That prove very little about the effectiveness of magical charms or martial arts systems. Especially the way you come to a conclusion regarding them.
> 
> Nothing to do with god which is irrelevant.




No you just don't like being confronted by an argument you thought was yours alone to make.  Saying that documented history, note I said history not legend, is crappy evidence is about as illogical as the argument I was most recently responding to.

That said you have no clue about the context of the charms you speak of, which makes it even funnier.  The charms of which you speak worked in a shamanic/religious based context.  They may have been pagan/tribal but they were in the context of their deity/spirit blessed by their priest shaman. It's no different than the Crusader going off to battle with his crucifix blessed by the Bishop. 

Also you try to ignore that your own argument, at one point, actually supported mine.  Remember when you didn't think I was talking about wrestling arts when it came to knife defense and mentioned Judo, and an Nordic wrestling style you clearly knew little about because you didn't know it had dedicated blade defense (Gllima) as wrestling arts that worked in battle historically.  Heck you even accused me of inventing a damn link, which means an entire website in a matter of like an hour.  So basically you say "okay history is proven.  See I am right!  Oh wait they did something different than I say is best?  History is not proof at all!!!"

Smh

In the end, we all get it, you think modern MMA is awesome.  No one contests it's really good.  But that apparently isn't enough for you.  MMA, and some of its component parts have to be the ONLY effective martial arts and it lacks no tools for modern self defense in your mind and you will go to whatever illogical mental contortions, and contradictions to try and make your case.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No you just don't like being confronted by an argument you thought was yours alone to make. Saying that documented history, note I said history not legend, is crappy evidence is about as illogical as the argument I was most recently responding to.
> 
> That said you have no clue about the context of the charms you speak of, which makes it even funnier. The charms of which you speak worked in a shamanic/religious based context. They may have been pagan/tribal but they were in the context of their deity/spirit blessed by their priest shaman. It's no different than the Crusader going off to battle with his crucifix blessed by the Bishop.



No difference to a martial art based on superstition. then used in battle. you go to great lengths to prove things that are easily tested. By these esosteric means.

Dose martial art A work?

use it and find out. Not a great surreal set of stories about some battlefield nobody knows or even really care about.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> In the end, we all get it, you think modern MMA is awesome. No one contests it's really good. But that apparently isn't enough for you. MMA, and some of its component parts have to be the ONLY effective martial arts and it lacks no tools for modern self defense in your mind and you will go to whatever illogical mental contortions, and contradictions to try and make your case.



Please try to stop making stuff up.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No difference to a martial art based on superstition. then used in battle. you go to great lengths to prove things that are easily tested. By these esosteric means.
> 
> Dose martial art A work?
> 
> use it and find out. Not a great surreal set of stories about some battlefield nobody knows or even really care about.



What Martial arts that were used in battle successfully have their techniques and fighting styles based in reality, and not some "chop rocky" film you may have witnessed?  See below for an response to "use it and find out..."


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Please try to stop making stuff up.



Then explain to me how we even got here.  Let me.  You study a Martial art that is an awesome empty hand art but that doesn't have anything, to my knowledge, that directly addresses defense against a weapon because it was designed for an environment where there will never be weapons.

Someone, asked you about weapons defense.  You got defensive.  You then noted one incident that "proved" you don't need weapons defense training to fight against armed assailants as if this one incident made a universal fact of martial arts.  Everything that followed is from that single assertion that you made, that you proved in a global sense something isn't needed.

The only reasons an intelligent person would base a universal fact on a personal anecdote, even in the face of modern military training protocols, Dog Brothers etc., Is one of a few reasons.

1. They are so convinced that their method is THE method that one success = global success.
2. They are trolling.

As I said you even tried to point to historical Martial Arts used such as Judo, which has knife defense, then Glima, which also has blade defense and when I showed an example by showing Home from this specific section COMBAT GLIMA, since it contradicted what you said you actually claimed I made the link of the photo up.

Now after all that time trying to prove me wrong based on facts independent of both of us you say...



drop bear said:


> Dose martial art A work?
> 
> use it and find out



Such moving of goal posts, contradictions, circular logic and simply accusing someone of lying by inventing a picture on a website that advertises instruction in a MA you first claimed simply because you made said claim without adequate knowledge?  These actions of yours are telling and pretty much proof that if anyone is making stuff up (like your Glima claim) it's you and not I sir.


----------



## anerlich

wayfaring said:


> My viewpoint on this topic has changed over time.  My primary art is wing chun.  My secondary art is BJJ or submission grappling.  I used to try and find the universal concepts both and cross-apply them.  It rarely worked.  Once I had solid fundamentals down in each, there are a few situations to cross apply concepts.  But very few compared to the many where the fundamentals from one don't work in the other.
> 
> Currently I appreciate each art for what it is.   I enjoy both.  People say "what about when you spar?  Aren't you confused?  How do you put them together/"
> 
> Basically, I don't put them together.  Wing chun is a close quarter striking art.  BJJ is a close quarter grappling art.  They have different goals and aims.  For sparring of a striking, or MMA nature, I approach with my primary art, until the point where I find myself in a situation that my application of my primary art isn't working, then I may drop back to my secondary art.   And in BJJ you spar every class, so I learned to do that too.
> 
> In a self defense situation, my natural reaction will be my primary art.  I will stick to that until it doesn't work for me or I'm outside of it's context (i.e. I get taken down).  Then the secondary kicks in.



My experience has been pretty much the same ... though I'd go so far as to say that Jiu Jitsu has taken over from Wing Chun as my primary art.

I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict. 

I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level. If my timings had the two arts the other way around, I doubt Jiu Jitsu would have helped me learn Wing Chun much, save for knowing what fully resisting opponents feel like, an understanding of posture and structure, and a certain level of comfort with body contact.

In my experience (I only trained MMA, never competed as I didn't start until I was about 52) getting good at striking, grappling, and/or trying to integrate the two, needs to be treated as following three disciplines, not two. And trying to get really good at the "hybrid" art, has an opportunity cost in not being able to be as good at the individual component arts.

I'm 62 and don't go out to clubs or get into arguments much (except here). My focus in training is on staying fit and mobile and having fun, not becoming a combat badass. As I get older my chances of encountering violent assault decrease, while those of lifestyle related heart disease rise.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> My experience has been pretty much the same ... though I'd go so far as to say that Jiu Jitsu has taken over from Wing Chun as my primary art.
> 
> I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.
> 
> I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level. If my timings had the two arts the other way around, I doubt Jiu Jitsu would have helped me learn Wing Chun much, save for knowing what fully resisting opponents feel like, an understanding of posture and structure, and a certain level of comfort with body contact.
> 
> In my experience (I only trained MMA, never competed as I didn't start until I was about 52) getting good at striking, grappling, and/or trying to integrate the two, needs to be treated as following three disciplines, not two. And trying to get really good at the "hybrid" art, has an opportunity cost in not being able to be as good at the individual component arts.
> 
> I'm 62 and don't go out to clubs or get into arguments much (except here). My focus in training is on staying fit and mobile and having fun, not becoming a combat badass. As I get older my chances of encountering violent assault decrease, while those of lifestyle related heart disease rise.


I will say I don't know BJJ so I can't say whether you can connect them.  However I do see how you can connect WC to arts with more "control" techniques in a general sense, such as standing arm bars/takedowns, wrist locks etc.

Why would you do this?  It's individual, most don't need to imo.  For me, I already have experience in the "general" grappling (Aikido, Judo, learning different methods in Kali now), my issue as I have gotten older (45 now) is bridging to that range in a real fight became harder because I can't bully through it to a 20 something. I don't want to be a badass, I prefer talking (to much according to the wife) but for me that bridge is a necessity and the only teacher in my area teaching a martial art in a rl combative manner is the WC/Kali teacher I now study under.

That all said I am eligible to retire in 6 years come Feb. After I retire and move on to something else I might well just end up the "weird old guy" who does Tai Chi in the back yard because I will likely have had my fill of getting sore and bruised in training lol, but I will always love the flow.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You have crappy evidence. That does not really prove anything. The same crappy evidence I can use to validate magical charms.
> 
> Like evidence that magical charms were used in combat for millennia. A magical charm is not god. It could be validated or invalidated by some pretty simple means. Exactly like a martial arts system.
> 
> But you choose to use historical evidence of battles instead. That prove very little about the effectiveness of magical charms or martial arts systems. Especially the way you come to a conclusion regarding them.
> 
> Nothing to do with god which is irrelevant.


There is a significant difference in the two concepts. Using a less-effective charm won't lose a battle. And there wasn't an actually more effective charm to use, instead.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This was your reasoning. which was in relation to juannys reasonong.
> *
> I can't speak to what the validation was back in those times. When I read Funakoshi's accounts of what his training was like (with no supporting evidence, so have to be skeptical), it certainly sounds like they went at it pretty hard in his time. I remember reading accounts (perhaps apocryphal, never had a need to research it further) of Japanese warriors using captured enemies to try out techniques. If that kind of stuff is true, they were pretty thorough back then. If not, they may have been pretty lax. I just don't personally have any solid evidence they were any more consistent, softer, or harder than we are today.
> *
> And I expanded on that concept with the idea that the testing while it may have happened could still lead to ludicrous conlusions becase of the manner in which it can be conducted.
> 
> So I cut a guy in half with my sword. Fine. that was the test. But because i know nothing about scientific method I conclude it was my kiai that created the necessary power or something.
> 
> And so the misinformation charges down through the ages.
> 
> My mates kiai in battle and win fight.
> 
> Their students all train kiais.
> 
> I mean if it doesnt work why would people be doing it?
> 
> Martial arts moves tested in battle as a blanket statement is pretty inconclusive.
> 
> So not only do you have issue with the information itself. Whether the documents are accurate.
> 
> And you also brought up our understanding of science, how the body works and so on has advanced.
> 
> But we also have this third issue of conformation bias. As without a grounding in science you quite often come to terrible conclusions.


Re-read my post that you quoted. I state that I don't have evidence either way. I mentioned stories I'd heard that I had. I support for, so am skeptical abou. So, no, it wasn't my reasoning that if it has existed for a long time (or was used in battle - not clear anymore which you're arguing) makes it valid.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> My experience has been pretty much the same ... though I'd go so far as to say that Jiu Jitsu has taken over from Wing Chun as my primary art.
> 
> I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.
> 
> I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level. If my timings had the two arts the other way around, I doubt Jiu Jitsu would have helped me learn Wing Chun much, save for knowing what fully resisting opponents feel like, an understanding of posture and structure, and a certain level of comfort with body contact.
> 
> In my experience (I only trained MMA, never competed as I didn't start until I was about 52) getting good at striking, grappling, and/or trying to integrate the two, needs to be treated as following three disciplines, not two. And trying to get really good at the "hybrid" art, has an opportunity cost in not being able to be as good at the individual component arts.
> 
> I'm 62 and don't go out to clubs or get into arguments much (except here). My focus in training is on staying fit and mobile and having fun, not becoming a combat badass. As I get older my chances of encountering violent assault decrease, while those of lifestyle related heart disease rise.


The problem you ran into is highlighted I this: 


> trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way"



This is what I referred to in a prior post. You don't change the BJJ or the WC to create the hybrid. You find the principles t bridge from one to the other. So, in your case, you're looking for the WC movements and stances structures that lead most naturally into BJJ, defend natural gaps in BJJ, or provide new openings and escapes that make the BJJ more effective. That's what a hybrid art does. NGA doesn't have Shotokan-like Daito-ryu, Judo-ish Karate, etc. It has techniques and principles from each, used following some common principles. In full-on hybridized arts like NGA, there is a natural shift in some areas (we don't often cut the angles seen in Shotokan, because they don't lead into our grappling), but those are results of overall approach, rather than attempts to push the origin arts together.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.

My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.

When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.

When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.
> 
> My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.
> 
> When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.
> 
> When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.


And I accidentally replied to it on the other thread. Here was my reply:  

Your "Tony-fu" is a personal hybridization of all you've studied. In my experience, there's little chance of real conflict within personal-fu, since we each naturally combine those bits that work together. If there is a natural conflict between styles (e.g.: angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA), those get resolved by personal preference. Some folks will simply prefer one approach over the other, while others will find themselves naturally choosing each in different situations.

The difficulty for most people comes early in their learning of one or more arts, where the principles of something else causes confusion (again, that example of angles vs. circles, which still causes problems for one of my students). This resolves itself once the habits of the new stuff get more engrained, then the natural response I mentioned above tends to take over.
_
Note for other readers: This is a bit different from my comment about actual hybrid arts, rather than a personal hybridization of whatever you've studied. NGA is a hybrid art (and Shojin-ryu is a variation of that art). My "Gerry-fu" is not pure NGA; it is influenced by Judo (not much change, since that's one origin art for NGA), Shotokan (same comment), FMA, Ueshiba's Aikido, and even some touches of stuff like Silat and other bits I've worked on in seminars. In the dojo, I do my best to stick to NGA most of the time. In my personal practice, some of the other bits come out more often._


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There is a significant difference in the two concepts. Using a less-effective charm won't lose a battle. And there wasn't an actually more effective charm to use, instead.



Yeah. But the point is you probably wouldn't know one way or the other.

 I mean the point there is proven by people taking these charms in to battle that somewhere along the line they have found out through trial and error that magical arm band stops bullets. (Which we all assume is probably not the case)

We have seen the same in medicine (also battle tested by the way) where we have had a combination of some stuff that works and some stuff that is generally pretty silly.

If we have these outright issue with the conclusions drawn from battle testing. Then battle testing is not the greatest method for testing the veracity of a method. Especially if people do not know how to draw good conclusions from what they are observing.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.
> 
> My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.
> 
> When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.
> 
> When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.



There are a few minor quirks that become set standards in hybridisation. You kind of make compromises to blend an art that you wouldnt have to do if you specialised.

If I strike and do takedowns my ability to either is made a bit crap because I am trying to account for both at once. And understanding where that happens and why that happens is important to at least know.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Then explain to me how we even got here.  Let me.  You study a Martial art that is an awesome empty hand art but that doesn't have anything, to my knowledge, that directly addresses defense against a weapon because it was designed for an environment where there will never be weapons.
> 
> Someone, asked you about weapons defense.  You got defensive.  You then noted one incident that "proved" you don't need weapons defense training to fight against armed assailants as if this one incident made a universal fact of martial arts.  Everything that followed is from that single assertion that you made, that you proved in a global sense something isn't needed.
> 
> The only reasons an intelligent person would base a universal fact on a personal anecdote, even in the face of modern military training protocols, Dog Brothers etc., Is one of a few reasons.
> 
> 1. They are so convinced that their method is THE method that one success = global success.
> 2. They are trolling.
> 
> As I said you even tried to point to historical Martial Arts used such as Judo, which has knife defense, then Glima, which also has blade defense and when I showed an example by showing Home from this specific section COMBAT GLIMA, since it contradicted what you said you actually claimed I made the link of the photo up.
> 
> Now after all that time trying to prove me wrong based on facts independent of both of us you say...
> 
> 
> 
> Such moving of goal posts, contradictions, circular logic and simply accusing someone of lying by inventing a picture on a website that advertises instruction in a MA you first claimed simply because you made said claim without adequate knowledge?  These actions of yours are telling and pretty much proof that if anyone is making stuff up (like your Glima claim) it's you and not I sir.



Um........ No none of that happened on this thread. You have gone from arguing the topic to just flipping out over everything.

I never brought up MMA you just decided to add that for no reason. If you have a point about MMA then you shoud raise it. Not make up the idea that I did.

And then you just based the rest on your made up statement.

You cant just take these leaps of logic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But the point is you probably wouldn't know one way or the other.
> 
> I mean the point there is proven by people taking these charms in to battle that somewhere along the line they have found out through trial and error that magical arm band stops bullets. (Which we all assume is probably not the case)
> 
> We have seen the same in medicine (also battle tested by the way) where we have had a combination of some stuff that works and some stuff that is generally pretty silly.
> 
> If we have these outright issue with the conclusions drawn from battle testing. Then battle testing is not the greatest method for testing the veracity of a method. Especially if people do not know how to draw good conclusions from what they are observing.


That's true. There is a difference, though. For superstitious beliefs, there is only confirmation bias to provide support and only a lucky event to the contrary can provide refutation. With physical tactics, an alternative method that is more effective will often have more survivors. As you say, there may continue to be some superstitious beliefs around physical tactics (and certainly more than a little confirmation bias), but there's actual counter-evidence that can be seen. If an opposing force does something physical that causes them to overwhelm your force, you want to have something like it, yourself. Of course, if you believe their magic charm is what led to them beating you, you might adopt the wrong part of their strategy (their charm, instead of their technique).

So there's some validity to your argument. I'm just pointing out that the two are not entirely comparable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are a few minor quirks that become set standards in hybridisation. You kind of make compromises to blend an art that you wouldnt have to do if you specialised.
> 
> If I strike and do takedowns my ability to either is made a bit crap because I am trying to account for both at once. And understanding where that happens and why that happens is important to at least know.


Which is why boxers out-punch folks who do more than just box. They are about as specialized as it gets in the combat arts.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Which is why boxers out-punch folks who do more than just box. They are about as specialized as it gets in the combat arts.



Correct.

And you only need to be in that exchange for a second or so to loose that fight.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

anerlich said:


> I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.



Admittedly I'm a beginner in Wing Tsun (just under a year of practice at this point), but I've found a reasonable amount of conceptual overlap between BJJ and WT and no major conflicts. In addition, my WT friends who I've taught some jiu-jitsu to have stated that what I've taught them fits well with their understanding of WT principles. (Perhaps @yak sao can provide some of his perspective on the subject.)

Admittedly the _tactics_ typically applied are quite different between WT and BJJ, but I'm a believer in the idea that tactics should be dictated by the situation rather than the art.



anerlich said:


> I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level.



Yeah ... as I indicated in my previous comment, I wouldn't try to do BJJ the "WC" way or WC the "BJJ" way. Rather I learn each art as it is in order to understand the principles that make it work. Then I apply those principles as appropriate in my personal approach (My Tony-Fu, as Gerry puts it.).


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.
> 
> My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.
> 
> When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.
> 
> When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.


I think @gpseymour explained it best and the way he did shows we pretty much do the same thing.  When I first started at my current school I had to "check" my old skills at the door.  It wasn't easy but in the long run it has paid off.  I don't think I would have been able to integrate the arts I have properly if I didn't have a proper understanding of them individually.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That's true. There is a difference, though. For superstitious beliefs, there is only confirmation bias to provide support and only a lucky event to the contrary can provide refutation. With physical tactics, an alternative method that is more effective will often have more survivors. As you say, there may continue to be some superstitious beliefs around physical tactics (and certainly more than a little confirmation bias), but there's actual counter-evidence that can be seen. If an opposing force does something physical that causes them to overwhelm your force, you want to have something like it, yourself. Of course, if you believe their magic charm is what led to them beating you, you might adopt the wrong part of their strategy (their charm, instead of their technique).
> 
> So there's some validity to your argument. I'm just pointing out that the two are not entirely comparable.


The thing is though you final point fails if both sides don't share the same belief system.  Maybe I am more sensitive to this because of the arts I have studied.  Filipinos did indeed, and some regions still, believe in the power of such charms.  Natives such as this then faced Magellan (who they killed) and then a full on Spanish Conquest which they lost for the most part.  I say the most part because the Spanish never fully conquered the southern most regions.

The point is this though.  If you look at history you can always point to battles won for a combination of 4 basic reasons that obviously break down to a score of others.
1. Training
2. Equipment
3. Strategy/ tactics/logistics (which includes weather, terrain etc)
4. Morale (which can include the issue at hand.)

The thing is the issue at hand only provides a psychological boost.  But many other things can.  A charasmatic leader, fighting for you literal home, etc.  So many things provide the same "real" effect of a talisman that the talisman ceases to have any individual value and simply belongs in the pile of morale/psychology.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Um........ No none of that happened on this thread. You have gone from arguing the topic to just flipping out over everything.
> 
> I never brought up MMA you just decided to add that for no reason. If you have a point about MMA then you shoud raise it. Not make up the idea that I did.
> 
> And then you just based the rest on your made up statement.
> 
> You cant just take these leaps of logic.


See I don't just look at a single thread when determining motive.  People have general opinions and methods.  These opinions and methods follow them from thread to thread, or from place to place in real life (if you have a stable personality).  So I take the whole and come to an opinion of the person.  Kinda like real life.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> The thing is though you final point fails if both sides don't share the same belief system.  Maybe I am more sensitive to this because of the arts I have studied.  Filipinos did indeed, and some regions still, believe in the power of such charms.  Natives such as this then faced Magellan (who they killed) and then a full on Spanish Conquest which they lost for the most part.  I say the most part because the Spanish never fully conquered the southern most regions.
> 
> The point is this though.  If you look at history you can always point to battles won for a combination of 4 basic reasons that obviously break down to a score of others.
> 1. Training
> 2. Equipment
> 3. Strategy/ tactics/logistics (which includes weather, terrain etc)
> 4. Morale (which can include the issue at hand.)
> 
> The thing is the issue at hand only provides a psychological boost.  But many other things can.  A charasmatic leader, fighting for you literal home, etc.  So many things provide the same "real" effect of a talisman that the talisman ceases to have any individual value and simply belongs in the pile of morale/psychology.


I agree. My point was that, at the time, some might have attributed wins/losses to the power of their charms (or those of their opponents). Doing so would reduce their examination of the physical tactics to see what was more/less effective. Not being an expert on those topics, I really don't know whether that would have been a factor in their "analysis" at the time or not. Certainly, today, we would not include the power of their charms in the analysis, though (as you point out) we might take their belief into account for the morale boost it gave.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> See I don't just look at a single thread when determining motive.  People have general opinions and methods.  These opinions and methods follow them from thread to thread, or from place to place in real life (if you have a stable personality).  So I take the whole and come to an opinion of the person.  Kinda like real life.



Oh have you noticed then I basically use your arguments. Which are fine when you use them. But are illogical and silly and you love MMA when anybody else does. 

I just like watching you do backflips.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I agree. My point was that, at the time, some might have attributed wins/losses to the power of their charms (or those of their opponents). Doing so would reduce their examination of the physical tactics to see what was more/less effective. Not being an expert on those topics, I really don't know whether that would have been a factor in their "analysis" at the time or not. Certainly, today, we would not include the power of their charms in the analysis, though (as you point out) we might take their belief into account for the morale boost it gave.


You actually raise a good point but often I think it would have balanced out (former history student incoming!!!!  )

If you look at the historical periods where people uses such talismans or religious faith, the warfare itself actually acts as a control.  You either have both sides using the same (example Crusaders vs Muslim) or one side using them (Ghost Dancing Lakota Warriors vs repeating Carbine Armed US Army.) In the first place both sides said "god is with us" but it was the "terrestrial" realities of warfare that resulted in victory.  In the last all the faith in the world couldn't beat terrestrial realities.

That is why the only even small merit is the psychological boost.  If all measurable things are equal, that faith in the supernatural can be the deciding factor.  But if one side has the clear edge in the measurable, (such as repeating carbines vs faith) faith falls.


----------



## anerlich

drop bear said:


> I just like watching you do backflips.



I used to be able to do backflips. Did the last one on my 59th birthday. Think my fast twitch leg strength has diminished too much now.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Oh have you noticed then I basically use your arguments. Which are fine when you use them. But are illogical and silly and you love MMA when anybody else does.
> 
> I just like watching you do backflips.



I noticed you tried to use them but failed because my method used measurable facts.  See my response immediately above.  The verifiable history of combat, when taken as a whole, shows that once battle is joined, such talismans aren't actually proven, rather disproven.  Both sides either had them and so the victory went to the better army in terms of measurable factors.  When one side had them and the other side lacked talismans but better measurable factors, the ones without talismans lost.  There is a term in legal circles that also applies to looking at history, if you want a true picture and not a subjective one, "the totality of the circumstances."

In other words you raised, whether you knew it or not, a strawman argument.  You tried to say "ah ha...People used to believe this".  Well people go to war today say "I believe in this..." Otherwise the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" would not exist.

I tried to avoid the following but you opened the door and wouldn't just let it go so here goes.  Do you realize the hypocrisy of your last few responses?  You go on about "proven" pulling out my quotes from another thread, even throwing something I said at someone else because they seemed to speak against your point of view.  I then mention you failed in that thread. Includeding you claiming I invented links that showed ignorance on your part (hi Glima) but you then say you like to watch me do backflips?

First posting stuff just to watch someone do backflips is practically the definition of an internet troll.  Second I have been consistent, and this standing my ground, in terms of my responses here. 

You are the one who has been all over the place with illogical responses between multiple threads.  Your moving goal posts, claiming someone invented links and thus entire websites in moments because they cut he legs off a claim you made.  Lastly throwing quotes I made at someone else.  Those are the actions of the "backflipper", or a troll.  Which are you?


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> I used to be able to do backflips. Did the last one on my 59th birthday. Think my fast twitch leg strength has diminished too much now.



Hell man I can't do one at 45.  Good one you (seriously my left knee hurts just thinking about it.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> You actually raise a good point but often I think it would have balanced out (former history student incoming!!!!  )
> 
> If you look at the historical periods where people uses such talismans or religious faith, the warfare itself actually acts as a control.  You either have both sides using the same (example Crusaders vs Muslim) or one side using them (Ghost Dancing Lakota Warriors vs repeating Carbine Armed US Army.) In the first place both sides said "god is with us" but it was the "terrestrial" realities of warfare that resulted in victory.  In the last all the faith in the world couldn't beat terrestrial realities.
> 
> That is why the only even small merit is the psychological boost.  If all measurable things are equal, that faith in the supernatural can be the deciding factor.  But if one side has the clear edge in the measurable, (such as repeating carbines vs faith) faith falls.


Agreed. Perhaps the risk would be where the group with better "measurables" also has a talisman not held by the other. They would win due to tangible factors, but might attribute the win to their talisman. I can't think of an example of that, so it's purely hypothetical.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Hell man I can't do one at 45.  Good one you (seriously my left knee hurts just thinking about it.)


Agreed. I never got around to learning to do one, but I suspect the jumping muscles are past that point now.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Perhaps the risk would be where the group with better "measurables" also has a talisman not held by the other. They would win due to tangible factors, but might attribute the win to their talisman. I can't think of an example of that, so it's purely hypothetical.



I think we are, to an extent, looking at things from two different angles.  I am looking at them through the larger lense of historical hind sight.  The fighter "in the moment", or the immediate aftermath, may attribute victory to some supernatural force, but once some time has passed you get to see what had the real impacts.  It's this later lense I am using because that lense is what modern military and security forces use to decide what arts are trained or, if they created their own fighting system, what techniques from what arts are compiled into that system.  

If we look at Krav Maga, MCMAP, they are in the compiling camp.  Then you have the Special Operations Community where they get trained in a variety of Martial arts.  They learn everything from the obvious, boxing and BJJ, to the not so obvious Wing Chun and Kali.  It's actually interesting to check out the DoD bids when they get posted online to see what Martial Arts they are looking for an instructor in for the next training cycle.


----------



## wayfaring

So to expound a little on my viewpoints about hybrid arts and my primary art wing chun and secondary art bjj, I wanted to highlight a few bullet points that were my viewpoints about the topic and how they developed and changed over time.  This also details my background for some I don't know as I'm new on the forum.


hybrid arts are part of my life and martial arts experience.  I moved around a lot, as a child of a military officer and then for work and volunteer work.  I studied a Vietnamese kungfu first - vo lam, then as part of that chinese 5 animal forms and a few weapons, isshin ryu karate in college for courses, tae kwon do in college again where I moved 3 places, muy thai, boxing, Yip Man wing chun, Hung Fa Yi wing chun, BJJ, wrestling,submission grappling and MMA
BJJ started due to no similar experience, a number of accumulated striking arts experience, and someone showing me "Gracies in Action" on VHS
Sparring was always involved in all of these arts
More recent MMA experiences are they are more oriented around scenario based skill - clinch, cage, ground top/bottom, rather than any art base
As a beginning grappler and wing chun practitioner with a few years experience, I was always looking to implement "centerline" in grappling.  Luckily, I also learned to implement "tapping out" early on.
Over time people always talked about your "identity" - what your core response is
Over time trying to find and apply universal principle - there was some - balance, compact positioning, energy conservation
With my two arts I'm actively pursuing, when you have contact on the bridge (any kind of a bridge) in wing chun you seek to control, sink and strike
With bjj / submission grappling / wrestling when you have contact on the bridge you are seeking to control, disrupt balance and take down.
The goal or strategy to strike and pursue the finish of the fight with strikes in wing chun is very different than the goal or strategy of clinching, taking the fight to the ground, and finishing in BJJ.
In practice, actively trying to pursue 2 diametrically opposed strategies at the same time would end up more times than not in freezing through inaction having too many options.
Over time I intuitively formed the opinion, and hard wired it through a little practice as best I could of pursuing the primary strategy and options to a fully committed extent, then only allowing the mindset fallback on defense to my secondary art response
I know YMMV on a lot of the topic of hybrid arts in this discussion.    Some arts blend better with others.  Some people have better natural gifts at blending than others.    I'm not perfect at isolating either - for instance I have been seen throwing a spinning wheel kick in sparring from my TKD days.   Just thought maybe seeing my perspective over time might be helpful to some.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> [*]With my two arts I'm actively pursuing, when you have contact on the bridge (any kind of a bridge) in wing chun you seek to control, sink and strike
> [*]With bjj / submission grappling / wrestling when you have contact on the bridge you are seeking to control, disrupt balance and take down.
> [*]The goal or strategy to strike and pursue the finish of the fight with strikes in wing chun is very different than the goal or strategy of clinching, taking the fight to the ground, and finishing in BJJ.
> [*]In practice, actively trying to pursue 2 diametrically opposed strategies at the same time would end up more times than not in freezing through inaction having too many options.



The key I think is not looking at the strategy of the art, focus on the tactics of the individual conflict, in other words, what is your purpose?

As I said before it may be a little easier for me to do so because TWC actually has takedowns, but it my purpose that makes going from striking as a bridge, to take down and control, "click".  That purpose being taking a resisting suspect into custodial arrest.  With that purpose in mind, everything a lap to control/takedown and maintaining that control simply happens.  This "clicking" actually caused me issues when I first started studying WC.  

My goal was (and is) to learn WC as an independent art so I can truly understand it and thus truly integrate it with other arts and TWC starts you with learning the striking game so you have that down, before the takedown game, but initially I had an issue.  When I first started sparring I would do good WC as I bridged, but once I would inevitably transition into a take down and control when I should have continued pressing a striking attack.  The WC bridging flowed naturally into the takedowns I already knew from other arts so it was instinctive.  Now it took sometime but I can switch off "work mode" tactics and turn on "training" mode tactics.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I noticed you tried to use them but failed because my method used measurable facts.  See my response immediately above.  The verifiable history of combat, when taken as a whole, shows that once battle is joined, such talismans aren't actually proven, rather disproven.  Both sides either had them and so the victory went to the better army in terms of measurable factors.  When one side had them and the other side lacked talismans but better measurable factors, the ones without talismans lost.  There is a term in legal circles that also applies to looking at history, if you want a true picture and not a subjective one, "the totality of the circumstances."
> 
> In other words you raised, whether you knew it or not, a strawman argument.  You tried to say "ah ha...People used to believe this".  Well people go to war today say "I believe in this..." Otherwise the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" would not exist.
> 
> I tried to avoid the following but you opened the door and wouldn't just let it go so here goes.  Do you realize the hypocrisy of your last few responses?  You go on about "proven" pulling out my quotes from another thread, even throwing something I said at someone else because they seemed to speak against your point of view.  I then mention you failed in that thread. Includeding you claiming I invented links that showed ignorance on your part (hi Glima) but you then say you like to watch me do backflips?
> 
> First posting stuff just to watch someone do backflips is practically the definition of an internet troll.  Second I have been consistent, and this standing my ground, in terms of my responses here.
> 
> You are the one who has been all over the place with illogical responses between multiple threads.  Your moving goal posts, claiming someone invented links and thus entire websites in moments because they cut he legs off a claim you made.  Lastly throwing quotes I made at someone else.  Those are the actions of the "backflipper", or a troll.  Which are you?



And again you are just coming to any conclusion you want. You dont have measurable facts. If you had measurable facts this would be a different discussion. what you have is some stories of battle.

which dont prove what you want them to prove.

Talismans are measurable in the same way martial arts is. And that is not stories. But testing.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And again you are just coming to any conclusion you want. You dont have measurable facts. If you had measurable facts this would be a different discussion. what you have is some stories of battle.
> 
> which dont prove what you want them to prove.
> 
> Talismans are measurable in the same way martial arts is. And that is not stories. But testing.


See the thing is if you let the available evidence lead you the conclusion forms itself.  That is all I am doing.  Does it contradict your preferred preconceptions yes.  Not my problem.  Regardless I am done with the circular arguments, ad hominems and strawman.  You willfully ignore the fact that for something to be able to be considered in such a context you must be able to quantify it independently which you can not do with the supernatural.  I assume it is willful because you learn this method of analysis in primary school science classes and really this has begun to bore me.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> See the thing is if you let the available evidence lead you the conclusion forms itself.  That is all I am doing.  Does it contradict your preferred preconceptions yes.  Not my problem.  Regardless I am done with the circular arguments, ad hominems and strawman.  You willfully ignore the fact that for something to be able to be considered in such a context you must be able to quantify it independently which you can not do with the supernatural.  I assume it is willful because you learn this method of analysis in primary school science classes and really this has begun to bore me.



You haven't quantified anything independently. That is the point . You came to the conclusion that if someone has used a method in battle and is still using it then it is a valid method.

Hundreds of years of testing in the battlefield i think you said. 

You can quantify the supernatural. And you can quantify martial arts.

You test it.

The issue you have is you are not using a method that does that.

Which is why the supernatural fills all the requirements of evidence that your martial arts effectiveness does.  And so like the supernatural is not supported by evidence.

You method of testing the veracity of a system fails.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You haven't quantified anything independently. That is the point . You came to the conclusion that if someone has used a method in battle and is still using it then it is a valid method.
> 
> Hundreds of years of testing in the battlefield i think you said.
> 
> You can quantify the supernatural. And you can quantify martial arts.
> 
> You test it.
> 
> The issue you have is you are not using a method that does that.
> 
> Which is why the supernatural fills all the requirements of evidence that your martial arts effectiveness does.  And so like the supernatural is not supported by evidence.
> 
> You method of testing the veracity of a system fails.


Actually I have, you just don't like the results.  I can point to the HEMA manuals that were the basis of European warfare until a fair bit into the gun powder age.  I can point to the fighting arts of Japan used during the pre-Meiji era in warfare.  In short I can point to centuries of documented History.  A History that actually acts as what in an analysis is called a Scientific control - Wikipedia when it comes to your illogical self serving rationalization because when both sides used superstition the one with the better tangible factors won.  So we have one of two paths of logic to follow.
1. The lesson of history.  Humanity evolves it's "tools" based on success and failure.  What fails is thrown out, what succeeds it kept.  Thus over time fighting methods change but those that remain have been proven by the test of time.

2. (Yours) history doesn't matter and must be dismissed because it is counter to a preconceived notion.

What is funny is that the two above are actually proof of what I said, you aren't looking at evidence, you are simply desperately trying to support a preconceived notion.  How?  Well in the other thread you assumed I was talking about striking arts and started raising grappling/wrestling arts used in warfare, not just in history but to this day, as proof you were right.  Problem is you were ignorant of the arts you named. 

Since the arts you named did not support your argument, and actually directly contradicted it, you stopped trying to argue from point 1 and simply moved the goal post to point 2 and then raised the nonsensical charm argument ignoring the fact that it is a scientific fact that charms and such can't be measured as much you are insisting they can to maintain your false premise.

#2 in this context is actually even more ridiculous and almost knee slapping funny because what your argument boils down to in the first paragraph  


> You came to the conclusion that if someone has used a method in battle and is still using it then it is a valid method.



is

"Looking at what worked in the past and then testing to see what works today using a sufficiently large data set is just stupid.  I know what works best in combat from one incident with an idiot at a bar who may or may not have actually wanted to hurt me with a a knife.  The Military and Security Forces of the World today don't know anything...They are just wasting their time with all that study of different martial arts, testing what works in actual combat and then creating a training program based on the results."

Do you see how just down right silly your argument is?  You are saying from one encounter as a bouncer you know more than professional Warriors.

That is why I said I was bored because trying to debate with someone who is capable of allowing arrogance to allow them to use denial and willfully ignorance in such a way gets boring very quickly.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> TWC actually has takedowns



That's true, but it's not the first or even second or third place I would go if I wanted to get really good at taking people down.

Nearly all the TWC "takedowns" can be found as basic or intermediate techniques in other grappling arts. The takedown application of the last Chum Kil sequence is taught by my BJJ/MMA instructor, who never took a WC lesson in his life. He teaches it as a basic underhook and head control position, to optional knees, forearms etc. strikes to the takedown to knee on belly and optional further strikes or a submission. You'd learn this in one of your first three self defence classes at his gym.

The takedown Keith Mazza does in the TWC Chin-na video we discussed offline, which appears in ASLT and elsewhere - it appeared on my Facebook feed, so it's not really private anymore - is also a basic clinch takedown and counter to the 2 on 1 and other holds, which was one of the first I was taught in BJJ class.

Bil Jee and the dummy sets have a number of takedown applications as well, but like the others, if you don't drill them as much as you drill striking they probably aren't going to work for you. I used to take people down in sparring with the seventh dummy set foot sweep (a modified osotogari) fairly regularly, but I took them down a lot more once I'd developed a decent wrestling single leg takedown strategy.

I think the stuff clicked with you because of your background in controlling and taking down subjects and your previous experience in throwing arts, not because the TWC takedown game is fantastically awesome.

While it arguably it has takedowns, it definitely does not have realistic takedown defense.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Actually I have, you just don't like the results. I can point to the HEMA manuals that were the basis of European warfare until a fair bit into the gun powder age. I can point to the fighting arts of Japan used during the pre-Meiji era in warfare. In short I can point to centuries of documented History. A History that actually acts as what in an analysis is called a Scientific control - Wikipedia .



See here is ultimately the problem you are having separating fact from fiction. We are not discussing some historical merits of a martial art. We are discussing the real time practical nature of specific movements in those arts.

You are suggesting a manual based on a war from history has done this.

A *scientific control* is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.[1] This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.

You have minimised the variables by using this method? A war recorded in history does not have variables. We have variables just interparating the pictures. And that is provided the guy drawing the pictures interparated them correctly.

You can point to manuals all you want. Reading a hema manual will not give you the practical knoledge learning a skill like fighting requires. To gain actual knowlege like does this method work? you are suggesting I belive you because you read a book on it?



Juany118 said:


> 1. The lesson of history. Humanity evolves it's "tools" based on success and failure. What fails is thrown out, what succeeds it kept. Thus over time fighting methods change but those that remain have been proven by the test of time.
> 
> 2. (Yours) history doesn't matter and must be dismissed because it is counter to a preconceived notion.



Ok lets look at you conclusion here. If humanity has had a hundred years of trial and error. And because of that the fighting methods that have remained are by definition are proven. Then you still dont explain why people are walking around with magical arm bands that stop bullets.

Now my conclusion.(And thanks for the made up one atributed to me) Is that the method of testing cannot be anywhere near as conclusive as you suggest. That the existence of magical arm bands also leads us to assume the existance of some pretty non effective martial arts concepts. Even if they were old.Even if they were used in battle and even if they were in a manual.

We would need to retest these methods.



Juany118 said:


> Looking at what worked in the past and then testing to see what works today using a sufficiently large data set is just stupid. I know what works best in combat from one incident with an idiot at a bar who may or may not have actually wanted to hurt me with a a knife. The Military and Security Forces of the World today don't know anything...They are just wasting their time with all that study of different martial arts, testing what works in actual combat and then creating a training program based on the results."
> 
> Do you see how just down right silly your argument is? You are saying from one encounter as a bouncer you know more than professional Warriors.



Ok. More made up stuff and not what I said. And why you keep getting called on it.

I have argued that " I have used it and it works" is not valid since pretty much the day I started here. And have been fought to the death over it. I had the same issue with you when the one time you used downward elbows on a guy. Everybody was cut and dried untill I used it. Then it wasnt valid. It was just hypocrisy on your part.  Honestly I have used it and read it in a manual somewhere really isn't that much better.



Juany118 said:


> That is why I said I was bored because trying to debate with someone who is capable of allowing arrogance to allow them to use denial and willfully ignorance in such a way gets boring very quickly.



No you are using them as personal attacks that are irrelevant to the discussion. How you are feeling does not really reflect on your lack of solid evidence.

Remember this whole battlefield nonsense was used to justify your methods that you claimed would let you combat a guy with a knife when you are unarmed. This is your basic fall back that you are an unarmed vs knife guy.

I have done unarmed vs knife training. And I can tell you I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.

I have fought guys with knives and won and I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.

I am get out of there vs knife guy. Most people regardless of their training are not unarmed vs knife guys.

So if you want to be an unarmed vs knife guy. You need to bring more to the party than some bloody history books.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> That's true, but it's not the first or even second or third place I would go if I wanted to get really good at taking people down.
> 
> .



I only mention the takedowns that exist in TWC as a possible reason as to why I find it easier to transition from WC to the grappling I know from other arts than those who study other Lineages of WC.  I will NEVER say TWC comes close to the grappling I know from Aikido and Judo.  Also TWC has basically no ground game.  I just wonder if the fact it has _some _ grappling makes it easier for me to use it as a bridge to my Aikido and Judo training than WC from other sources.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> See here is ultimately the problem you are having separating fact from fiction. We are not discussing some historical merits of a martial art. We are discussing the real time practical nature of specific movements in those arts.
> 
> You are suggesting a manual based on a war from history has done this.
> 
> A *scientific control* is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.[1] This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.
> 
> You have minimised the variables by using this method? A war recorded in history does not have variables. We have variables just interparating the pictures. And that is provided the guy drawing the pictures interparated them correctly.
> 
> You can point to manuals all you want. Reading a hema manual will not give you the practical knoledge learning a skill like fighting requires. To gain actual knowlege like does this method work? you are suggesting I belive you because you read a book on it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok lets look at you conclusion here. If humanity has had a hundred years of trial and error. And because of that the fighting methods that have remained are by definition are proven. Then you still dont explain why people are walking around with magical arm bands that stop bullets.
> 
> Now my conclusion.(And thanks for the made up one atributed to me) Is that the method of testing cannot be anywhere near as conclusive as you suggest. That the existence of magical arm bands also leads us to assume the existance of some pretty non effective martial arts concepts. Even if they were old.Even if they were used in battle and even if they were in a manual.
> 
> We would need to retest these methods.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. More made up stuff and not what I said. And why you keep getting called on it.
> 
> I have argued that " I have used it and it works" is not valid since pretty much the day I started here. And have been fought to the death over it. I had the same issue with you when the one time you used downward elbows on a guy. Everybody was cut and dried untill I used it. Then it wasnt valid. It was just hypocrisy on your part.  Honestly I have used it and read it in a manual somewhere really isn't that much better.
> 
> 
> 
> No you are using them as personal attacks that are irrelevant to the discussion. How you are feeling does not really reflect on your lack of solid evidence.
> 
> Remember this whole battlefield nonsense was used to justify your methods that you claimed would let you combat a guy with a knife when you are unarmed. This is your basic fall back that you are an unarmed vs knife guy.
> 
> I have done unarmed vs knife training. And I can tell you I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.
> 
> I have fought guys with knives and won and I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.
> 
> I am get out of there vs knife guy. Most people regardless of their training are not unarmed vs knife guys.
> 
> So if you want to be an unarmed vs knife guy. You need to bring more to the party than some bloody history books.



Lots of words there all of which that avoid the facts/reality of both how one uses the scientific method to evaluate things in real life and the weaknesses in your argument try to dodge this.  Such as having controls built into a wider experiment.  Example, 10 cyclists use the same performance supplements.  However you have two groups each group using a different training method and equipment.  The Performance supplement is a controlled factor.  In your case the talisman is a controlled factor.  So the equipment and training method ends up as the deciding factor.  Like I said, it's kinda boring.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> The key I think is not looking at the strategy of the art, focus on the tactics of the individual conflict, in other words, what is your purpose?
> 
> As I said before it may be a little easier for me to do so because TWC actually has takedowns, but it my purpose that makes going from striking as a bridge, to take down and control, "click".  That purpose being taking a resisting suspect into custodial arrest.  With that purpose in mind, everything a lap to control/takedown and maintaining that control simply happens.  This "clicking" actually caused me issues when I first started studying WC.
> 
> My goal was (and is) to learn WC as an independent art so I can truly understand it and thus truly integrate it with other arts and TWC starts you with learning the striking game so you have that down, before the takedown game, but initially I had an issue.  When I first started sparring I would do good WC as I bridged, but once I would inevitably transition into a take down and control when I should have continued pressing a striking attack.  The WC bridging flowed naturally into the takedowns I already knew from other arts so it was instinctive.  Now it took sometime but I can switch off "work mode" tactics and turn on "training" mode tactics.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Hi Juany,

You are losing me.  What do you mean by focusing on the purpose instead of the strategy of the art?  To me it sounds like double-talk, and from a condescending place the tone sounds like.

The purpose of a self defense art is what?  To keep you from getting your @$$ kicked.

So focus on that rather than building an instinctual reaction to either strike or clinch on bridge contact?

I don't know, man.

Your last paragraph I can relate to a little more.  This is kind of what I was talking about.  Because I grapple competitively, all of those matches I can't strike in the clinch.  So I have to force the opposite reaction there that I am building in instinctively to accommodate a sport usage of an art.  What works for me there is I kind of have to "forget" hand fighting techniques in the clinch from BJJ/Judo/Wrestling, and only keep that mindset for competitions.  That is some real mental discipline to me.  The only thing I have found that seems to help me there is that I keep a little more distance in hand fighting - like outside of normal chi sau range.  Then transition through that range quickly.


----------



## wayfaring

anerlich said:


> That's true, but it's not the first or even second or third place I would go if I wanted to get really good at taking people down.
> 
> Nearly all the TWC "takedowns" can be found as basic or intermediate techniques in other grappling arts. The takedown application of the last Chum Kil sequence is taught by my BJJ/MMA instructor, who never took a WC lesson in his life. He teaches it as a basic underhook and head control position, to optional knees, forearms etc. strikes to the takedown to knee on belly and optional further strikes or a submission. You'd learn this in one of your first three self defence classes at his gym.
> 
> The takedown Keith Mazza does in the TWC Chin-na video we discussed offline, which appears in ASLT and elsewhere - it appeared on my Facebook feed, so it's not really private anymore - is also a basic clinch takedown and counter to the 2 on 1 and other holds, which was one of the first I was taught in BJJ class.
> 
> Bil Jee and the dummy sets have a number of takedown applications as well, but like the others, if you don't drill them as much as you drill striking they probably aren't going to work for you. I used to take people down in sparring with the seventh dummy set foot sweep (a modified osotogari) fairly regularly, but I took them down a lot more once I'd developed a decent wrestling single leg takedown strategy.
> 
> I think the stuff clicked with you because of your background in controlling and taking down subjects and your previous experience in throwing arts, not because the TWC takedown game is fantastically awesome.
> 
> While it arguably it has takedowns, it definitely does not have realistic takedown defense.



anerlich knows what's up here.  as a bjj black belt he has more than a surface understanding of the clinch, takedown, and grappling concepts.

I have a little exposure to TWC, through forum discussion and also Dale Vits in our Hung Fa Yi instructors group is also from a TWC sifu background.  He does the TWC 1st form on the SNT comparison video we have out there on another thread.    Of the TWC leadership I'm familiar with Phil Redmond, Keith Mazza, and Victor Parlati.  I haven't met GM Cheung.

As a little interesting side note, many people have compared HFY and TWC in the past.  Some have even spread rumors as to some secret connection of instructors.  This past year, GM Garrett Gee took the time in a full weekend worksh op with the instructors to highlight for us the difference.  One key area is basically we do not teach or utilize the TWC blind side concept.   As far as TWC history, after that weekend my perspective is that I believe what GM Cheung has said - he was taught by Yip Man, and taught different concepts.

anerlich awesome breakdown of these crossover areas.  In general what I have seen is very beginner or fundamental grappling techniques trying to be taught as "anti-grappling".  So you have a rank beginner trying to stop even a high school wrestler with very fundamental techniques and not very much skill via repetition.  It usually fails in a MMA, free sparring, or self defense scenario.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> Hi Juany,
> 
> You are losing me.  What do you mean by focusing on the purpose instead of the strategy of the art?  To me it sounds like double-talk, and from a condescending place the tone sounds like.
> 
> The purpose of a self defense art is what?  To keep you from getting your @$$ kicked.
> 
> So focus on that rather than building an instinctual reaction to either strike or clinch on bridge contact?
> 
> I don't know, man.
> 
> Your last paragraph I can relate to a little more.  This is kind of what I was talking about.  Because I grapple competitively, all of those matches I can't strike in the clinch.  So I have to force the opposite reaction there that I am building in instinctively to accommodate a sport usage of an art.  What works for me there is I kind of have to "forget" hand fighting techniques in the clinch from BJJ/Judo/Wrestling, and only keep that mindset for competitions.  That is some real mental discipline to me.  The only thing I have found that seems to help me there is that I keep a little more distance in hand fighting - like outside of normal chi sau range.  Then transition through that range quickly.


I think his point is, if you focus on the specific tactics of an art (angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA) or its overall strategy (mostly strikes vs. mostly grappling), those may cause conflicts. If, instead, you focus on the situation and your needs (so, again, for him, it's usually getting someone into cuffs), then the arts blend together more naturally, since you simply instinctively choose each next move based on what will get you closer to that goal.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Hi Juany,
> 
> You are losing me.  What do you mean by focusing on the purpose instead of the strategy of the art?  To me it sounds like double-talk, and from a condescending place the tone sounds like.
> 
> The purpose of a self defense art is what?  To keep you from getting your @$$ kicked.
> 
> So focus on that rather than building an instinctual reaction to either strike or clinch on bridge contact?
> 
> I don't know, man.
> 
> Your last paragraph I can relate to a little more.  This is kind of what I was talking about.  Because I grapple competitively, all of those matches I can't strike in the clinch.  So I have to force the opposite reaction there that I am building in instinctively to accommodate a sport usage of an art.  What works for me there is I kind of have to "forget" hand fighting techniques in the clinch from BJJ/Judo/Wrestling, and only keep that mindset for competitions.  That is some real mental discipline to me.  The only thing I have found that seems to help me there is that I keep a little more distance in hand fighting - like outside of normal chi sau range.  Then transition through that range quickly.


Is not double talk, it's the old soldier current cop talking.  There is a difference, in those fields, between strategy and tactics.  Strategy is the overall plan.  As an example WWII Pacific theater with Carrier based air superiority supporting an island hopping campaign.  However when the troops hit the beach it's a multitude of squads using small unit tactics, as they are storming that beach, to achieve the goals of the overall strategy.

Now remember one thing, while no where near as in depth as the Aikido or Judo I have studied TWC does have grappling and takedowns.  This is important for establishing context.

When determining tactics one needs to know the immediate goal you are trying to achieve.  So if my goal is simply beating my opponent I may just focus on the striking aspects and use tactics/techniques to support that.  If my goal is to apprehend someone, within the rules governing my use of force, I may simply use the striking tactically as a bridge to enter grappling.

Now would the transition from striking to grappling be as smooth with other styles of Wing Chun?  I won't comment because the bulk of my personal experience is in TWC.  

I also think remember I see it as a transitioning is also important.  It's not applying Wing Chun principles to my grappling.  I use WC to enter/bridge but once I am grappling my mind set is an amalgamation of Aikido, Judo and Kali.  The fact TWC has grappling (even if it would be seen as simply entry level to intermediate in Aikido and Judo as @anerlich noted quite rightly) simply makes that transition feel smooth to me BUT it is a transition from one art to another, not trying to apply the principles of one art onto another.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is, if you focus on the specific tactics of an art (angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA) or its overall strategy (mostly strikes vs. mostly grappling), those may cause conflicts. If, instead, you focus on the situation and your needs (so, again, for him, it's usually getting someone into cuffs), then the arts blend together more naturally, since you simply instinctively choose each next move based on what will get you closer to that goal.




Exactly.  I think what happens is that sometimes people confabulate strategy and tactics.  While tactics are informed by and serve strategy, they are still a thing in and of itself.


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is, if you focus on the specific tactics of an art (angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA) or its overall strategy (mostly strikes vs. mostly grappling), those may cause conflicts. If, instead, you focus on the situation and your needs (so, again, for him, it's usually getting someone into cuffs), then the arts blend together more naturally, since you simply instinctively choose each next move based on what will get you closer to that goal.



Right.  I think my point was that I am experiencing the exact same scenarios with contact on the bridge utilizing 2 arts with different goals - 1 to clinch, take down, and the other to strike and maintain control.   No, 2 arts to not blend together more naturally where you simply instinctively choose each next move that will get you closer to that goal, when "that goal" is in fact "2 goals".

You sound like you understand another guys posts well enough to explain them but don't understand mine.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> Is not double talk, it's the old soldier current cop talking.  There is a difference, in those fields, between strategy and tactics.  Strategy is the overall plan.  As an example WWII Pacific theater with Carrier based air superiority supporting an island hopping campaign.  However when the troops hit the beach it's a multitude of squads using small unit tactics, as they are storming that beach, to achieve the goals of the overall strategy.
> 
> Now remember one thing, while no where near as in depth as the Aikido or Judo I have studied TWC does have grappling and takedowns.  This is important for establishing context.
> 
> When determining tactics one needs to know the immediate goal you are trying to achieve.  So if my goal is simply beating my opponent I may just focus on the striking aspects and use tactics/techniques to support that.  If my goal is to apprehend someone, within the rules governing my use of force, I may simply use the striking tactically as a bridge to enter grappling.
> 
> Now would the transition from striking to grappling be as smooth with other styles of Wing Chun?  I won't comment because the bulk of my personal experience is in TWC.
> 
> I also think remember I see it as a transitioning is also important.  It's not applying Wing Chun principles to my grappling.  I use WC to enter/bridge but once I am grappling my mind set is an amalgamation of Aikido, Judo and Kali.  The fact TWC has grappling (even if it would be seen as simply entry level to intermediate in Aikido and Judo as @anerlich noted quite rightly) simply makes that transition feel smooth to me BUT it is a transition from one art to another, not trying to apply the principles of one art onto another.



Now there is a new term you are inserting here, strategy and "tactics" that somehow we are confused about but you use interchangeably with "purpose"  but are completely enlightened on?  

Come on now, man.  Double-talk.

TWC's grappling and takedowns are basically cr@p, as you just heard pronounced by a TWC sifu that is also a BJJ black belt.  I actually haven't seen them, so can't comment but the guy commenting is solid.  I would recommend Gracie Combatives for LEO's to train self defense grappling, instead of TWC forms.  

As a LEO apprehending someone you are talking about a completely different thing chasing down a perp and cuffing him than protecting yourself in a self-defense scenario where your pirmary reaction may or may not work.  Although from what I have observed I will agree that due to the poor conditioning and inadequate training of LEO's in general, they may get confused thinking their life is in danger after a long sprint and struggle to handcuff a perp.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Right.  I think my point was that I am experiencing the exact same scenarios with contact on the bridge utilizing 2 arts with different goals - 1 to clinch, take down, and the other to strike and maintain control.   No, 2 arts to not blend together more naturally where you simply instinctively choose each next move that will get you closer to that goal, when "that goal" is in fact "2 goals".
> 
> You sound like you understand another guys posts well enough to explain them but don't understand mine.



My point, and I think @gpseymour understands this from previous conversations is that while TWC is a style of WC (and thus focuses more on striking) there is also training in grappling for actual use, not simply for control to strike as I learned under Gary Lam's version of WSLVT.  As stated the grappling at best basic to intermediate level when compared to grappling arts but the mindset is built in to go from striking to grappling if required.

Because of this it's not a matter of saying "WC is for striking" because I have been trained you can also use it for grappling.  The difference is my grappling toolbox is bigger because I have studied grappling arts.  Additionally I have the ingrained habit from almost 20 years (19 in Feb to be exact) to end every fight with grappling/cuffing.  As such I train with this in mind.

Now I may also be lucky.   My Sifu/Guro is someone who knows the value of making sure the students also know the grappling game of TWC.  He then expands on this in Kali, likely because if you are unarmed and your opponent is armed being able to use the grappling game is pretty much a necessity.  We are actually hosting a seminar in Feb on combatives grappling (fast bridging to takedowns, air and blood chokes, dislocations etc.) with and with out knives in Feb.  The curriculum will be a combination of TWC and Kali, the later having a more evolved grappling game than the former.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  I think what happens is that sometimes people confabulate strategy and tactics.  While tactics are informed by and serve strategy, they are still a thing in and of itself.



What I think happens is that people get all confused over strategy and tactics to the point they freeze up and get punched in the keester.

Witnessing that is a thing in and of itself.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Now there is a new term you are inserting here, strategy and "tactics" that somehow we are confused about but you use interchangeably with "purpose"  but are completely enlightened on?
> 
> Come on now, man.  Double-talk.
> 
> TWC's grappling and takedowns are basically cr@p, as you just heard pronounced by a TWC sifu that is also a BJJ black belt.  I actually haven't seen them, so can't comment but the guy commenting is solid.  I would recommend Gracie Combatives for LEO's to train self defense grappling, instead of TWC forms.
> 
> As a LEO apprehending someone you are talking about a completely different thing chasing down a perp and cuffing him than protecting yourself in a self-defense scenario where your pirmary reaction may or may not work.  Although from what I have observed I will agree that due to the poor conditioning and inadequate training of LEO's in general, they may get confused thinking their life is in danger after a long sprint and struggle to handcuff a perp.



You didn't read all of what he said or what I said. 



anerlich said:


> Nearly all the TWC "takedowns" can be found as basic or intermediate techniques in other grappling arts...
> 
> 
> I think the stuff clicked with you because of your background in controlling and taking down subjects and your previous experience in throwing arts...
> 
> While it arguably it has takedowns, it definitely does not have realistic takedown defense.



Yes the grappling is novice to intermediate.  I also openly admit it has little realistic takedown defense.   hHe knows, and I said, that I use the grappling I learned from Aikido, Judo and am still studying in Kali.  The point is since the grappling is in TWC it doesn't have an exclusive striking mindset and thus teaches you to transition from striking to grappling.  I dont use TWC grappling once I am there but the curriculum teaches you to get to that point.  Once there it takes no effort to go to the superior grappling skills I learn(ed) from other arts.

Simply because you have some difficulty making the transition may be because of a difference in our WC's, I know basically nothing about yours.  It could be my practical on the job experience making it easier for me.  Who knows, all I know is that the transition simply flows.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> My point, and I think @gpseymour understands this from previous conversations is that while TWC is a style of WC (and thus focuses more on striking) there is also training in grappling for actual use, not simply for control to strike as I learned under Gary Lam's version of WSLVT.  As stated the grappling at best basic to intermediate level when compared to grappling arts but the mindset is built in to go from striking to grappling if required.
> 
> Because of this it's not a matter of saying "WC is for striking" because I have been trained you can also use it for grappling.  The difference is my grappling toolbox is bigger because I have studied grappling arts.  Additionally I have the ingrained habit from almost 20 years (19 in Feb to be exact) to end every fight with grappling/cuffing.  As such I train with this in mind.
> 
> Now I may also be lucky.   My Sifu/Guro is someone who knows the value of making sure the students also know the grappling game of TWC.  He then expands on this in Kali, likely because if you are unarmed and your opponent is armed being able to use the grappling game is pretty much a necessity.  We are actually hosting a seminar in Feb on combatives grappling (fast bridging to takedowns, air and blood chokes, dislocations etc.) with and with out knives in Feb.  The curriculum will be a combination of TWC and Kali, the later having a more evolved grappling game than the former.



My input here is that if you are investing time in "knowing the grappling game of TWC" that you should also "know the BJJ culture of tapping out", because you're going to become very experienced at tapping like a drummer in a parade.

Aikido has decent concepts but no delivery system.  I train BJJ with several old school aikido trained senseis who train BJJ for that reason only.  They can still wristlock like a mofo but for self defense aikido seems to be more effective at making men in skirts flip at invisible contact.  What aikido have you studied?

Judo is a deep and effective ground art, but the quality varies greatly.  I train occasionally with the national team on their Friday interact with the community day.  They are monsters.   What is your judo background?


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> You didn't read all of what he said or what I said.
> 
> Yes the grappling is novice to intermediate.  I also openly admit it has little realistic takedown defense.   hHe knows, and I said, that I use the grappling I learned from Aikido, Judo and am still studying in Kali.  The point is since the grappling is in TWC it doesn't have an exclusive striking mindset and thus teaches you to transition from striking to grappling.  I dont use TWC grappling once I am there but the curriculum teaches you to get to that point.  Once there it takes no effort to go to the superior grappling skills I learn(ed) from other arts.
> 
> Simply because you have some difficulty making the transition may be because of a difference in our WC's, I know basically nothing about yours.  It could be my practical on the job experience making it easier for me.  Who knows, all I know is that the transition simply flows.


I carefully read everything both of you said, which is why I picked up you switching terms from "purpose" to "tactics".

I think the fact that you think that what I shared represents a "difficulty making the transition" shows you view things pretty condescendingly and don't grasp what I am saying.

So you are a newer TWC student with some other background?  I think you might run into some challenges there internally with your own TWC sifus in describing that art as not having a primarily striking mindset.   I don't know what an "exclusive striking mindset" is.  This is more double-talk to me.  TWC does not teach you hand fighting leading to a clinch towards a takedown strategy or goal or whatever other term you want to use.

What is your judo and aikido background?


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> My input here is that if you are investing time in "knowing the grappling game of TWC" that you should also "know the BJJ culture of tapping out", because you're going to become very experienced at tapping like a drummer in a parade.
> 
> Aikido has decent concepts but no delivery system.  I train BJJ with several old school aikido trained sifus who train BJJ for that reason only.  They can still wristlock like a mofo but for self defense aikido seems to be more effective at making men in skirts flip at invisible contact.  What aikido have you studied?
> 
> Judo is a deep and effective ground art, but the quality varies greatly.  I train occasionally with the national team on their Friday interact with the community day.  They are monsters.   What is your judo background?



I studied Aikido under a Sensei who definitely learned more towards to Daito-ryu Aiki-Ju Jitsu side as he was very experienced in both.  His attitude is summed up by this statement of his; "if you can be soft be soft, if you have to be hard be hard.  However you don't make that decision, your opponent tells you which you need to be.". He didn't teach the "hard" however until you reached 4th Kyu, he wanted to make sure you new how to minimize the risk of injury to self or others before he went there. He stopped teaching just as I was ready to test for 1st Kyu and all the other schools in the area were "flippers" so it was off to Judo.

My Judo experience was under a former member of the USA Judo promotion board as well as a certified referee and coach.  I didn't go as far with Judo formally because I moved for my job.  In either case I kept practicing it would just be me using those skills sparring with co-workers who either study BJJ or were very good collegiate wrestlers.  Now the bulk of my grappling comes from Kali.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> I carefully read everything both of you said, which is why I picked up you switching terms from "purpose" to "tactics".
> 
> I think the fact that you think that what I shared represents a "difficulty making the transition" shows you view things pretty condescendingly and don't grasp what I am saying.
> 
> So you are a newer TWC student with some other background?  I think you might run into some challenges there internally with your own TWC sifus in describing that art as not having a primarily striking mindset.   I don't know what an "exclusive striking mindset" is.  This is more double-talk to me.  TWC does not teach you hand fighting leading to a clinch towards a takedown strategy or goal or whatever other term you want to use.
> 
> What is your judo and aikido background?



Well newer to TWC vs my experience in Aikido, where I was closing in on 1st Dan.  As for condescending I am simply trying to figure out why you insist transition from your WC to grappling is hard and causes hesitation and I don't have said issue.  Now if you don't mean this as a universal thing, my bad, but it seems like you are saying it is impossible to smoothly transition from one to the other is impossible.

So with that in mind I have seen more than once on these forums people confabulating strategy and tactics, putting too much weight on the strategy of the art.  If that isn't the case alright.  I also know there can be big differences between different arts that carry the same name, in this case Wing Chun.  I know nothing about your particular style of WC so that could be an option. 

As an example, regarding exclusive striking mind set, if you ask the WSLVT people, who study under the Philipp Bayer school, they will straight up tell you Wing Chun has NO grappling, that it is literally all about striking.  PB even says that himself in an interview.  So it's not word games, there are Lineages that do nothing but striking.  I know nothing about your lineage and so don't know if it follows that kind of mindset.  So it isn't a word game, it's something people have specifically stated regarding their WC.

Now,especially with Kali, I study arts that actually teach a transition from striking to control/grappling.  I try to keep that a more vertical game but if I end up having to go to the ground (which I avoid like the plague due to job specific issues).

Maybe that's part of the other issue.  For me when I refer to grappling I am also speaking of more verticals kneeling and  standing grappling/control. I try to use my knowledge of grappling to avoid the ground fight entirely due to all the gear I wear at work.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> Well newer to TWC vs my experience in Aikido, where I was closing in on 1st Dan.  As for condescending I am simply trying to figure out why you insist transition from your WC to grappling is hard and causes hesitation and I don't have said issue.  I have seen more than once on these forums people confabulating strategy and tactics, putting too much weight on the strategy of the art.  If that isn't the case alright.  I also know there can be big differences between different arts that carry the same name, in this case Wing Chun.  I know nothing about your particular style of WC so that could be an option.
> 
> My point is you appear to be saying something is an impossibility and I see it as something that works.  I was just trying to figure out the reason for the different experiences.



Because I don't "insist transition from my WC to grappling is hard and causes hesitation".   Nor do I say it doesn't work.  I hand fight all the time in competitive grappling competitions down to daily training matches.   I even described a nuance of how i hand fight so that it works in congruence with my wing chun training.

I would postulate that you are trying to use TWC as a system to set up grappling, which it was not designed for.  Any flow you think you are seeing now is because you are basically hand fighting.    And yes, chi sau and wing chun can make you better a hand fighting.  But the problem with hand fighting is it violates a basic tenet of wing chun to fight on the centerline and not chase hands.   So I would say you are experiencing an illusion that will dissolve in a couple years in your training.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Because I don't "insist transition from my WC to grappling is hard and causes hesitation".   Nor do I say it doesn't work.  I hand fight all the time in competitive grappling competitions down to daily training matches.   I even described a nuance of how i hand fight so that it works in congruence with my wing chun training.
> 
> I would postulate that you are trying to use TWC as a system to set up grappling, which it was not designed for.  Any flow you think you are seeing now is because you are basically hand fighting.    And yes, chi sau and wing chun can make you better a hand fighting.  But the problem with hand fighting is it violates a basic tenet of wing chun to fight on the centerline and not chase hands.   So I would say you are experiencing an illusion that will dissolve in a couple years in your training.



On the first part, fair enough.  I misread and my apologies for that.

On the last my Sifu teaches using the striking to bridge and "soften up" the target as a viable tool to then transition to control/grappling, if that is appropriate.  This teaching is supported by the US Representative of GM William Cheung since he also teaches such techniques in class and at his own Chin Na seminars.  As such I don't think there is going to be some revelation that will dissolve an alleged illusion.  Note: this may be because they both teach TWC but then they will stop and say "and this is what you may have to do in a real self defense scenario." One example, Master Keith Mazza will often say at seminars that while he is doing things from the picture perfect stance with a proper man/wu... "no one will actually fight like this on the street", referring to the perfect man/wu.

The only difference that happens for me personally is that once I enter grappling is that I draw upon a deeper tool box of than someone at a different TWC school because of the Kali my current school teaches in parallel (not hybridized) with WC and my previous experience with Aikido and Judo. /Shrug


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> Well newer to TWC vs my experience in Aikido, where I was closing in on 1st Dan.  As for condescending I am simply trying to figure out why you insist transition from your WC to grappling is hard and causes hesitation and I don't have said issue.  Now if you don't mean this as a universal thing, my bad, but it seems like you are saying it is impossible to smoothly transition from one to the other is impossible.
> 
> So with that in mind I have seen more than once on these forums people confabulating strategy and tactics, putting too much weight on the strategy of the art.  If that isn't the case alright.  I also know there can be big differences between different arts that carry the same name, in this case Wing Chun.  I know nothing about your particular style of WC so that could be an option.
> 
> As an example, regarding exclusive striking mind set, if you ask the WSLVT people, who study under the Philipp Bayer school, they will straight up tell you Wing Chun has NO grappling, that it is literally all about striking.  PB even says that himself in an interview.  So it's not word games, there are Lineages that do nothing but striking.  I know nothing about your lineage and so don't know if it follows that kind of mindset.  So it isn't a word game, it's something people have specifically stated regarding their WC.
> 
> Now,especially with Kali, I study arts that actually teach a transition from striking to control/grappling.  I try to keep that a more vertical game but if I end up having to go to the ground (which I avoid like the plague due to job specific issues).
> 
> Maybe that's part of the other issue.  For me when I refer to grappling I am also speaking of more verticals kneeling and  standing grappling/control. I try to use my knowledge of grappling to avoid the ground fight entirely due to all the gear I wear at work.



What would I say about Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun as it pertains to grappling from my understanding?  As a close quarter striking art what I would say is that it has a kind of anti grappling.  By that I mean that we deal with contact on the bridge.  Our particular skillsets we develop on the bridge make it a lot more difficult to effectively hand fight.  That is what I mean by anti grappling.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> What would I say about Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun as it pertains to grappling from my understanding?  As a close quarter striking art what I would say is that it has a kind of anti grappling.  By that I mean that we deal with contact on the bridge.  Our particular skillsets we develop on the bridge make it a lot more difficult to effectively hand fight.  That is what I mean by anti grappling.




Okay that makes things much more clear.  The only thing I know about your lineage is that, from videos I have seen, there are a couple things shared in the form that aren't in other WC Lineages I have seen.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wayfaring said:


> you are trying to use TWC as a system to set up grappling, which it was not designed for.


You have assumed that WC is your master and you are it's slave. What if you are the master and WC is your slave?

1. When you punch, your opponent blocks, 
2. you use the other hand to grab and pull his blocking arm,
3. You use your punching hand to push on his blocking arm shoulder.
4. You use your leg to "spring" his leg, and
5. take him down.

I'm pretty sure 1, 2, 3 are used in WC. Whether 4 and 5 are also used in in WC depend on your "cross training" experience. The nice thing about "striking and grappling integration" is a punch is no longer just a punch. It can be used to "set up something else". After you have realized that, if your opponent blocks or dodges your punch, it won't bother you because you can still do something else.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have assumed that WC is your master and you are it's slave. What if you are the master and WC is your slave?
> 
> 1. When you punch, your opponent blocks,
> 2. you use the other hand to grab and pull his blocking arm,
> 3. You use your punching hand to push on his blocking arm shoulder.
> 4. You use your leg to "spring" his leg, and
> 5. take him down.
> 
> I'm pretty sure 1, 2, 3 are used in WC. Whether 4 and 5 are also used in in WC depend on your "cross training" experience. The nice thing about "striking and grappling integration" is a punch is no longer just a punch. It can be used to "set up something else". After you have realized that, if your opponent blocks or dodges your punch, it won't bother you because you can still do something else.




It is part of TWC, another complaint from one of the threads with the WSLVT-PB crowd was the criticism of not only the blind side but that TWC wastes time/effort, trying to trap to open a path to strike.  This however is one of the reasons it is not to much of a leap to go from a temporary trap to actual control of that limb.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> It is part of TWC, another complaint from one of the threads with the WSLVT-PB crowd was the criticism of not only the blind side but that TWC wastes time/effort, trying to trap to open a path to strike.  This however is one of the reasons it is not to much of a leap to go from a temporary trap to actual control of that limb.


It is my opinion that once you learn a methodology and a system, it is yours to do with as you like.  Even if you figure out how to do some things with it that simply "aren't done" with it.

But I'm just a fellow on the internet with an opinion, and don't really know much.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> It is part of TWC, ...


Some take downs are hidden in the striking art training. It's up to the individual to dig it out. I'm sure all MA systems have a similar move like this.

When your

- both hands are moving in opposite directions (such as push and pull), or
- one hand and one leg are moving in opposite directions (such as push and kick back),

most likely, that's a take down.








Juany118 said:


> it is not to much of a leap to go from a temporary trap to actual control of that limb.


This is why I think WC sticky hand is a good starting point. But one should not just end right there. My striking art teacher didn't help me to integrate grappling into it. My grappling art teacher didn't help me to integrate the striking into it either. I had to do that all by myself.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> On the first part, fair enough.  I misread and my apologies for that.
> 
> On the last my Sifu teaches using the striking to bridge and "soften up" the target as a viable tool tk then transition to control/grappling.  This teaching is supported by the US Representative of GM William Cheung since he also teaches such techniques in class and at his own Chin Na seminars.  As such I don't think there is going to be some revelation that will dissolve an alleged illusion.
> 
> The only difference that happens for me personally is that once I enter grappling is that I draw upon a deeper tool box of than someone at a different TWC school because of the Kali my current school teaches in parallel (not hybridized) with WC and my previous experience with Aikido and Judo. /Shrug



Hmmmm.  GM Cheung.  Chin na.   What I will observe about that is history shows us I'd do better studying grappling with Boztepe, who at least spent 7 months with Gokor Chivichyan at the Hayastan Academy prior to their encounter, with predictable results on the ground.  But you are absolutely right.  There may never be any dissolution to that illusion.  

But my bet is on that your viewpoint will change over time.  

Oh and I get where the double-talk comes from.  One of your old sifus.  

As a side story, your "softening up" talk reminds me of a seminar with Royce Gracie.   He was teaching taking the back, sink hooks in, and then slap the guy on bottom around a bit to "soften them up" and get them to stop protecting their neck for a choke.  Then finish with the RNC.   A lot of the time he was talking there was this one purple belt younger guy who was also talking to the guy next to him really loud while Royce was talking.   He also asked Royce if we were going to spar during the seminar.   You could see Royce getting more and more irritated by the look on his face.  So Royce answers "Yes, we are sparring, also add in open hand slaps".   He pairs up with this purple belt kid and proceeds to slap him around with open hand slaps more than his mama ever did growing up.   After 6 minutes I never saw a quiter kid through the rest of the seminar.  Me, I was just sitting there trying not to die laughing.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Hmmmm.  GM Cheung.  Chin na.   What I will observe about that is history shows us I'd do better studying grappling with Boztepe, who at least spent 7 months with Gokor Chivichyan at the Hayastan Academy prior to their encounter, with predictable results on the ground.  But you are absolutely right.  There may never be any dissolution to that illusion.
> 
> But my bet is on that your viewpoint will change over time.
> 
> Oh and I get where the double-talk comes from.  One of your old sifus.
> 
> As a side story, your "softening up" talk reminds me of a seminar with Royce Gracie.   He was teaching taking the back, sink hooks in, and then slap the guy on bottom around a bit to "soften them up" and get them to stop protecting their neck for a choke.  Then finish with the RNC.   A lot of the time he was talking there was this one purple belt younger guy who was also talking to the guy next to him really loud while Royce was talking.   He also asked Royce if we were going to spar during the seminar.   You could see Royce getting more and more irritated by the look on his face.  So Royce answers "Yes, we are sparring, also add in open hand slaps".   He pairs up with this purple belt kid and proceeds to slap him around with open hand slaps more than his mama ever did growing up.   After 6 minutes I never saw a quiter kid through the rest of the seminar.  Me, I was just sitting there trying not to die laughing.



Well I would only say, on the first point, to my knowledge the grappling started getting integrated after that, and perhaps as a result of, that incident (though that incident is a conversation all on its own  )

As for the "double talk" I still confused by that. Admittedly I appear to have made some assumptions regarding possible or our differences but those were based on having to deal with other people who actually do not understand the difference between strategy and will make Global statements that this must by definition be how it works for everyone. You actually get that last bit a lot around here. And again for that mea culpa.

That said I will be honest here.  If I didn't already have what has shown to be a "street solid" (no clue formal competition solid) grappling game, being reinforced with Kali, I would not rely on TWC grappling unless forced to.  It would likely work well on your average brawler/street fighter but a formally trained grappler?  Not so much. 

My only point is the way TWC is taught to me it has what amounts to a built in transition to grappling that I can exploit with the superior grappling skills of other arts.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have assumed that WC is your master and you are it's slave. What if you are the master and WC is your slave?
> 
> 1. When you punch, your opponent blocks,
> 2. you use the other hand to grab and pull his blocking arm,
> 3. You use your punching hand to push on his blocking arm shoulder.
> 4. You use your leg to "spring" his leg, and
> 5. take him down.
> 
> I'm pretty sure 1, 2, 3 are used in WC. Whether 4 and 5 are also used in in WC depend on your "cross training" experience. The nice thing about "striking and grappling integration" is a punch is no longer just a punch. It can be used to "set up something else". After you have realized that, if your opponent blocks or dodges your punch, it won't bother you because you can still do something else.



What if you are the master, and your slave is confused because you just gave him contradictory orders and he tries to go one way and then the other and then gets punched in his lips?

You can do what you want.  As for me, I'm going to strike in the clinches, and if someone shoots on me I will sprawl on them, grind their face into the ground, circle to take the back, and mata leon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> Right.  I think my point was that I am experiencing the exact same scenarios with contact on the bridge utilizing 2 arts with different goals - 1 to clinch, take down, and the other to strike and maintain control.   No, 2 arts to not blend together more naturally where you simply instinctively choose each next move that will get you closer to that goal, when "that goal" is in fact "2 goals".
> 
> You sound like you understand another guys posts well enough to explain them but don't understand mine.



You're looking at the goal of the art. Look at your goal in the moment, instead. Do you want to take them down? Then the bridge tot the clinch is probably your natural bridge. I've never had any issue blending in new bits in to my personal stuff using that approach. 

It might be a difference in overall mindset, too. No approach works for everyone.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wayfaring said:


> What if you are the master, and your slave is confused because ...


When the distance is

- far, you can kick or punch.
- close, you can lock or throw.

This is just general MA rule and there is no confuse there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> Because I don't "insist transition from my WC to grappling is hard and causes hesitation".   Nor do I say it doesn't work.  I hand fight all the time in competitive grappling competitions down to daily training matches.   I even described a nuance of how i hand fight so that it works in congruence with my wing chun training.
> 
> I would postulate that you are trying to use TWC as a system to set up grappling, which it was not designed for.  Any flow you think you are seeing now is because you are basically hand fighting.    And yes, chi sau and wing chun can make you better a hand fighting.  But the problem with hand fighting is it violates a basic tenet of wing chun to fight on the centerline and not chase hands.   So I would say you are experiencing an illusion that will dissolve in a couple years in your training.


You commented that Juany's was being condescending - something I never read in his posts. Your last paragraph here, on the other hand, comes across as you predicting that he is mis-applying principles of TWC and will come to realize this when he is good enough. That comes across as significantly condescending, especially when paired with the "double-talk" comments. Since you pointed out where someone seemed condescending, I thought you'd want to know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> What if you are the master, and your slave is confused because you just gave him contradictory orders and he tries to go one way and then the other and then gets punched in his lips?
> 
> You can do what you want.  As for me, I'm going to strike in the clinches, and if someone shoots on me I will sprawl on them, grind their face into the ground, circle to take the back, and mata leon.


Since "the slave" in KFW's metaphor is the art, this doesn't make sense. Arts don't get confused. People do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> You're looking at the goal of the art.


This is why I always like to ask, "Are you the master, or are your style the master?" Your goal may not always be the goal of your style.


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> You're looking at the goal of the art. Look at your goal in the moment, instead. Do you want to take them down? Then the bridge tot the clinch is probably your natural bridge. I've never had any issue blending in new bits in to my personal stuff using that approach.
> 
> It might be a difference in overall mindset, too. No approach works for everyone.



Now this guy is genuinely funny.  Lecturing me while talking about blending in "new bits" to his "personal stuff".  

I guess it is genuinely very difficult for some people to see how in a split second you can't be wired to pursue 2 goals, strategies, purposes, tactics or whatever other synonyms you guys want to switch up to for confusing the issue to argue about.


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> Since "the slave" in KFW's metaphor is the art, this doesn't make sense. Arts don't get confused. People do.



Hahahahaha.  Dude, you interpret KFW's metaphors too?  Are you two like "a thing"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> Now this guy is genuinely funny.  Lecturing me while talking about blending in "new bits" to his "personal stuff".
> 
> I guess it is genuinely very difficult for some people to see how in a split second you can't be wired to pursue 2 goals, strategies, purposes, tactics or whatever other synonyms you guys want to switch up to for confusing the issue to argue about.


Oddly, in spite of your condescension, I never have that problem. I'm either going for a strike or for limb control as a primary goal. My art doesn't control that - I do. Your lack of comprehension and belligerent attitude is amusing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> Hahahahaha.  Dude, you interpret KFW's metaphors too?  Are you two like "a thing"?


Are you, like, an ***?


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I always like to ask, "Are you the master, or are your style the master?" Your goal may not always be the goal of your style.



This is always why I like to ask, "is this forum full of masters"?



gpseymour said:


> Oddly, in spite of your condescension, I never have that problem. I'm either going for a strike or for limb control as a primary goal. My art doesn't control that - I do. Your lack of comprehension and belligerent attitude is amusing.



And apparently full of MMA fighters too.  Who perfectly blend dissimilar arts seamlessly.

It's cool - I'm seeing who i can interact with and not, being newer to this forum.  I guess maybe pretty similar to KFO before activity died down there, except for I keep seeing some people banned here post over there now.  Matter of fact it could be these 2 characters here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wayfaring said:


> This is always why I like to ask, "is this forum full of masters"?
> 
> 
> 
> And apparently full of MMA fighters too.  Who perfectly blend dissimilar arts seamlessly.
> 
> It's cool - I'm seeing who i can interact with and not, being newer to this forum.  I guess maybe pretty similar to KFO before activity died down there, except for I keep seeing some people banned here post over there now.  Matter of fact it could be these 2 characters here.


Interesting. Nobody has ever made it to my "ignore" list in one day. Well played!


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> Are you, like, an ***?



I'm just saying that I don't even attempt to interpret and translate my own wife's metaphors.   So you doing that for KFW, I'm just asking you if there is anything behind that?  I mean if so I'll be extra cautious not to insult him when you are around.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Now this guy is genuinely funny.  Lecturing me while talking about blending in "new bits" to his "personal stuff".
> 
> I guess it is genuinely very difficult for some people to see how in a split second you can't be wired to pursue 2 goals, strategies, purposes, tactics or whatever other synonyms you guys want to switch up to for confusing the issue to argue about.



First the guy you just said was funny is actually a Sensei in a hybrid Japanese Martial Art.  Second he makes it a personal practice to blend elements from other arts that make sense.  As an example, the Master who is GM William Cheung's Representative in America showed some ideas @gpseymour liked here, he even saw the same ideas existing to an extent in the art he teaches.






 Wing Chun and an art founded in Aikido sharing a similarity in the eyes of a Sensei? Since you put so much weight in Anerlich being a Sifu I hope you will show equal respect.


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. Nobody has ever made it to my "ignore" list in one day. Well played!



Thanks for confirming your troll identity!  I didn't recognize you at first from KFO, but you are coming back to my recollection.  I love "ignore" lists.  Tools of the "ignore" ant.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> Thanks for confirming your troll identity!  I didn't recognize you at first from KFO, but you are coming back to my recollection.  I love "ignore" lists.  Tools of the "ignore" ant.



They are actually 2 different people to those who actually know the lay of the land around here and your response there has likely seen yourself added to more than a few "mental ignore" or "website based ignore" lists


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> First the guy you just said was funny is actually a Sensei in a hybrid Japanese Martial Art.  Second he makes it a personal practice to blend elements from other arts that make sense.  As an example, the Master who is GM William Cheung's Representative in America showed some ideas @gpseymour liked here, he even saw the same ideas existing to an extent in the art he teaches.
> 
> Wing Chun and an art founded in Aikido sharing a similarity in the eyes of a Sensei? Since you put so much weight in Anerlich being a Sifu I hope you will show equal respect.



From my perspective I don't know him from Adam - gpseymour.   I saw 2 seperate posts from him that were thick and condescending.   I confronted that.  I do admit that to me his explaining someone else's metaphor condescendingly was obnoxious enough to me to ask about it, but by that time he had already blown up and put me on his ignore list.  Condescendingly.  With the word Interesting.  While telling me I am being condescending.

Believe me, I am totally cool without that kind of interaction.

I do see he teaches Shorin Ryu karate, and aikido.  He may have been tweaked by my aikido observations.  Who knows.  From the perspective of blended striking and grappling arts I don't really think he's got as much of a blend of the striking and grappling arts going on as he thinks he does.  Neither do you doing kali standup grappling.

With respect to sifus and respect, people get what they earn including me.  anerlich i've conversed with on forums over the course of about 3 bjj belts so I can vouch for his knowledge.  Thats all.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> They are actually 2 different people to those who actually know the lay of the land around here and your response there has likely seen yourself added to more than a few "mental ignore" or "website based ignore" lists



So why don't you add me to yours as well?  I don't respond to implied mental threats or fake "peer pressure" manipulation.  

I speak the truth and my mind.


----------



## drop bear

You are not really going to get hybridization if you dont understand there is going to be a lot of individual versions of it.

The idea that style A does not transition into style B is more on you than the system.

So if you have started with the idea that the system does not allow hybridization because it breaks some fundamental tennant. Then I dont think you can create a hybrid.

Also the hybrid may work for some people and not others just depending on individual strengths. and so not only will you have to move outside your systems tennants but also your instructors as well.

When I do these hybrid systems MMA, Boxing,Kickboxing,Jujitsu and so on. I am not a carbon copy of my instructors. I cant be and make the martial arts work for me as well as it should.


----------



## Juany118

wayfaring said:


> So why don't you add me to yours as well?  I don't respond to implied mental threats or fake "peer pressure" manipulation.
> 
> I speak the truth and my mind.



So what you are saying is... "I will make accusations without adequate knowledge of the people involved because it's speaking the "truth and my mind."  Well A.  you spoke what amounts to a falsehood in terms of assuming two avatars were the same person and B. if doing something as uniformed as that is justified to yourself by simply saying "I was speaking my mind" well that's just sad.  So this post added you to my list yes. Good on you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> The idea that style A does not transition into style B is more on you than the system.


Agree! Your

- boxing coach won't be able to teach you how to integrate wrestling into boxing.
- wrestling coach also won't be able to teach you how to integrate boxing into wrestling.

It's "YOU" who has to do that "integration" task.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> You are not really going to get hybridization if you dont understand there is going to be a lot of individual versions of it.
> 
> The idea that style A does not transition into style B is more on you than the system.
> 
> So if you have started with the idea that the system does not allow hybridization because it breaks some fundamental tennant. Then I dont think you can create a hybrid.
> 
> Also the hybrid may work for some people and not others just depending on individual strengths. and so not only will you have to move outside your systems tennants but also your instructors as well.
> 
> When I do these hybrid systems MMA, Boxing,Kickboxing,Jujitsu and so on. I am not a carbon copy of my instructors. I cant be and make the martial arts work for me as well as it should.



No I am starting with the idea that when you are dealing with developing skill on the bridge, you cannot have a dual mindset, but a single fully committed mindset.   It does not work dually pursuing hand fighting and striking in the clinch at the same time.  Yes that does break a fundamental tenet but you are missing the point.  You literally cannot grab someone's wrist at the same time you are striking them.  You have to do one or the other.  You have to have some mental reaction towards one or the other before that.  The people on this thread that are telling us they do this all seamlessly are initiating either one or the other mentally well before any execution of technique occurs.  This is not response reaction, which will be a reflex that bypasses mental initiation.

The limitation is at the tactical level and human brain execution level, not at a style vs. style level.

All of your talk of whether or not I understand hybridization (which I have been combining arts for years) is missing the point.  If I strike in a clinch but sprawl to a choke from a takedown attempt I most certainly will execute that hybridization effectively without hesitation, seamlessly.  I do.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> So what you are saying is... "I will make accusations without adequate knowledge of the people involved because it's speaking the "truth and my mind."  Well A.  you spoke what amounts to a falsehood in terms of assuming two avatars were the same person and B. if doing something as uniformed as that is justified to yourself by simply saying "I was speaking my mind" well that's just sad.  So this post added you to my list yes. Good on you.



Wrong.  KFW and gpseymour were identified in my post as separate entities, I even quoted "these 2 characters" in that post.

So here, you falsely accused me of blending them together because I included quotes from 2 people that I responded to in the same response, and now because of that you say I'm "speaking a falsehood" and that is sad, and I am added to your ignore list.

Ignorance abounds.

I'm still going to speak the truth and my mind.  And that still doesn't mean what you tried to twist it to mean.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Your
> 
> - boxing coach won't be able to teach you how to integrate wrestling into boxing.
> - wrestling coach also won't be able to teach you how to integrate boxing into wrestling.
> 
> It's "YOU" who has to do that "integration" task.



actually, it's your MMA coach that will teach you how to integrate boxing into wrestling.  The YOUs that I know trying to do it themselves usually get taken down timed on their jabs.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wayfaring said:


> actually, it's your MMA coach that will teach you how to integrate boxing into wrestling.  The YOUs that I know trying to do it themselves usually get taken down timed on their jabs.


Who are the "YOU" that you are talking about?

Where did your (general YOU) MMA coach learn how to integrate the striking art and the grappling art? Did he learn from his MMA coach? Where did your MMA coach's MMA coach learn from?

MMA may only have less than 40 years history. In the past 40 years, many people had involved with that integration task.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

Please keep this discussion civil.  

Keep in mind, that while you do have leeway to attack the message, attacking the messenger is a surefire way to "earn" warning points that will lead to the banning of your account.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Who are the "YOU" that you are talking about?
> 
> Where did your (general YOU) MMA coach learn how to integrate the striking art and the grappling art? Did he learn from his MMA coach? Where did your MMA coach's MMA coach learn from?
> 
> MMA may only have less than 40 years history. In the past 40 years, many people had involved with that integration task.



Ahh so that's someone's issue.  MMA coaches are apparently from Faerie rings and only they can do such integrations?  Such hybridization of martial arts has occurred for centuries but for all different purposes.

Yes an MMA practitioner, or coach, would be the best choice if you wanted to do MMA.  How do they pull that off? Experience in MMA.  However for that to be an excuse that others can't hybridize when they have adequate knowledge of the arts they study for other purposes.  That beggars logic.  All one needs to do, and it's what people who blend arts for MMA do, is be capable of ignoring the strategy/philosophical trappings behind an art and look at the Biomechanics.  Where there is a natural flow biomechanically is where you make the connection.  Can you connect everything, everywhere?  Nope, but if you accept the reality that in the end all martial systems boil down to biomechanics you can see where the connections can be made.  There is no "secret sauce" in martial arts.


----------



## Flying Crane

I'll just add my own thoughts on hybrid martial arts in general, but am not really interested with engaging in the weirdness that popped up in the last page or two of this thread.

In my experience, a well-structured and designed martial art is built upon a certain foundation of principles, including movement principles.  Those principles create a certain physical consistency in how the actual techniques are delivered, and are designed to maximize power and efficiency and leverage and whatnot.  If those underlying principles are not well understood and properly engaged in the execution of technique, then that technique is less than optimal.

It takes a proper study and training regimen under a knowledgeable instructor, in order to gain a thorough understanding of this issue, for any system.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, and the training methodology may also be similar.

Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, but the training methodology and technique may manifest differently.

Other arts and methods may operate on different principles and different techniques altogether.

When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand.  Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system.  When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.

When a person, the founder, establishes a hybrid system, it will only be successful if that founder has studied each of the component systems deeply enough to understand these foundational principles for each system, and can make an intelligent and functional integration.  That creates the possibility that the new hybrid system will work well, at least for the founder.

A potential problem arises when the new system is taught to the next generation.  What made the system effective for the founder was the fact that he had made a thorough study of each system, and understands the foundational principles.   But when taught to the next generation of students, the question is, how well are those fundamental principles taught, in the context of the new hybrid?  I suspect there is a real risk that the foundation can become abbreviated to the point of being insufficient for the next generation to become highly skilled, no matter how good the founder may have been.  In that case, each generation is worse than the previous.

Hybrid methods can work and can be effective.  But they carry some inherent risks that can undermine the whole idea.  Even if the founder was highly skilled, these dangers can prevent the later generations from being likewise skilled.

Often people become overzealous in what they try to mix into the hybrid.  They want it to have everything, but fail to recognize that some things may not mix well together.  People become so intent on including new things that they fail to stop and consider that perhaps they are better to NOT include some things.  They see that XYZ works well for a certain group and a certain system, but fail to recognize that XYZ may be a poor match for the new hybrid, and it would simply get in the way.

I think often people don't consider these issues, when mixing things together into a new hybrid method.  They are in danger of cobbling together a Frankenstein's monster of a method that just does not work the way it was hoped.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> I'll just add my own thoughts on hybrid martial arts in general, but am not really interested with engaging in the weirdness that popped up in the last page or two of this thread.
> 
> In my experience, a well-structured and designed martial art is built upon a certain foundation of principles, including movement principles.  Those principles create a certain physical consistency in how the actual techniques are delivered, and are designed to maximize power and efficiency and leverage and whatnot.  If those underlying principles are not well understood and properly engaged in the execution of technique, then that technique is less than optimal.
> 
> It takes a proper study and training regimen under a knowledgeable instructor, in order to gain a thorough understanding of this issue, for any system.
> 
> Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, and the training methodology may also be similar.
> 
> Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, but the training methodology and technique may manifest differently.
> 
> Other arts and methods may operate on different principles and different techniques altogether.
> 
> When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand.  Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system.  When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.
> 
> When a person, the founder, establishes a hybrid system, it will only be successful if that founder has studied each of the component systems deeply enough to understand these foundational principles for each system, and can make an intelligent and functional integration.  That creates the possibility that the new hybrid system will work well, at least for the founder.
> 
> A potential problem arises when the new system is taught to the next generation.  What made the system effective for the founder was the fact that he had made a thorough study of each system, and understands the foundational principles.   But when taught to the next generation of students, the question is, how well are those fundamental principles taught, in the context of the new hybrid?  I suspect there is a real risk that the foundation can become abbreviated to the point of being insufficient for the next generation to become highly skilled, no matter how good the founder may have been.  In that case, each generation is worse than the previous.
> 
> Hybrid methods can work and can be effective.  But they carry some inherent risks that can undermine the whole idea.  Even if the founder was highly skilled, these dangers can prevent the later generations from being likewise skilled.
> 
> Often people become overzealous in what they try to mix into the hybrid.  They want it to have everything, but fail to recognize that some things may not mix well together.  People become so intent on including new things that they fail to stop and consider that perhaps they are better to NOT include some things.  They see that XYZ works well for a certain group and a certain system, but fail to recognize that XYZ may be a poor match for the new hybrid, and it would simply get in the way.
> 
> I think often people don't consider these issues, when mixing things together into a new hybrid method.  They are in danger of cobbling together a Frankenstein's monster of a method that just does not work the way it was hoped.




Well I think this comes back to the point of "what is a hybrid art."

As an example TWC does have standing grappling and takedowns.  It's basic to intermediate in terms of the other arts I have studied but since they are there, there are transitions from striking to grappling built in.  

So am I using a personal hybrid art OR am I simply exploiting an existing transition in one art to flow into another?


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> Well I think this comes back to the point of "what is a hybrid art."
> 
> As an example TWC does have standing grappling and takedowns.  It's basic to intermediate in terms of the other arts I have studied but since they are there, there are transitions from striking to grappling built in.
> 
> So am I using a personal hybrid art OR am I simply exploiting an existing transition in one art to flow into another?


That is a question for you to answer.  I only point out that I see potential problems in the creation of hybrid arts.  Some result in good stuff.  Others do not.

I think that some people do not have an accurate assessment of their own skill and knowledge and insightfulness.  These people create something that ultimately fails as a system, or does not survive as a system after the founder passes away.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> That is a question for you to answer.  I only point out that I see potential problems in the creation of hybrid arts.  Some result in good stuff.  Others do not.
> 
> I think that some people do not have an accurate assessment of their own skill and knowledge and insightfulness.  These people create something that ultimately fails as a system, or does not survive as a system after the founder passes away.




Oh I completely agree some arts don't work well in what we would call true hybridization.  What I was saying in my post above is a narrower view of the biomechanics point I raised previously.  Any fighting system must move smoothly, naturally.  

So you need to look critically and ask "can you move smoothly from A to B" when looking to add on everything.  Some people are good at that.  Me, I went the "cheap" route.  I simply study an unarmed striking art that has grappling/takedowns and add simply augment the existing grappling techniques from those with a deeper grappling game.

The more I look at this the more I see two different ways to accomplish a goal.
1. Hybrid: a true combination of different arts so that it becomes, for effective purposes, a new art.
2. I'll call this modular.  The individual arts remain intact, there are simply points of transition where you can change from one to another.  Now all arts don't work well in terms of modular.  You need to find the right puzzle piece and then where the point of transitions are.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> does not survive as a system after the founder passes away.


Agree with you on this.

The "rhino guard" was created from WC double Tan Shou. You

- protect your center from inside out,
- don't let your opponent's arms to get between your arms and your body.
- separate your opponent's arms away from his body. 

Anybody can use "rhino guard" for defense. But if one wants to use it for offense, he has to develop a strong head lock first. Unfortunately, to develop a strong head lock is hard work and take time. If the new generation doesn't want to spend time in that hard work, the "rhino guard" usage will be limited.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> Yes an MMA practitioner, or coach, would be the best choice if you wanted to do MMA.


If you have trained WC for 10 years. I believe you can integrate the grappling art into your WC system better than your MMA coach can (if your MMA coach knows nothing about the WC system).

In online discussion, many people like to suggest,

- you should ask your coach.
- You should ask your Sifu.
- You should ask your Sensei.
- ...

Sometime the answer is on yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I'll just add my own thoughts on hybrid martial arts in general, but am not really interested with engaging in the weirdness that popped up in the last page or two of this thread.
> 
> In my experience, a well-structured and designed martial art is built upon a certain foundation of principles, including movement principles.  Those principles create a certain physical consistency in how the actual techniques are delivered, and are designed to maximize power and efficiency and leverage and whatnot.  If those underlying principles are not well understood and properly engaged in the execution of technique, then that technique is less than optimal.
> 
> It takes a proper study and training regimen under a knowledgeable instructor, in order to gain a thorough understanding of this issue, for any system.
> 
> Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, and the training methodology may also be similar.
> 
> Some arts and methods may operate on similar principles, but the training methodology and technique may manifest differently.
> 
> Other arts and methods may operate on different principles and different techniques altogether.
> 
> When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand.  Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system.  When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.
> 
> When a person, the founder, establishes a hybrid system, it will only be successful if that founder has studied each of the component systems deeply enough to understand these foundational principles for each system, and can make an intelligent and functional integration.  That creates the possibility that the new hybrid system will work well, at least for the founder.
> 
> A potential problem arises when the new system is taught to the next generation.  What made the system effective for the founder was the fact that he had made a thorough study of each system, and understands the foundational principles.   But when taught to the next generation of students, the question is, how well are those fundamental principles taught, in the context of the new hybrid?  I suspect there is a real risk that the foundation can become abbreviated to the point of being insufficient for the next generation to become highly skilled, no matter how good the founder may have been.  In that case, each generation is worse than the previous.
> 
> Hybrid methods can work and can be effective.  But they carry some inherent risks that can undermine the whole idea.  Even if the founder was highly skilled, these dangers can prevent the later generations from being likewise skilled.
> 
> Often people become overzealous in what they try to mix into the hybrid.  They want it to have everything, but fail to recognize that some things may not mix well together.  People become so intent on including new things that they fail to stop and consider that perhaps they are better to NOT include some things.  They see that XYZ works well for a certain group and a certain system, but fail to recognize that XYZ may be a poor match for the new hybrid, and it would simply get in the way.
> 
> I think often people don't consider these issues, when mixing things together into a new hybrid method.  They are in danger of cobbling together a Frankenstein's monster of a method that just does not work the way it was hoped.


I'll add that these same issues apply even for a new version of an existing art. When someone creates a new version (whether they realize it's a new version or not), it's generally because they're stressing different principles. If they were to teach the same principles they were taught (instead of the re-prioritized set), their students won't have the same depth of understanding.

And one other point. The founder of a hybrid art doesn't necessarily need a deep understanding of all his source arts. Rather he needs a deep understanding of all the techniques he incorporates into the new art. In most cases, that probably means a deep understanding of the entire source. In other cases, however, it may be that he found some great pieces that just fit into his developing art, using the principles of that developing art. It may even be that the principles this new founder teaches for a given technique are not in line with the source art's principles for that technique. However, if the technique (and his principles) work within the context of the developing art, then any conflict with the source is inconsequential.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Well I think this comes back to the point of "what is a hybrid art."
> 
> As an example TWC does have standing grappling and takedowns.  It's basic to intermediate in terms of the other arts I have studied but since they are there, there are transitions from striking to grappling built in.
> 
> So am I using a personal hybrid art OR am I simply exploiting an existing transition in one art to flow into another?


Since you are using the techniques from other arts, I'd call it a personal hybrid. You've integrated the pieces from different sources to a workable whole that fits your needs. You may or may not have enough understanding to transmit that personal hybrid to another generation. You may or may not have enough understanding to transmit any of the sources to another generation. In my experience, ability to use technique effectively comes (if it comes at all) before the ability to transmit those techniques for successful use.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Who are the "YOU" that you are talking about?
> 
> Where did your (general YOU) MMA coach learn how to integrate the striking art and the grappling art? Did he learn from his MMA coach? Where did your MMA coach's MMA coach learn from?
> 
> MMA may only have less than 40 years history. In the past 40 years, many people had involved with that integration task.



I believe the YOU I referenced was from your post where you talked about it being each individual athlete's responsibility.  MMA coaches learn from ring or octagon experience.  Each fight is a live application of integrating striking and grappling.  

As far as MMA and its 40 year history, I like to look to the person they refer to as the father of modern MMA, that is Bruce Lee.  I would love it if somehow Wing Chun as an art could connect as Bruce Lee's foundation somehow to the modern world of MMA.  Just a dream for me though.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I'll add that these same issues apply even for a new version of an existing art. When someone creates a new version (whether they realize it's a new version or not), it's generally because they're stressing different principles. If they were to teach the same principles they were taught (instead of the re-prioritized set), their students won't have the same depth of understanding.
> 
> And one other point. The founder of a hybrid art doesn't necessarily need a deep understanding of all his source arts. Rather he needs a deep understanding of all the techniques he incorporates into the new art. In most cases, that probably means a deep understanding of the entire source. In other cases, however, it may be that he found some great pieces that just fit into his developing art, using the principles of that developing art. It may even be that the principles this new founder teaches for a given technique are not in line with the source art's principles for that technique. However, if the technique (and his principles) work within the context of the developing art, then any conflict with the source is inconsequential.


Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built?  Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles?  Will it be all principles of all the component systems?  Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles?   And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?

The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.

I'll give a vastly oversimplified example.  Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example).  Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point). 

So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.

What is the foundation of this method?  Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation.  We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.

The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages.  Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane.  THEY WILL NOT WORK  IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION.  That is simply the truth.  Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim.  It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.

This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.  

And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range.  So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together.  You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need.  No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built?  Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles?  Will it be all principles of all the component systems?  Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles?   And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?
> 
> The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.
> 
> I'll give a vastly oversimplified example.  Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example).  Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).
> 
> So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.
> 
> What is the foundation of this method?  Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation.  We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.
> 
> The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages.  Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane.  THEY WILL NOT WORK  IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION.  That is simply the truth.  Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim.  It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.
> 
> This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.
> 
> And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range.  So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together.  You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need.  No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.


Agreed. This is an issue with some techniques. From what I've seen of White Crane (not much, admittedly) I'd have a hard time imagining a complete hybridization of it with NGA, for example. There seem to be principles of movement that are in conflict. Arm positions in the one don't lend to the grappling in the other. Wing Chun, on the other hand, seems well-suited. If NGA didn't already have significant striking, this might be a source that would fit with the overall principles of the art.

It comes down to the ability to have underlying principles for the new art. Those principles may be somewhat divided (some of our principles apply to striking, some to grappling, some only to ground grappling), but there must be some unifying principles that tie them together. There must also be bridges between the segments (preferably some grey areas where segments overlap). I don't see those bridges (for our grappling, and even for our striking) when I look at White Crane. I see them when I look a Wing Chun.

This applies to a lesser extent for personal combining. If a person is actually comfortable in both White Crane and Wing Chun, they may flow freely back and forth between them. I doubt it would ever look like a contiguous whole, though. It would be - to use Juany's term - modular, rather than hybrid.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have trained WC for 10 years. I believe you can integrate the grappling art into your WC system better than your MMA coach can (if your MMA coach knows nothing about the WC system).
> 
> In online discussion, many people like to suggest,
> 
> - you should ask your coach.
> - You should ask your Sifu.
> - You should ask your Sensei.
> - ...
> 
> Sometime the answer is on yourself.



This advice circling back around is funny to me.  Basically from my perspective this is talking about my background and what I've done.  I come on this forum and shared key details about how I have done this, what does work and what doesn't work over some years of experimenting, how my viewpoint has changed over time, and the response I get back from the group of geniuses is basically how I don't understand true hybridization, how it immediately flows for them, and sharing key components of how they can cure up my confusion including this message how I have to work it out for myself.   And their combined fight record is 0-0.

So how I have "experimented" with WC, MMA and grappling over the last decade is I do spar with it at a MMA gym under the supervision of a MMA coach with a pro fight record who coaches fighters at all levels from local amateur up to Bellator and the UFC.  

But in a way, you are correct.  Your answer is on yourself.  It is pretty clear my experience benefits nobody here.


----------



## wayfaring

Flying Crane said:


> When combining different methods into an actual hybrid system, this is an important issue to understand.  Some of these principles and techniques may not mix well and may conflict when incorporated into a hybrid system.  When that happens, the hybrid system can be dysfunctional.



I agree 100%.


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> I'll add that these same issues apply even for a new version of an existing art. When someone creates a new version (whether they realize it's a new version or not), it's generally because they're stressing different principles. If they were to teach the same principles they were taught (instead of the re-prioritized set), their students won't have the same depth of understanding.



I've seen a lot of art modifications due to changing rule sets in competition also, along these lines.  Judo is one example.


----------



## Flying Crane

wayfaring said:


> This advice circling back around is funny to me.
> 
> ...and the response I get back from the group of geniuses is...
> 
> ...And their combined fight record is 0-0.
> 
> .



A little friendly advice for you:  I've isolated some examples from your post, where you use language that is condescending and abrasive.  If you are actually interested in honest discussion, and are not here to simply stir things up, I suggest you resist the urge to use such language.

Most of the people here are good folks, enthusiastic and willing to discuss what they do and what their ideas are.  You don't need to agree with all, or any, of what is said.  But you can disagree and discuss and debate without using such language and without slinging a lot of attitude around.  You'll get a better reception.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built?  Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles?  Will it be all principles of all the component systems?  Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles?   And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?
> 
> The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.
> 
> I'll give a vastly oversimplified example.  Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example).  Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).
> 
> So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.
> 
> What is the foundation of this method?  Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation.  We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.
> 
> The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages.  Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane.  THEY WILL NOT WORK  IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION.  That is simply the truth.  Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim.  It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.
> 
> This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.
> 
> And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range.  So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together.  You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need.  No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.




Oh agreed.  As an example I stop in at a local Tien Shan Pai (Northern Long Fist Style) school in my town and chat with the Sifu.  When I see the forms I say "yeah on the striking side not much you could do to some how bring WC in on this." However while their broad sword form is very similar to the unarmed, which SHOULD also make it incompatible with Kali sword/stick techniques I see a couple things that could actually prove useful and integrate well.

What it comes down to is that there needs to be some connections but I think you need to look at the principles of the biomechanics vs the philosophical principles and appearance. 

As an example the Wing Chun I study and the arts with deeper grappling all share a similar take down.  Basically you control the near limb of the opponent with your "far hand".  You step in and behind the opponent while reaching your arm across their center near the head/neck, in WC and Kali we are striking as we "reach".  You then simultaneously do what amounts to a reverse swing arm while simultaneously driving your knee up into the back of the knee/hamstring of the opponent.

Now in WC we will usually release the limb we are controlling to then "ground pound" but the biomechanics of transitioning to full two handed control of the limb all la the grappling arts I study flows just as naturally if you let it. 

I think I sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, people allow philosophical principles and visual appearance get in the way of seeing the actual physical/biomechanical principles at play.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wayfaring said:


> I come on this forum and shared key details about how I have done this, what does work and what doesn't work over some years of experimenting, how my viewpoint has changed over time,


I'm not a MMA coach. But I'm a Sanda/Sanshou coach for the past 30 years. The MMA didn't even exist back in my time. To integrate striking into grappling is an import task for the American Combat Shuai Chiao Association (ACSCA) that was founded back in 1984. I also tried to share my personal experience here such as how to use

- kick to set up punch.
- punch to set up clinch.
- clinch to set up take down.
- take down to set up ground control.
- ...

The "Combat Shuai Chiao" is a perfect example of "hybrid art" (Do those guys in the following picture look like "hybrid"?). We tried to integrate striking art into the grappling art and we don't care which striking art system it may come from.

Combat Shuai-Chiao Main Page


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> A little friendly advice for you:  I've isolated some examples from your post, where you use language that is condescending and abrasive.  If you are actually interested in honest discussion, and are not here to simply stir things up, I suggest you resist the urge to use such language.
> 
> Most of the people here are good folks, enthusiastic and willing to discuss what they do and what their ideas are.  You don't need to agree with all, or any, of what is said.  But you can disagree and discuss and debate without using such language and without slinging a lot of attitude around.  You'll get a better reception.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not a MMA coach. But I'm a Sanda/Sanshou coach for the past 30 years. The MMA didn't even exist back in my time...



While there are a couple people I don't see anymore I think, based on responses the issue is this.

Some people only see the value of on type of experience.  Thing is there are others outside of formal competition in a Ring.

First you have Occupations.  You have the Bouncer who has to deal with the drunk (and thus more resistant to pain) people who are fighting in bars.  You have the soldier, whose job now includes having to not use deadly force due to peace keeping missions and counter insurgency protocols (so you got the Marine corp LINE system being replaced by MCMAP), you have LE and Corrections officers etc.  These occupations find out rather quickly what consistently works and what does not.

Second simply proper pressure testing in training and what I consider "fun" sparring at least.  By "fun" I mean stuff like this... though I prefer lightly padded sticks we use at my school when we Kali spar because I don't want to have use my AFLAK.






People who are overly focused on competition in the ring miss how many people train the same way, even fight harder on the job (life and death vs "hey I won!!!!!").  It's can simply be about having fun in an adrenaline junkie sorta way like the Dog Brothers Gatherings, it can be about training hard and realistically for self defense, it can be about training to make sure you go home in one piece.  In the end though it's about how you train and test and LOTS of places do that right, not just MMA.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> Basically you control the near limb of the opponent with your "far hand".


Agree! To be able to control your opponent's leading arm by your back arm is the most important part of the striking art and grappling art integration. If you can use your "minor arm" to control your opponent's "major arm", you will have your "major arm" left to deal with his "minor arm". That will be your advantage.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Your
> 
> - boxing coach won't be able to teach you how to integrate wrestling into boxing.
> - wrestling coach also won't be able to teach you how to integrate boxing into wrestling.
> 
> It's "YOU" who has to do that "integration" task.



Sort of.

They will give you options. And there are some fairly common pathways to take.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> No I am starting with the idea that when you are dealing with developing skill on the bridge, you cannot have a dual mindset, but a single fully committed mindset.   It does not work dually pursuing hand fighting and striking in the clinch at the same time.  Yes that does break a fundamental tenet but you are missing the point.  You literally cannot grab someone's wrist at the same time you are striking them.  You have to do one or the other.  You have to have some mental reaction towards one or the other before that.  The people on this thread that are telling us they do this all seamlessly are initiating either one or the other mentally well before any execution of technique occurs.  This is not response reaction, which will be a reflex that bypasses mental initiation.
> 
> The limitation is at the tactical level and human brain execution level, not at a style vs. style level.
> 
> All of your talk of whether or not I understand hybridization (which I have been combining arts for years) is missing the point.  If I strike in a clinch but sprawl to a choke from a takedown attempt I most certainly will execute that hybridization effectively without hesitation, seamlessly.  I do.




Ok. I get it I think.

Why is hand fighting and striking different things in the first place?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built?  Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles?  Will it be all principles of all the component systems?  Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles?   And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?
> 
> The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.
> 
> I'll give a vastly oversimplified example.  Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example).  Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).
> 
> So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.
> 
> What is the foundation of this method?  Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation.  We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.
> 
> The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages.  Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane.  THEY WILL NOT WORK  IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION.  That is simply the truth.  Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim.  It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.
> 
> This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.
> 
> And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range.  So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together.  You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need.  No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.



So you wouldnt just get to a range where you switch from crane to chun and back.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So you wouldnt just get to a range where you switch from crane to chun and back.


As I understand it, its not a matter of range but rather how you use your body to generate the energy.  Here is a video of a Tibetan White Crane form... hop to 2:00





Here is one of the forms from the WC I study (though a bit slower for demonstration purposes.)






The first uses a lot of circular generation of energy, the second is linear.  I can see how one would have trouble integrating the two at the striking level.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> As I understand it, its not a matter of range but rather how you use your body to generate the energy.  Here is a video of a Tibetan White Crane form... hop to 2:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the forms from the WC I study (though a bit slower for demonstration purposes.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first uses a lot of circular generation of energy, the second is linear.  I can see how one would have trouble integrating the two at the striking level.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


8
More so than kickboxing and bjj?  Which gets done pretty regularly. Otherwise you are kind of supposed to be moving circular and linear. the concept of 3 dimentional fighting.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> Oh agreed.  As an example I stop in at a local Tien Shan Pai (Northern Long Fist Style) school in my town and chat with the Sifu.  When I see the forms I say "yeah on the striking side not much you could do to some how bring WC in on this." However while their broad sword form is very similar to the unarmed, which SHOULD also make it incompatible with Kali sword/stick techniques I see a couple things that could actually prove useful and integrate well.
> 
> What it comes down to is that there needs to be some connections but I think you need to look at the principles of the biomechanics vs the philosophical principles and appearance.
> 
> As an example the Wing Chun I study and the arts with deeper grappling all share a similar take down.  Basically you control the near limb of the opponent with your "far hand".  You step in and behind the opponent while reaching your arm across their center near the head/neck, in WC and Kali we are striking as we "reach".  You then simultaneously do what amounts to a reverse swing arm while simultaneously driving your knee up into the back of the knee/hamstring of the opponent.
> 
> Now in WC we will usually release the limb we are controlling to then "ground pound" but the biomechanics of transitioning to full two handed control of the limb all la the grappling arts I study flows just as naturally if you let it.
> 
> I think I sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, people allow philosophical principles and visual appearance get in the way of seeing the actual physical/biomechanical principles at play.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by philosophical principles, but I'm going to guess at it and say that, in practicing Chinese martial arts, the movement can look "stylized", which leads people to believe that a certain system needs to look a certain way when actually fighting.  That is a misunderstanding.  That stylized movement is actually simply an exaggerated movement, used as a training method and I will say that Tibetan crane is probably one of the clearest examples of this.  It helps emphasize the physical movement principles, which helps learn and understand those principles and how they drive the movement.  But in actual fighting, the exaggerated and stylized movement goes away, the physical principles can still be enacted within the technique, but the exaggeration is not needed, nor wanted.  Fighting is just fighting, it all kinda looks the same to the uneducated eye.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> As I understand it, its not a matter of range but rather how you use your body to generate the energy.  Here is a video of a Tibetan White Crane form... hop to 2:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the forms from the WC I study (though a bit slower for demonstration purposes.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first uses a lot of circular generation of energy, the second is linear.  I can see how one would have trouble integrating the two at the striking level.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


I don't like the white crane video, I don't think it's well done, but that's just me and I've seen very little on the internet that I felt was actually good.  

However, it is my suspicion that wing chun potentially holds a lot of circular potential as well, tho I think most people don't practice it that way.  It comes from the rooting, and depends on how one uses that root to rotate the torso.  Then, even a straight punch is actually a circular technique because the power for the punch is circular, even tho the path of the punch is straight.  In my mind, what determines if something is circular is not necessarily the path of the strike itself,  it rather how power for that strike is generated.  I think wing chun may also potentially have that, but it would look different from Tibetan crane.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> 8
> More so than kickboxing and bjj?  Which gets done pretty regularly. Otherwise you are kind of supposed to be moving circular and linear. the concept of 3 dimentional fighting.



Well, and this is just me, it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts.  If you look at the whole body of the people in each of those videos, often the body position is completely different, the way the whole body feeds energy into the punch is different.  Biomechanically they are very different.

On the other hand, look to my description of the similarities in takedowns between the arts I have studied.  They are all biomechanically similar and can lead easily into BJJ.

You can integrate a lot of stuff, I abosutely agree with you on that.  All I am saying is this.

1. when you go to do so it's a lot easier if you find that place where the biomechanics are very similar to work the transition between two different games.
2. If it's going to be the "same" game (say striking) you want to make sure the overall body mechanics are similar.  Say Thai Boxing and Western Boxing, or Filipino Panatukan and Thai Boxing, for efficiency and ease of learning.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I don't like the white crane video, I don't think it's well done, but that's just me and I've seen very little on the internet that I felt was actually good.
> 
> However, it is my suspicion that wing chun potentially holds a lot of circular potential as well, tho I think most people don't practice it that way.  It comes from the rooting, and depends on how one uses that root to rotate the torso.  Then, even a straight punch is actually a circular technique because the power for the punch is circular, even tho the path of the punch is straight.  In my mind, what determines if something is circular is not necessarily the path of the strike itself,  it rather how power for that strike is generated.  I think wing chun may also potentially have that, but it would look different from Tibetan crane.



There is nothing other than convention that stops a wing chun guy moving in a circular manner. It is not going to hurt their game to have more options.

If we wanted to worry about combining methods. We do not have to go past boxing. Which is in essance a bunch of different hybrids. All with different advantages and counters.

So to do one style you have to know more than one style.





mabye a better example.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well, and this is just me, it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts.  If you look at the whole body of the people in each of those videos, often the body position is completely different, the way the whole body feeds energy into the punch is different.  Biomechanically they are very different.
> 
> On the other hand, look to my description of the similarities in takedowns between the arts I have studied.  They are all biomechanically similar and can lead easily into BJJ.
> 
> You can integrate a lot of stuff, I abosutely agree with you on that.  All I am saying is this.
> 
> 1. when you go to do so it's a lot easier if you find that place where the biomechanics are very similar to work the transition between two different games.
> 2. If it's going to be the "same" game (say striking) you want to make sure the overall body mechanics are similar.  Say Thai Boxing and Western Boxing, or Filipino Panatukan and Thai Boxing, for efficiency and ease of learning.



Boxing which is probably the better example is a different game to boxing. Different body mechanics.

Most of the purist BJJ guys I have trained with will learn some striking and some crappy takedowns and just switch. Basically hoping their ground game is sufficient to win fights.

(Yes I am talking about you kron gracie)


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by philosophical principles, but I'm going to guess at it and say that, in practicing Chinese martial arts, the movement can look "stylized", which leads people to believe that a certain system needs to look a certain way when actually fighting.  That is a misunderstanding.  That stylized movement is actually simply an exaggerated movement, used as a training method and I will say that Tibetan crane is probably one of the clearest examples of this.  It helps emphasize the physical movement principles, which helps learn and understand those principles and how they drive the movement.  But in actual fighting, the exaggerated and stylized movement goes away, the physical principles can still be enacted within the technique, but the exaggeration is not needed, nor wanted.  Fighting is just fighting, it all kinda looks the same to the uneducated eye.



By philosophical principles I mean things like this.  The bread and butter of TWC is straight hand striking, punches, palms, bil sau etc.  However you have Chin Na, elbows, more than a few kicks.  If you get trapped in the "this is a punching art" you miss how the kick to the knee can end the fight and instead get stuck trying to get through his guard.  You may completely miss the fact that the takedown that starts with a wrist grab is essentially the same one you learned in say Aikido or Judo and that once you get there you can easily transition to that deeper grappling game.  

Getting rid of that purely philosophical anchor changes the fight from "I was striking...Now I am grappling" to simply "I am fighting."


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> Well, and this is just me, it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts.  If you look at the whole body of the people in each of those videos, often the body position is completely different, the way the whole body feeds energy into the punch is different.  Biomechanically they are very different.
> 
> On the other hand, look to my description of the similarities in takedowns between the arts I have studied.  They are all biomechanically similar and can lead easily into BJJ.
> 
> You can integrate a lot of stuff, I abosutely agree with you on that.  All I am saying is this.
> 
> 1. when you go to do so it's a lot easier if you find that place where the biomechanics are very similar to work the transition between two different games.
> 2. If it's going to be the "same" game (say striking) you want to make sure the overall body mechanics are similar.  Say Thai Boxing and Western Boxing, or Filipino Panatukan and Thai Boxing, for efficiency and ease of learning.


Yeah i think a lot of the mistakes come when people try to integrate different striking methodologies.  You need consistency, not seven different ways to power a straight punch. That just makes you scattered.

In terms of grappling, I imagine the principles are nearly the same and so I then ask, why integrate?  If you've already go a good method, you don't need to call it by a different name just because of the similarity.


----------



## Flying Crane

I guess as I should say, if integrating another methodology makes a genuine improvement in what you are already doing, then I accept that it can be a good thing to do.  But if it does not genuinely improve things, if it boils down to simply slapping a different name on what you are already doing, then I don't see any reason for it.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> There is nothing other than convention that stops a wing chun guy moving in a circular manner. It is not going to hurt their game to have more options.
> 
> If we wanted to worry about combining methods. We do not have to go past boxing. Which is in essance a bunch of different hybrids. All with different advantages and counters.
> 
> So to do one style you have to know more than one style.



The only problem with WC moving the body in a circular manner is that the defenses are very reliant on maintaining the centerline as well.  Most of the techniques rely on being able to use, primarily, tendon and bone structure vs muscle to maintain the arm structure and then the excess force basically gets funneled to the ground.  You will literally feel the hit not just at the point of impact but in your elbow, shoulder, and if it was strong enough, in your knees and then finally your feet.

In order for that to work, at least in my experience, you need to remain linear, otherwise you either A. see you arm structure collapse and thus take the hit, or you get knocked off balance with the "pivot point" being the waist/hips which makes you vulnerable to follow ups.

Now there are some "round attacks" that aren't uncommon.  In TWC we will do round kicks, BUT the kick will end at the apex regardless of whether it hits.  We also have a hook punch that is sometimes called the Buffalo punch.  However the facing of the body always remains "straight" on because of the nature of the defenses.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah i think a lot of the mistakes come when people try to integrate different striking methodologies.  You need consistency, not seven different ways to power a straight punch. That just makes you scattered.
> 
> In terms of grappling, I imagine the principles are nearly the same and so I then ask, why integrate?  If you've already go a good method, you don't need to call it by a different name just because of the similarity.



Well to me integrating is a matter of this.  TWC has takedowns but if I didn't already know other grappling and just did the TWC takedown I would have dropped the bad guy on his butt however I have also let him go on instinct and so now have to reengage in order to take him into custody.  However due to the other arts I studied I can instinctively stay "married" to him and as he is falling on his butt flip him on his belly and apply an arm lock that allows the cuffing procedure to begin or, and this might make more sense to people like @drop bear,  to simply get submission/pain compliance, though in my case it would be to control until another officer gets there to start cuffing, if I am not confident in being able to do that solo due to the circumstances.

In either case the integration of the "deeper" grappling game makes for safer control both for myself and the bad guy.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> The only problem with WC moving the body in a circular manner is that the defenses are very reliant on maintaining the centerline as well.  Most of the techniques rely on being able to use, primarily, tendon and bone structure vs muscle to maintain the arm structure and then the excess force basically gets funneled to the ground.  You will literally feel the hit not just at the point of impact but in your elbow, shoulder, and if it was strong enough, in your knees and then finally your feet.
> 
> In order for that to work, at least in my experience, you need to remain linear, otherwise you either A. see you arm structure collapse and thus take the hit, or you get knocked off balance with the "pivot point" being the waist/hips which makes you vulnerable to follow ups.
> 
> Now there are some "round attacks" that aren't uncommon.  In TWC we will do round kicks, BUT the kick will end at the apex regardless of whether it hits.  We also have a hook punch that is sometimes called the Buffalo punch.  However the facing of the body always remains "straight" on because of the nature of the defenses.


It's just an idea I have floating around in my head, not sure if it actually makes sense.  I would need to work face to face with a wing chun person to evaluate if my notion makes any sense.  It's been a long time since I trained wing chun, and I can't say that I ever hit a deep understanding.  But it seemed like we were mostly punching with the arms and not with the body.  I'm thinking perhaps there should have been a way to engage the body and not just punch with the arms.  That could have been my own lack of understanding, or it could have been a reflection of the training I received.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts.


I had tried to integrate long fist and WC. It didn't work at all. First the long fist requires when you punch, your back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and front arm are all in a perfect straight line. In WC, you don't make that straight line at all.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had tried to integrate long fist and WC. It didn't work at all. First the long fist requires when you punch, your back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and from arm are all in a pefect straight line. In WC, you don't make that straight line at all.



Yeah.  It can be like the difference between 





And 






While the long sword ends up more "front and center" because both hands are manipulating the blade WC ends up similar as it is based on making sure both hands can equally attack and defend against the same target (along with the defensive stuff I mentioned in my previous post.)


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> It's just an idea I have floating around in my head, not sure if it actually makes sense.  I would need to work face to face with a wing chun person to evaluate if my notion makes any sense.  It's been a long time since I trained wing chun, and I can't say that I ever hit a deep understanding.  But it seemed like we were mostly punching with the arms and not with the body.  I'm thinking perhaps there should have been a way to engage the body and not just punch with the arms.  That could have been my own lack of understanding, or it could have been a reflection of the training I received.




In the drills it feels that way, but you do get the body in.  There is the shoulder of course and some hip rotation, but not enough to make it so you go "sideways" to the target.  There are two ways I explain it because it's how it feels to me, not saying this is correct technical jargon, I am not a teacher.

First if you are punching while closing it can be similar to a quick thrust in fencing, so your bodies total forward momentum is adding to the strike. 

Second, even if you are already in "the space" and you aren't moving forward anymore, the way you are punching is using the same mechanics of physics as other punches.  Power= mass*velocity.  Since, with proper structure, you are punching "from the heart" you keep your mass behind the punch, vs a more "round" strike, with more body English, that throws the weight behind the punch.  Now there are more powerful punches out their than the WC punch but the method allows for, if properly trained, potentially faster follow-up.






The above video shows what I mean.  The body is there, in practice, its simply not as overt.

Note none of the above is to claim a superiority in this particular type of straight punch.  It's only trying to, in a basic way, to explain why and how it still manages to generate effective power.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had tried to integrate long fist and WC. It didn't work at all. First the long fist requires when you punch, your back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and front arm are all in a perfect straight line. In WC, you don't make that straight line at all.



I disagree...but whatever


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> I disagree...but whatever




I think a better example is the crane form video I linked.  There at the end of the punch a northern long fist guy can end up standing sideways like an Olympic foil fencer on a thrust.  That, at least to my mind would compromise a lot of WC stuff related to structure.


----------



## Flying Crane

wckf92 said:


> I disagree...but whatever


I'm trying to understand what it is you disagree with.

Kung fu Wang states that he tried to integrate wing chun punching with longfist punching, and he was not successful.  Given that the experience was his, I would say he is the best one to decide if he was successful or not.

By disagreeing, are you stating that it is your belief that he in fact WAS successful, unbeknownst to him?


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> I think a better example is the crane form video I linked.  There at the end of the punch a northern long fist guy can end up standing sideways like an Olympic foil fencer on a thrust.  That, at least to my mind would compromise a lot of WC stuff related to structure.


I don't feel it is a valid comparison because the reason one hits that position is very different between fencing and white crane or  longfist.

In fencing, it is a lunging thrust, and the other hand is back as a way to hold balance, as well as to provide a slimmer profile to the opponent, while thrusting in with the tip of the blade.

In crane, the body is rotated, driven from the feet and legs, up thru the torso.  The rotation gives power to the punch, and is not done by leaning.  The back hand swings back as a training mechanism, this is one of those exaggerations I mentioned  earlier.  It over-emphasizes the rotation by swinging that arm back.  This helps develops skill with the principles, but drops away and is no longer exaggerated in actual combat.

The posture itself appears somewhat similar, but how you get there is very different and makes any similarity only superficial.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> I disagree...but whatever


This is the long fist beginner level training requirement. The main purpose is to be able to stretch your body to the maximum and have the maximum reach. 

There was one sparring that my opponent didn't know that my fist could reach to his face. When I make my back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and front arm into a straight line, my fist could hit on his face. That's why the style is called "long" fist.











Also this type of punch is difficult to integrate with the WC system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by philosophical principles, but I'm going to guess at it and say that, in practicing Chinese martial arts, the movement can look "stylized", which leads people to believe that a certain system needs to look a certain way when actually fighting.  That is a misunderstanding.  That stylized movement is actually simply an exaggerated movement, used as a training method and I will say that Tibetan crane is probably one of the clearest examples of this.  It helps emphasize the physical movement principles, which helps learn and understand those principles and how they drive the movement.  But in actual fighting, the exaggerated and stylized movement goes away, the physical principles can still be enacted within the technique, but the exaggeration is not needed, nor wanted.  Fighting is just fighting, it all kinda looks the same to the uneducated eye.


I think by "philosophical principles" he was referring to, for instance, the gentle harmony of most of Ueshiba's Aikido. That's not a physical principle of the art - it's not what makes the techniques work. There are also those semi-philosophical principles like "don't do x", that exist simply because "x" doesn't lead into prime technical territory for that art. There's nothing really wrong with "x" - it's just not a good thing within the range of that art. A good example of this might be, "never go to the ground". It's a good principle for arts with no ground game, but for someone in BJJ, it's certainly not a "never" principle.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...... your back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and front arm are all in a perfect straight line. In WC, you don't make that straight line at all.



Sorry, should have been more clear...my problem is with broad statements like this. I think what KFW meant to say was that in "his" WC..."he" doesn't make a straight line like this. But, this is kind of off topic so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah i think a lot of the mistakes come when people try to integrate different striking methodologies.  You need consistency, not seven different ways to power a straight punch. That just makes you scattered.
> 
> In terms of grappling, I imagine the principles are nearly the same and so I then ask, why integrate?  If you've already go a good method, you don't need to call it by a different name just because of the similarity.


I agree on the first sentence. My answer to the second is usually, "that's a cool technique!" Seriously, I occasionally see a technique that fits with our principles (and whose mechanics are an easy translation for me), and immediately start looking at it to see if it's a good fit. I won't add it to the official curriculum (at least, I haven't yet - maybe after a few years of seeing how it works and fits for students), but it certainly becomes part of what I teach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I guess as I should say, if integrating another methodology makes a genuine improvement in what you are already doing, then I accept that it can be a good thing to do.  But if it does not genuinely improve things, if it boils down to simply slapping a different name on what you are already doing, then I don't see any reason for it.


Well and concisely put.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> I don't feel it is a valid comparison because the reason one hits that position is very different between fencing and white crane or  longfist.
> 
> In fencing, it is a lunging thrust, and the other hand is back as a way to hold balance, as well as to provide a slimmer profile to the opponent, while thrusting in with the tip of the blade.
> 
> In crane, the body is rotated, driven from the feet and legs, up thru the torso.  The rotation gives power to the punch, and is not done by leaning.  The back hand swings back as a training mechanism, this is one of those exaggerations I mentioned  earlier.  It over-emphasizes the rotation by swinging that arm back.  This helps develops skill with the principles, but drops away and is no longer exaggerated in actual combat.
> 
> The posture itself appears somewhat similar, but how you get there is very different and makes any similarity only superficial.


I was referring purely to body position.  Thanks to swashbuckler movies I think more people are familiar with the fencer in such a sidesways stance, regardless of the purpose.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The only problem with WC moving the body in a circular manner is that the defenses are very reliant on maintaining the centerline as well.  Most of the techniques rely on being able to use, primarily, tendon and bone structure vs muscle to maintain the arm structure and then the excess force basically gets funneled to the ground.  You will literally feel the hit not just at the point of impact but in your elbow, shoulder, and if it was strong enough, in your knees and then finally your feet.
> 
> In order for that to work, at least in my experience, you need to remain linear, otherwise you either A. see you arm structure collapse and thus take the hit, or you get knocked off balance with the "pivot point" being the waist/hips which makes you vulnerable to follow ups.
> 
> Now there are some "round attacks" that aren't uncommon.  In TWC we will do round kicks, BUT the kick will end at the apex regardless of whether it hits.  We also have a hook punch that is sometimes called the Buffalo punch.  However the facing of the body always remains "straight" on because of the nature of the defenses.



Then don't rely on chun defences when moving what basically sounds like offline. What was it?  White crane? Will have its own defences 

So you just go straight line chun offline crane.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> It's just an idea I have floating around in my head, not sure if it actually makes sense.  I would need to work face to face with a wing chun person to evaluate if my notion makes any sense.  It's been a long time since I trained wing chun, and I can't say that I ever hit a deep understanding.  But it seemed like we were mostly punching with the arms and not with the body.  I'm thinking perhaps there should have been a way to engage the body and not just punch with the arms.  That could have been my own lack of understanding, or it could have been a reflection of the training I received.



You don't reach and punch.  You travel your whole body to where you need to be and punch from there.

That is also how you cripple people with body punches.

Amateur boxing has similar ideas.

kostya tszu who fought very much in that sort of manner. vz Zab Juda who fought in that evasive looping style.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> I was referring purely to body position.  Thanks to swashbuckler movies I think more people are familiar with the fencer in such a sidesways stance, regardless of the purpose.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.


No worries, and I just saw it as an opportunity to educate the readership a bit about Tibetan crane, as it is somewhat rare and is prone to being misunderstood, due to that punching methodology


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Then don't rely on chun defences when moving what basically sounds like offline. What was it?  White crane? Will have its own defences
> 
> So you just go straight line chun offline crane.



You can do that, correct.  I guess I would ask why though?  It is kinda a myth that WC, at least my WC, lacks a "long game".  It has a long game, but it's more linear than "sweeping".  My personal take is that "long fist" vs "short fist" has more to do with the stances.  As an example how often do you see a Boxer or MMAer have a punch ending like this





It's not so much the punch but the stance because here we see...





So long as both hands are engaging the target (this is actually via Inosanto's some of the training Silva has undertaken) the principles are maintained.  So really it's about what the entire body is doing.

As such WC striking can be pretty effective, it's weakness (if you actually pressure test properly which we both agree on) is that if your striking game fails it lacks in takedown defense and ground game. That is a gap that NEEDS to be filled

Also note I am talking about my purpose.  I don't wear gloves at work and am not looking to "KO" someone.  I am looking to defend myself and bridge from that defense to taking someone into custody.  So what serves my purpose will obviously be different than the purpose of someone else when it comes to combining arts in practice.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think by "philosophical principles" he was referring to, for instance, the gentle harmony of most of Ueshiba's Aikido. That's not a physical principle of the art - it's not what makes the techniques work. There are also those semi-philosophical principles like "don't do x", that exist simply because "x" doesn't lead into prime technical territory for that art. There's nothing really wrong with "x" - it's just not a good thing within the range of that art. A good example of this might be, "never go to the ground". It's a good principle for arts with no ground game, but for someone in BJJ, it's certainly not a "never" principle.



Exactly.  And sometimes it's not as obvious as Ueshiba's Philosophy, it can come from confabulating different ideas.  Example one of the ideas from WC are attack/disrupt the opponent's centerline.  Since the centerline is an axis that runs through the center of the body to the ground can I not "attack" it from a flank?  Can I not "disrupt" it using the takedown I described earlier that is in the Wing Chun I study?  Some though will then take seperate ideas, that have their proper place, and confabulating the two.

I actually took a chance a little bit ago.  When my training partner became to "comfortable" and did things that made them especially vulnerable to takedowns, I went and started a take down to prove the point.  They looked at the Sifu and his response was not "Juany you broke the drill".  Rather "Partner, you left yourself open for that".

My Sifu is a bit odd though.  If someone's footwork leaves em open he doesn't mind if you give them a LIGHT "cup check.". Thing is, until he decided to go "private" due to specialized training that has him CEO of his own LLC Consultancy as his day job, he came from the same world I currently work in so he isn't what I have experienced as a "typical" TMA instructor.

That alone may influence my thoughts on the matter at hand.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> You can do that, correct.  I guess I would ask why though?  It is kinda a myth that WC, at least my WC, lacks a "long game".  It has a long game, but it's more linear than "sweeping".  My personal take is that "long fist" vs "short fist" has more to do with the stances.  As an example how often do you see a Boxer or MMAer have a punch ending like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much the punch but the stance because here we see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So long as both hands are engaging the target (this is actually via Inosanto's some of the training Silva has undertaken) the principles are maintained.  So really it's about what the entire body is doing.
> 
> As such WC striking can be pretty effective, it's weakness (if you actually pressure test properly which we both agree on) is that if your striking game fails it lacks in takedown defense and ground game. That is a gap that NEEDS to be filled
> 
> Also note I am talking about my purpose.  I don't wear gloves at work and am not looking to "KO" someone.  I am looking to defend myself and bridge from that defense to taking someone into custody.  So what serves my purpose will obviously be different than the purpose of someone else when it comes to combining arts in practice.



Ok.  Before we start we are not actually comparing long fist with chun.  We are comparing martial arts that contain different principles.

This could be any martial arts.  It doesn't matter.  For any of this to work we pretty much have to concede that two different styles have different games. 

Not one style fills all ranges.  Or you are correct you would not need to hybrid. 

So whether it is a long game or a sweeping game or whatever doesn't matter so long as there are two different games. 

Now whether or not it fits your purpose also kind of doesn't matter.
  Seriously gloves? Who cares?

 We are dealing with concepts. So you may not use all the elements of both arts to arrest someone. But you may need both elements to understand how to make your system work.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Before we start we are not actually comparing long fist with chun.  We are comparing martial arts that contain different principles.
> 
> This could be any martial arts.  It doesn't matter.  For any of this to work we pretty much have to concede that two different styles have different games.
> 
> Not one style fills all ranges.  Or you are correct you would not need to hybrid.
> 
> So whether it is a long game or a sweeping game or whatever doesn't matter so long as there are two different games.
> 
> Now whether or not it fits your purpose also kind of doesn't matter.
> Seriously gloves? Who cares?
> 
> We are dealing with concepts. So you may not use all the elements of both arts to arrest someone. But you may need both elements to understand how to make your system work.


Okay, I see that point.  With enough time and effort in training I will concede that the right person could likely combine arts that perform the same practical function but use clearly divergent principles.

The way my brain works though I do a cost/benefit analysis.  If I felt there was a major "hole" I would prefer to search out an art that shares principles.  Otherwise I would need to see a clear advantage in certain circumstances to try and fit two striking methods, that operate under different principles, together to justify the time it would take to integrate because that can be more than a little bit of time away from there other training one can do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Okay, I see that point.  With enough time and effort in training I will concede that the right person could likely combine arts that perform the same practical function but use clearly divergent principles.
> 
> The way my brain works though I do a cost/benefit analysis.  I would need to see a clear advantage in certain circumstances to try and fit two striking methods, that operate under different principles together, to justify the time it would take to integrate because that can be more than a little bit of time away from there other training one can do.


Agreed. I could see borrowing a couple of "gap filler" techniques from another art/style, but picking up an entire second art that covers much of the same ground isn't pragmatic. Mind you, many martial artists pursue new learning for purposes that aren't entirely pragmatic, so there's no reason someone couldn't do exactly that.


----------



## wayfaring

Flying Crane said:


> A little friendly advice for you:  I've isolated some examples from your post, where you use language that is condescending and abrasive.  If you are actually interested in honest discussion, and are not here to simply stir things up, I suggest you resist the urge to use such language.
> 
> Most of the people here are good folks, enthusiastic and willing to discuss what they do and what their ideas are.  You don't need to agree with all, or any, of what is said.  But you can disagree and discuss and debate without using such language and without slinging a lot of attitude around.  You'll get a better reception.



From my perspective, I give back the energy that is given me here.  You are so nice to point out my condescending and perceived abrasive responses without any acknowledgement or validation to point out the condescending posts that elicited these responses after I initiated an honest discussion on my changing viewpoint over time of the hybridization of arts.

Do you acknowledge what I am saying here?  Or insist on glossing it over?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Kung Fu Wang said:


> your goal may not always be the goal of your style.


Here is an example. The goal of my major style Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) is to take my opponent down without going down with him. If I use that goal as guideline, I'll never be able to 

- use a throw to obtain dominate position. 
- use dominate to start the ground game.

The following clip may be a big no no from my SC teacher point of view. But to me, it's a big improvement.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not a MMA coach. But I'm a Sanda/Sanshou coach for the past 30 years. The MMA didn't even exist back in my time. To integrate striking into grappling is an import task for the American Combat Shuai Chiao Association (ACSCA) that was founded back in 1984. I also tried to share my personal experience here such as how to use
> 
> - kick to set up punch.
> - punch to set up clinch.
> - clinch to set up take down.
> - take down to set up ground control.
> - ...
> snip



I can relate a lot more to the detail in this type of post than in a generic YOUs responsibility generalization like the previous exchange.

Yes, I can appreciate the experience in Sanda combined with shuai chiao.  This approach is actually pretty much mostly what you see in modern MMA and does combine striking / grappling.   The arts combined at the MMA place I spar at are dutch muy thai, wrestling (freestyle & greco), and BJJ or nogi submission grappling.  There may be a little more there as to the submission finishes, but otherwise similar approach to what you are doing and talking about.

MMA even drills great combos like you mention a bit above - I'm thinking of inside leg kick -> 2 punch -> double-leg takedown.  Or even there are guys so good at seeing you start to plant your lead leg on a jab and time the double leg.

I mean maybe you are like a MMA coach and can coach your guys how to combine some striking and grappling principles.

I however, am starting to see something in my core wing chun art that I had not previously.   There is a limitation to me in a primarily handfighting approach.  Why punch to set up a clinch and clinch to take down?  Is this most efficient?  Does this preserve the best self defense position including considering the possibility of this not being a 1 on 1 encounter?


----------



## Transk53

wayfaring said:


> I can relate a lot more to the detail in this type of post than in a generic YOUs responsibility generalization like the previous exchange.
> 
> Yes, I can appreciate the experience in Sanda combined with shuai chiao.  This approach is actually pretty much mostly what you see in modern MMA and does combine striking / grappling.   The arts combined at the MMA place I spar at are dutch muy thai, wrestling (freestyle & greco), and BJJ or nogi submission grappling.  There may be a little more there as to the submission finishes, but otherwise similar approach to what you are doing and talking about.
> 
> MMA even drills great combos like you mention a bit above - I'm thinking of inside leg kick -> 2 punch -> double-leg takedown.  Or even there are guys so good at seeing you start to plant your lead leg on a jab and time the double leg.
> 
> I mean maybe you are like a MMA coach and can coach your guys how to combine some striking and grappling principles.
> 
> I however, am starting to see something in my core wing chun art that I had not previously.   There is a limitation to me in a primarily handfighting approach.  *Why punch to set up a clinch and clinch to take down?  Is this most efficient?*  Does this preserve the best self defense position including considering the possibility of this not being a 1 on 1 encounter?



Because the punch is weighted to sting only, thus giving a window for the clinch/grapple for the take down and restrain.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wayfaring said:


> Why punch to set up a clinch and clinch to take down?  Is this most efficient?  Does this preserve the best self defense position including considering the possibility of this not being a 1 on 1 encounter?


When you are dealing with multiple opponents, the grappling is not a good approach. I still remember that onetime my Shuai Chiao teacher got into a fight in an office space against 7 guys. He used mainly elbow in the whole fight, no punch, no kick, no lock, no throw. This is why I always have faith in "elbow". You may not have enough space to punch or kick, but you will always have enough space to strike with your elbow.

IMO, the striking and grappling integration is used mainly in 1 on 1 situation. The moment that you put yourself on the ground, you lose your "mobility". This is why one should also train take down and take off at the same time. Even you take your opponent down, you don't have to go down yourself.


----------



## Transk53

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you are dealing with multiple opponents, the grappling is not a good approach. I still remember that onetime my Shuai Chiao teacher got into a fight in an office space against 7 guys. He used mainly elbow in the whole fight, no punch, no kick, no lock, no throw. This is why I always have faith in "elbow". You may not have enough space to punch or kick, but you will always have enough space to strike with your elbow.
> 
> IMO, the striking and grappling integration is used mainly in 1 on 1 situation.



Yeah you right. Maybe one exception with grabbing one, then using them as a foil, if only for a moment. Which generally is all that is needed.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example. The goal of my major style Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) is to take my opponent down without going down with him. If I use that goal as guideline, I'll never be able to
> 
> - use a throw to obtain dominate position.
> - use dominate to start the ground game.
> 
> The following clip may be a big no no from my SC teacher point of view. But to me, it's a big improvement.



So yes.  Hopefully we will see some of this going on tonight if Ronda Rousey can get her clinch game going against Amanda Nunes.  

On that clip, from a sheer position perspective this is a classic judo and BJJ technique - hip toss to the armbar.   There can be an escape transition period as you are going to your back to finish the armbar.  If you throw someone hard the shock will cover it.  But this transition weakness is probably at the core of your SC teachers concern.  Look up a BJJ match Gary Tonon vs. Kron Gracie sometime to see the sheer possibilities of escaping that armbar.  But yes, Ronda has done quite well with it.  Hopefully she's got some more.


----------



## Flying Crane

wayfaring said:


> From my perspective, I give back the energy that is given me here.  You are so nice to point out my condescending and perceived abrasive responses without any acknowledgement or validation to point out the condescending posts that elicited these responses after I initiated an honest discussion on my changing viewpoint over time of the hybridization of arts.
> 
> Do you acknowledge what I am saying here?  Or insist on glossing it over?


Good luck to you.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you are dealing with multiple opponents, the grappling is not a good approach. I still remember that onetime my Shuai Chiao teacher got into a fight in an office space against 7 guys. He used mainly elbow in the whole fight, no punch, no kick, no lock, no throw. This is why I always have faith in "elbow". You may not have enough space to punch or kick, but you will always have enough space to strike with your elbow.
> 
> IMO, the striking and grappling integration is used mainly in 1 on 1 situation. The moment that you put yourself on the ground, you lose your "mobility". This is why one should also train take down and take off at the same time.



LOL.  Your SC teacher sounds like a wing chun guy in that fight.  This is what is leading me towards areas in wing chun that are towards a striking, sinking and pursuit mindset on bridge contact.  But yes, all elbows.  The biu jee recovery approach, right wing chun folks?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Transk53 said:


> Yeah you right. Maybe one exception with grabbing one, then using them as a foil, if only for a moment. Which generally is all that is needed.


To take your opponent down, use that falling body to block others, so you can take off. Not many people still train this skill.






Today people believe in "ground game is everything", and you can see chimpanzee fights crab.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you are dealing with multiple opponents, the grappling is not a good approach. I still remember that onetime my Shuai Chiao teacher got into a fight in an office space against 7 guys. He used mainly elbow in the whole fight, no punch, no kick, no lock, no throw. This is why I always have faith in "elbow". You may not have enough space to punch or kick, but you will always have enough space to strike with your elbow.
> 
> IMO, the striking and grappling integration is used mainly in 1 on 1 situation. The moment that you put yourself on the ground, you lose your "mobility". This is why one should also train take down and take off at the same time. Even you take your opponent down, you don't have to go down yourself.


Agreed.  Also the way you prefer to maintain contact, as shown in the last video, is essentially how I do takedowns.  Also once I am down I try to remain vertical somewhat (kneeling what have you).  I want control but whenever possible (and it's not always possible) I want to remain somewhat vertical so I can disengage more rapidly if the circumstances suddenly require it.


----------



## wayfaring

Juany118 said:


> Some people only see the value of on type of experience.  Thing is there are others outside of formal competition in a Ring.
> 
> First you have Occupations.  You have the Bouncer who has to deal with the drunk (and thus more resistant to pain) people who are fighting in bars.  You have the soldier, whose job now includes having to not use deadly force due to peace keeping missions and counter insurgency protocols (so you got the Marine corp LINE system being replaced by MCMAP), you have LE and Corrections officers etc.  These occupations find out rather quickly what consistently works and what does not.
> 
> Second simply proper pressure testing in training and what I consider "fun" sparring at least.  By "fun" I mean stuff like this... though I prefer lightly padded sticks we use at my school when we Kali spar because I don't want to have use my AFLAK.
> 
> People who are overly focused on competition in the ring miss how many people train the same way, even fight harder on the job (life and death vs "hey I won!!!!!").  It's can simply be about having fun in an adrenaline junkie sorta way like the Dog Brothers Gatherings, it can be about training hard and realistically for self defense, it can be about training to make sure you go home in one piece.  In the end though it's about how you train and test and LOTS of places do that right, not just MMA.



I would actually discuss this outside the gaslighting comments about who someone can and can't see and generalizations about "people".  

LEO's probably would do better on the job to approach a primarily handfighting mindset.   Unless someone is swinging on them, there can be legal and policy consequences to initiating striking.

Dog Brothers approach actually is a MMA match with weapons.  Same adrenaline escalation.  Similar scenario with lack of rules or scaled down rules.


----------



## Transk53

Flying Crane said:


> Good luck to you.



Must of missed that. You were doing what now?


----------



## Transk53

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To take your opponent down, use that falling body to block others, so you can take off. Not many people still train this skill, Today people believe in "ground game is everything".



Yes I agree with you. However, there was too much momentum in that clip. It should have been stop and search, look for threat. The defender turned into uncontrollable situation. IMHO.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To take your opponent down, use that falling body to block others, so you can take off. Not many people still train this skill, Today people believe in "ground game is everything".



I don't believe that, but I did win a BJJ match with that exact takedown.  We ended up OB, I got reset in guard, passed, and won 5-0.

If you have someone in guard on your back, sometimes you can manipulate them to keep them between you and others and keep others from circling around to your head where they can kick you.  But you better get up pretty quick, IMO.


----------



## Flying Crane

Transk53 said:


> Must of missed that. You were doing what now?


I wasn't doing anything, actually.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Must of missed that. You were doing what now?


I think he was responding to some of have on ignore.


----------



## Transk53

Flying Crane said:


> I wasn't doing anything, actually.



Yeah no worries. Was wondering what Wayfaring was referring to in a previous post. Not meant to slight you at all.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> I think he was responding to some of have on ignore.



Oh. That makes even more sense. Yeah having a slow moment


----------



## Flying Crane

Transk53 said:


> Yeah no worries. Was wondering what Wayfaring was referring to in a previous post. Not meant to slight you at all.


Sure, understood.  I think he and I may simply be having a parting of ways, wishing him the best in whatever comes his way.


----------



## wayfaring

Transk53 said:


> Because the punch is weighted to sting only, thus giving a window for the clinch/grapple for the take down and restrain.



Yes, and they work.  The wing chun way is the clinch is control the bridge without being controlled.  Don't give up mobility by clinching and going to the ground.


----------



## wayfaring

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, understood.  I think he and I may simply be having a parting of ways, wishing him the best in whatever comes his way.



Hi Flying Crane,

I wasn't aware we ever had a "joining of ways".   I'm not sure how to interpret your description of our "parting of ways", other than as a gaslighting comment about who you are putting on your ignore list.   A couple others here seem to be engaging in that behavior.  I'm here to discuss my primary art.

Can you clarify your meaning here?  I don't want to get the wrong idea.


----------



## Flying Crane

wayfaring said:


> Hi Flying Crane,
> 
> I wasn't aware we ever had a "joining of ways".   I'm not sure how to interpret your description of our "parting of ways", other than as a gaslighting comment about who you are putting on your ignore list.   A couple others here seem to be engaging in that behavior.  I'm here to discuss my primary art.
> 
> Can you clarify your meaning here?  I don't want to get the wrong idea.


I offered you some honest advice that I think you would do well to consider, but whether or not you do is up to you.

I get the feeling you are not inclined to consider it.

I'm not sure what else you and i might ever need to discuss.  You are not on my ignore list however, as that seems to be of some concern to you.

So I say, good luck to you.


----------



## Transk53

wayfaring said:


> Yes, and they work.  The wing chun way is the clinch is control the bridge without being controlled.  Don't give up mobility by clinching and going to the ground.



Yeah sorry about this. And what being mobile is ever an issue. Going to the ground can be controlled. Okay so in my case that could be a little crude, but the same result nonetheless.


----------



## wayfaring

Flying Crane said:


> I offered you some honest advice that I think you would do well to consider, but whether or not you do is up to you.
> 
> I get the feeling you are not inclined to consider it.
> 
> I'm not sure what else you and i might ever need to discuss.  You are not on my ignore list however, as that seems to be of some concern to you.
> 
> So I say, good luck to you.



Thanks for the response.  I wouldn't have brought it up but you are discussing me publicly with someone else here.   I did see you intended your advice as honest.  I tried to explain to you that you are singling out one response in the midst of a disagreement over ideas, and you are targeting condescension in one post but giving it a pass in your perceived friends posts here on several others.  It doesn't sound like you got my advice there either.

The others in this argument are the ones engaging in gaslighting behavior telling everyone about who they have on their ignore list.  So I was just becoming clear that this is not you as well.  Thanks for your clarification.  That covers my concern regarding ignore lists.  Whatever the good or bad behavior is there in your opinion w/r to ignore lists, for me it also is practical.  I don't want to answer people's posts who have me on their ignore list.

As I said before, from my perspective we never had a "joining of the ways" so a "parting of the ways" is unnecessary.  I'm going to discuss my primary art on this forum and that may or may not involve you.  I agreed with one of your comments on hybridizing dissimilar arts.  So if concepts keep getting exchanged then in all likelihood I will continue to interact with you.


----------



## wayfaring

Transk53 said:


> Yeah sorry about this. And what being mobile is ever an issue. Going to the ground can be controlled. Okay so in my case that could be a little crude, but the same result nonetheless.



This is a little confusing but I think you are saying that you can control whether or not you go to the ground after the clinch.  Yes this is true many times.  And again, yes this option is better for LEO's.  Keeps your sidearm secure.

Even from a pure grappling perspective, I really like the knee on belly position.  it's much easier to choke someone there than in side control.  So if whatever you're doing in the clinch ends up with you in knee on belly that's a good option.


----------



## Transk53

wayfaring said:


> This is a little confusing but I think you are saying that you can control whether or not you go to the ground after the clinch.  Yes this is true many times.  And again, yes this option is better for LEO's.  Keeps your sidearm secure.
> 
> Even from a pure grappling perspective, I really like the knee on belly position.  it's much easier to choke someone there than in side control.  So if whatever you're doing in the clinch ends up with you in knee on belly that's a good option.



Yes and no. I am in Britain so the above scenario would be unlikely. For me though knee on chest. But both the chest and stomach are too easy. Weight down easy to counter when not actually down and controlled.


----------



## wayfaring

Transk53 said:


> Yes and no. I am in Britain so the above scenario would be unlikely. For me though knee on chest. But both the chest and stomach are too easy. Weight down easy to counter when not actually down and controlled.



Gotcha.  No sidearm.   Knee on belly or knee on chest offers a great position where you could proceed from there to either strike or submit.   However we are getting there from the bridge is great with me.  I kind of see 2 paths there, though.  One would be hand fighting chin na to takedown.  The other would be control of bridge, striking, pursuit, and opponent goes down through strikes or chi gerk with feet.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Okay, I see that point.  With enough time and effort in training I will concede that the right person could likely combine arts that perform the same practical function but use clearly divergent principles.
> 
> The way my brain works though I do a cost/benefit analysis.  If I felt there was a major "hole" I would prefer to search out an art that shares principles.  Otherwise I would need to see a clear advantage in certain circumstances to try and fit two striking methods, that operate under different principles, together to justify the time it would take to integrate because that can be more than a little bit of time away from there other training one can do.



There is a paper,sissors,rock effect in striking that gives advantage to knowing more than one set of striking principles.


----------



## Transk53

wayfaring said:


> Gotcha.  No sidearm.   Knee on belly or knee on chest offers a great position where you could proceed from there to either strike or submit.   However we are getting there from the bridge is great with me.  I kind of see 2 paths there, though.  One would be hand fighting chin na to takedown.  The other would be control of bridge, striking, pursuit, and opponent goes down through strikes or chi gerk with feet.



That sounds really complicated. I don't quite understand those terms. Is this actual self defence that works, or just theory on that fighting aspect?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example. The goal of my major style Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) is to take my opponent down without going down with him. If I use that goal as guideline, I'll never be able to
> 
> - use a throw to obtain dominate position.
> - use dominate to start the ground game.
> 
> The following clip may be a big no no from my SC teacher point of view. But to me, it's a big improvement.



They also tend to get back up if you haven't pinned them to the deck. which means you have wasted a bunch of time and energy putting them on the deck in the first place. If you have eaten a bunch of shots to get on top of them. Generally you stay there and pay them back.

Otherwise we tend not to hit that arm lock either because it takes us off topside control. Which is a no no for striking groundwork.

But people still do it and get away with it. so we train it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think by "philosophical principles" he was referring to, for instance, the gentle harmony of most of Ueshiba's Aikido. That's not a physical principle of the art - it's not what makes the techniques work. There are also those semi-philosophical principles like "don't do x", that exist simply because "x" doesn't lead into prime technical territory for that art. There's nothing really wrong with "x" - it's just not a good thing within the range of that art. A good example of this might be, "never go to the ground". It's a good principle for arts with no ground game, but for someone in BJJ, it's certainly not a "never" principle.



You need to know why you re doing it and the risks rewards involved. There are places you can go to ground even if the other guy have a better ground game.


----------



## wayfaring

Transk53 said:


> That sounds really complicated. I don't quite understand those terms. Is this actual self defence that works, or just theory on that fighting aspect?



Sorry I was just going over likely ways in a fight scenario you could get to knee on chest.   Usually people don't lay down for you.    I was trying to describe the first way as through a more common method of a clinch leading to a takedown.  The second way would be either through a knockdown or through in wing chun when you get an opening and take someones balance you have them on the run striking and can step on or entangle their legs as you punch.  That leads to them going down and to knee on chest.   That's in general what I was trying to describe but I used too many jargon/internal art descriptions.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> I can relate a lot more to the detail in this type of post than in a generic YOUs responsibility generalization like the previous exchange.
> 
> Yes, I can appreciate the experience in Sanda combined with shuai chiao.  This approach is actually pretty much mostly what you see in modern MMA and does combine striking / grappling.   The arts combined at the MMA place I spar at are dutch muy thai, wrestling (freestyle & greco), and BJJ or nogi submission grappling.  There may be a little more there as to the submission finishes, but otherwise similar approach to what you are doing and talking about.
> 
> MMA even drills great combos like you mention a bit above - I'm thinking of inside leg kick -> 2 punch -> double-leg takedown.  Or even there are guys so good at seeing you start to plant your lead leg on a jab and time the double leg.
> 
> I mean maybe you are like a MMA coach and can coach your guys how to combine some striking and grappling principles.
> 
> I however, am starting to see something in my core wing chun art that I had not previously.   There is a limitation to me in a primarily handfighting approach.  Why punch to set up a clinch and clinch to take down?  Is this most efficient?  Does this preserve the best self defense position including considering the possibility of this not being a 1 on 1 encounter?



We dont clinch much. Just shoot straight on them. Then clinch if they are still standing.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> They also tend to get back up if you haven't pinned them to the deck. which means you have wasted a bunch of time and energy putting them on the deck in the first place. If you have eaten a bunch of shots to get on top of them. Generally you stay there and pay them back.
> 
> Otherwise we tend not to hit that arm lock either because it takes us off topside control. Which is a no no for striking groundwork.
> 
> But people still do it and get away with it. so we train it.



Eaten a bunch of shots?


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Because the punch is weighted to sting only, thus giving a window for the clinch/grapple for the take down and restrain.



No. 
Every move exept an obvious fake should be designed to work. The punch knocks them out. If it doesn't the clinch/grapple is following up.

Short changing the move you are doing to pull off the next one in combination is a common mistake.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Eaten a bunch of shots?



Been punched a lot.


----------



## Transk53

wayfaring said:


> Sorry I was just going over likely ways in a fight scenario you could get to knee on chest.   Usually people don't lay down for you.    I was trying to describe the first way as through a more common method of a clinch leading to a takedown.  The second way would be either through a knockdown or through in wing chun when you get an opening and take someones balance you have them on the run striking and can step on or entangle their legs as you punch.  That leads to them going down and to knee on chest.   That's in general what I was trying to describe but I used too many jargon/internal art descriptions.



Yes that is correct. A knock down is what it is. The opening is always what we know, but how we dictate things. I would suggest you think on that. Violence, you know that?


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Been punched a lot.



Yes. Domestic abuse, then I learnt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Transk53 said:


> That leads to them going down and to knee on chest.


Here is an example.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> No.
> Every move exept an obvious fake should be designed to work. The punch knocks them out. If it doesn't the clinch/grapple is following up.
> 
> Short changing the move you are doing to pull off the next one in combination is a common mistake.



short changing is not a common mistake, it is a tool.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> We dont clinch much. Just shoot straight on them. Then clinch if they are still standing.


I used to believe that I can use a punch to set up a take down. One day my friend said, "If I just move back when you move in, there is no way that you can get me." I tried on him many times, he was right. How to solve that problem? I have noticed that if I can establish a "hook" between his body and my body, when he moves back, he will "pull" my body with him. That "hook" is part of the "clinch". After that day, I add an extra step between punching and take down and that is to

- use a punch to set up a clinch.
- use a clinch to establish a take down.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Yes that is correct. A knock down is what it is. The opening is always what we know, but how we dictate things. I would suggest you think on that. Violence, you know that?



Knee riding guys is kind of epic if you can do it. Probably one of the better top side ground positions to have.

If you are striking or pinning the guy you dont have to roll off for the arm.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I used to believe in this until one day my friend said, "If I just move back when you move in, there is no way that you can get me." I tried on him many times, he was right.
> 
> How to solve that problem? I have noticed that if I can establish a "hook" between his body and my body, when he moves back, he will "pull" my body with him. That "hook" is part of the "clinch".



Yeah but the other guy can clinch as well. You are more likely to wind up in a fifty,fifty than be in a dominant position. In which case you are not working as efficiently as you can.

Again you are eating shots on the way in. You want some result at the end of it.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Yeah but the other guy can clinch as well. You are more likely to wind up in a fifty,fifty than be in a dominant position. In which case you are not working as efficiently as you can.
> 
> Again you are eating shots on the way in. You want some result at the end of it.



Eating the shots in, no.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Eating the shots in, no.



Yeah that is what I tell all the guys who fight in our gym. Just avoid all of his punches. Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yeah but the other guy can clinch as well. You are more likely to wind up in a fifty,fifty than be in a dominant position. In which case you are not working as efficiently as you can.


If you are a wrestler, you will love to play the clinch game with your opponent.



drop bear said:


> Again you are eating shots on the way in. You want some result at the end of it.



Since your opponent arms are free, you will eat shots on the way in too. This is why many wrestlers when they shoot in for single or double, they will get punched on the head. If you can wrap your opponent's arms and establish a clinch, you can change a striking game into a wrestling game ASAP. IMO, that's a much safe approach - not to get hit on the way in.






Here is another example that you establish a clinch "bear hug" first, you then apply your take down afterward.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> We dont clinch much. Just shoot straight on them. Then clinch if they are still standing.


is this why you get punched a lot?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since your opponent arms are free, you will eat shots on the way in too. This is why many wrestlers when they shoot in for single or double, they will get punched on the head. If you can wrap your opponent's arms and establish a clinch, you can change a striking game into a wrestling game ASAP. IMO, that's a much safe approach - not to get hit on the way in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another example that you establish a clinch "bear hug" first, you then apply your take down afterward.



you are not worried about duck unders?

The thing people miss in these demos is in general people are fighting back. So a lot of these methods wotk a bit differently.

I was trying to find a video of resisted clinching. Found this instead which is unrelated but kind of cool.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> is this why you get punched a lot?



Punched a lot less. Instead of walking through the arms. Then fighting for a takedown We go under them. 

Here is coachy coach. Doing basically that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> you are not worried about duck unders?


The other day I wrestled with a wrestler, he dodged my head lock under my arms, it gave me a chance to get him a "reverse head lock'.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Punched a lot less. Instead of walking through the arms. Then fighting for a takedown We go under them.
> 
> Here is coachy coach. Doing basically that.


In cage fight, the space is limited. if your opponent moves back a couple steps, his back will be against the wall. On open mat, if you have enough space to step back, you can get a "reverse head lock" and let him to kiss the mat.


----------



## wayfaring

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a wrestler, you will love to play the clinch game with your opponent.
> 
> Since your opponent arms are free, you will eat shots on the way in too. This is why many wrestlers when they shoot in for single or double, they will get punched on the head. If you can wrap your opponent's arms and establish a clinch, you can change a striking game into a wrestling game ASAP. IMO, that's a much safe approach - not to get hit on the way in.


better approach than shooting from outside.



> Here is another example that you establish a clinch "bear hug" first, you then apply your take down afterward.


this mostly works until you climb the ranks enough to run into a top college or world level wrestler who will pop suplex you with overhooks when you try this.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The other day I wrestled with a wrestler, he dodged my head lock under my arms, it gave me a chance to get him a "reverse head lock'.



Your mate dropped his head. which you should never do in a duck under.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In cage fight, the space is limited. if your opponent moves back a couple steps, his back will be against the wall. On open mat, the attack can get a "reverse head lock" and kiss the mat almost every time.




See the post about duck unders.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> better approach than shooting from outside.
> 
> 
> this mostly works until you climb the ranks enough to run into a top college or world level wrestler who will pop suplex you with overhooks when you try this.



Wait. Overhooks?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Your mate dropped his head. which you should never do in a duck under.


You don't care whether your opponent's head is "vertical" or "horizontal". If his head is

- vertical, you try to get him in "head lock".
- horizontal, you try to get him in "reverse head lock".

In both cases, you can drop your body weight to crash on top of his "neck joint".


----------



## Flying Crane

wayfaring said:


> Thanks for the response.  I wouldn't have brought it up but you are discussing me publicly with someone else here.   I did see you intended your advice as honest.  I tried to explain to you that you are singling out one response in the midst of a disagreement over ideas, and you are targeting condescension in one post but giving it a pass in your perceived friends posts here on several others.  It doesn't sound like you got my advice there either.
> 
> The others in this argument are the ones engaging in gaslighting behavior telling everyone about who they have on their ignore list.  So I was just becoming clear that this is not you as well.  Thanks for your clarification.  That covers my concern regarding ignore lists.  Whatever the good or bad behavior is there in your opinion w/r to ignore lists, for me it also is practical.  I don't want to answer people's posts who have me on their ignore list.
> 
> As I said before, from my perspective we never had a "joining of the ways" so a "parting of the ways" is unnecessary.  I'm going to discuss my primary art on this forum and that may or may not involve you.  I agreed with one of your comments on hybridizing dissimilar arts.  So if concepts keep getting exchanged then in all likelihood I will continue to interact with you.


Fair enough.  Life has enough aggravation in it for most of us, we dont need to create more for ourselves and for others here.  Perhaps we have had more misunderstandings than intended hostility.  I hope that is simply the case and we can put this behind us.

I will point out that I believe Juany did make at least a couple of attempts to clarify what he perceived as possible misunderstandings in order to keep the discussion on a good note, and it seemed to me that that might have gotten a different response than it did.  

And I did see that you had agreed with something I said. I imagine we can find some interesting and fruitful common ground here in the various forums.

So, points have been made, let's put it behind us and move forward.  Good with you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wayfaring said:


> this mostly works until you climb the ranks enough to run into a top college or world level wrestler who will pop suplex you with overhooks when you try this.


I think you are talking about "under hook". 

When you apply head lock or over hook on your opponent, it will give your opponent a chance to apply under hook on you. The chance are 50-50 there. Nobody will have advantage over the other.

One of my favor counter for head lock is the "under hook leg block". You under hook your opponent's head lock arm, use one leg to block his legs, and take him down.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


>



This guy has the true hybrid art.  Not Kurt, his friend at 4:30.   A 6 step break dance AND a sweet sit-out to avoid a guillotine.


----------



## wayfaring

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough.  Life has enough aggravation in it for most of us, we dont need to create more for ourselves and for others here.  Perhaps we have had more misunderstandings than intended hostility.  I hope that is simply the case and we can put this behind us.
> 
> I will point out that I believe Juany did make at least a couple of attempts to clarify what he perceived as possible misunderstandings in order to keep the discussion on a good note, and it seemed to me that that might have gotten a different response than it did.
> 
> And I did see that you had agreed with something I said. I imagine we can find some interesting and fruitful common ground here in the various forums.
> 
> So, points have been made, let's put it behind us and move forward.  Good with you?



Sure.  I'm fine with that.

I kind of disagree with you on the Juany thing.  People who manipulate and threaten and then blow up illogically when confronted then take further  irrational actions probably are not going to maintain discussions on good notes, and from my experience the only way to get good responses from them are to cave in to their manipulations, which I am unwilling to accept as a condition of discussion.  Now maybe I'm wrong and he'll find the intestinal fortitude to take me off ignore and address all that, but I'm not holding my breath.  I can't accept a gaslighting condition as a prerequisite for discussion with an individual.

But anyway points are made on that topic and moving forward from here sure.  Plenty to learn and discuss.  You seem to have a background in Northern and Southern Chinese arts?  Wing chun as well?  What is your connection to wing chun?


----------



## Flying Crane

wayfaring said:


> Sure.  I'm fine with that.
> 
> I kind of disagree with you on the Juany thing.  People who manipulate and threaten and then blow up illogically when confronted then take further  irrational actions probably are not going to maintain discussions on good notes, and from my experience the only way to get good responses from them are to cave in to their manipulations, which I am unwilling to accept as a condition of discussion.  Now maybe I'm wrong and he'll find the intestinal fortitude to take me off ignore and address all that, but I'm not holding my breath.  I can't accept a gaslighting condition as a prerequisite for discussion with an individual.
> 
> But anyway points are made on that topic and moving forward from here sure.  Plenty to learn and discuss.  You seem to have a background in Northern and Southern Chinese arts?  Wing chun as well?  What is your connection to wing chun?


I trained wing chun for about 3 or 4 years, back about 15 years ago.  I kept up with practicing the forms for a number of years, working on my own while I was not connected to a wing chun group.  I've let the wing chun go, as well as several other things that Ive done over the years, once I got solidly grounded in Tibetan White Crane.  That is the only thing I train now, but I've got a 32 year history in the martial arts, including Tracy kenpo, capoeira, taiji, a dabbling in grappling, and a touch of one or two other things along the way.  But that is all history, I've found my home with the crane.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you are dealing with multiple opponents, the grappling is not a good approach. I still remember that onetime my Shuai Chiao teacher got into a fight in an office space against 7 guys. He used mainly elbow in the whole fight, no punch, no kick, no lock, no throw. This is why I always have faith in "elbow". You may not have enough space to punch or kick, but you will always have enough space to strike with your elbow.
> 
> IMO, the striking and grappling integration is used mainly in 1 on 1 situation. The moment that you put yourself on the ground, you lose your "mobility". This is why one should also train take down and take off at the same time. Even you take your opponent down, you don't have to go down yourself.


If I'm reading your post correctly, you're referring to ground grappling, only. When I refer to grappling, that includes the standing work (takedowns, etc.) - in fact, we're (NGA) far more predisposed to standing than ground grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Yeah you right. Maybe one exception with grabbing one, then using them as a foil, if only for a moment. Which generally is all that is needed.


Which is part of our approach for multiple-attacker work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> If I'm reading your post correctly, you're referring to ground grappling, only. When I refer to grappling, that includes the standing work (takedowns, etc.) - in fact, we're (NGA) far more predisposed to standing than ground grappling.


The problem is when you throw your opponent, your opponent may drag you down with him. Sometime it's difficult to prevent that from happening even if you may try to remain standing. Sometime you can get back up fast. Sometime you can't.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> There is a paper,sissors,rock effect in striking that gives advantage to knowing more than one set of striking principles.



I understand that, I just think that most such gaps can be solved without going so far a field.  Example.  In terms of overall body structure the Kali my WC Sifu also teaches is very similar to my WC as it tries to make the armed and unarmed sides biomechanically consistent and the weapon side has the "end game" being wielding two weapons simultaneously (two swords/sticks, sword/stick and dagger etc).  However it includes more varied angles of attack and different defenses.  One of them has even been adopted into the WC curriculum, once the basics are understood, by the WC Master whose videos I show on occasion because he likes it's efficiency because it doesn't violate the basic WC principles, though it doesn't look "WC."







It works well on round punches and while this photo has the one applying the cover changing his facing, the arm position can fit into the centerline and forward energy principles of WC.

TL;DR yes it's rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock, but there are fighting arts that mesh better together that fill those 5 positions than, in my case, TWC and Tibetan White Crane.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> If I'm reading your post correctly, you're referring to ground grappling, only. When I refer to grappling, that includes the standing work (takedowns, etc.) - in fact, we're (NGA) far more predisposed to standing than ground grappling.



This is actually and endless source of frustration for me.  When I think of grappling I think...











(Transition photo follows)





When it comes to "ground fighting" this is bout as far as I want to go.
















etc.

But when ever I mention grappling I get the feeling others are thinking I mean...






and similar "really" on the ground stuff.

The last photo is the LAST thing I think anyone should want to do in self defense.  Concrete and tile hurt in real life.  more if you have this around your waist, turn the mag pouch 90 degrees so you can fit a Taser and you have mine...






not just the potential injury issue (when I was younger and rock and rolled the stereotypical judo ground game I went for a few years, not an exaggeration, with bruises on my hips and the waistline along my back.  My wife started getting worried it was that bad for that long.) but imagine the instability created by the uneven balance of that crap, the access the bad guy might have to my tools in transitions.

The above is why global statements on "this is what works" annoy me so much.  We all have different reasons we study as passionately as we do.  There is no "special sauce."


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Yes. Domestic abuse, then I learnt.



I think sometimes people miss, tragically, how many situations in this fffed up world people can be trained to "take a hit."


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Which is part of our approach for multiple-attacker work.



That's good. Not sure if as area it is neglected, I do think it is, but you pretty much have two choices. Stand your ground and ride it, or look for the exit. For me that kind of training is really important. Not for causing damage or some kind of Chuck Norris badge, but for making the space to retreat. No shame in that, just evaluating what is what. Does that make sense?


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> I think sometimes people miss, tragically, how many situations in this fffed up world people can be trained to "take a hit."



Yes, and I guess from you're job POV, you see that a lot? Took quite a few hits, but mainly from the bullies. What is really annoying, I became conditioned to taking the hits. Maybe in hindsight not that a bad thing. I'd rather still stand and get a decent punch in (I like to kind of romantically rely on my fists still) then not have to worry about been beaten by a shoddy move. Don't mind so much (well I do but just an example) if I get hit with a decent solid punch. It worse if you get jumped by someone who you clearly get by someone who wouldn't take you on one on one. That make sense?


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> No.
> Every move exept an obvious fake should be designed to work. The punch knocks them out. If it doesn't the clinch/grapple is following up.
> 
> Short changing the move you are doing to pull off the next one in combination is a common mistake.



Not as a move though. Better to sting them and then grapple, as apposed to knocking them. Then again, having worked with a couple of Ozzies, I know about the different cultural mentality in play.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Yes, and I guess from you're job POV, you see that a lot? Took quite a few hits, but mainly from the bullies. What is really annoying, I became conditioned to taking the hits. Maybe in hindsight not that a bad thing. I'd rather still stand and get a decent punch in (I like to kind of romantically rely on my fists still) then not have to worry about been beaten by a shoddy move. Don't mind so much (well I do but just an example) if I get hit with a decent solid punch. It worse if you get jumped by someone who you clearly get by someone who wouldn't take you on one on one. That make sense?


It makes sense indeed.  What troubles me is that it makes sense to us but most would think we are paranoid.

The only thing I would add is that "in hindsight" it is a bad thing.  One I care about could say "in hindsight." No one should ever have to say that and those who make it happen need to die in a fire, period.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> It makes sense indeed.  What troubles me is that it makes sense to us but most would think we are paranoid.



Yeah probably. Then again, maybe aging has something to do with the paranoia lol. Being just over four years from the fifties, not sure these days if that is scary or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is when you throw your opponent, your opponent may drag you down with him. Sometime it's difficult to prevent that from happening even if you may try to remain standing. Sometime you can get back up fast. Sometime you can't.


That is definitely true of one-leg moves like that sweep (and ours). It's far less true of some other takedowns, and mostly only a risk where they have already locked onto you (at which point you're at risk of going to the ground, and putting them down hard is an improvement).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> This is actually and endless source of frustration for me.  When I think of grappling I think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Transition photo follows)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to "ground fighting" this is bout as far as I want to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etc.
> 
> But when ever I mention grappling I get the feeling others are thinking I mean...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and similar "really" on the ground stuff.
> 
> The last photo is the LAST thing I think anyone should want to do in self defense.  Concrete and tile hurt in real life.  more if you have this around your waist, turn the mag pouch 90 degrees so you can fit a Taser and you have mine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not just the potential injury issue (when I was younger and rock and rolled the stereotypical judo ground game I went for a few years, not an exaggeration, with bruises on my hips and the waistline along my back.  My wife started getting worried it was that bad for that long.) but imagine the instability created by the uneven balance of that crap, the access the bad guy might have to my tools in transitions.
> 
> The above is why global statements on "this is what works" annoy me so much.  We all have different reasons we study as passionately as we do.  There is no "special sauce."


Agreed. When I speak of grappling, I'm mostly talking about standing work: throws and takedowns. Ground work, for us, has two primary purposes: pin/lock/break (usually from kneeling), or escape. We don't fight on the ground any longer than we have to.

I think the ground = grappling issue comes from folks being so aware of MMA. All people see there of the standing game is a takedown - usually one per fight. So, when "grappling" is discussed, most of it is the groundwork.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> This is actually and endless source of frustration for me.  When I think of grappling I think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Transition photo follows)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to "ground fighting" this is bout as far as I want to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etc.
> 
> But when ever I mention grappling I get the feeling others are thinking I mean...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and similar "really" on the ground stuff.
> 
> The last photo is the LAST thing I think anyone should want to do in self defense.  Concrete and tile hurt in real life.  more if you have this around your waist, turn the mag pouch 90 degrees so you can fit a Taser and you have mine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not just the potential injury issue (when I was younger and rock and rolled the stereotypical judo ground game I went for a few years, not an exaggeration, with bruises on my hips and the waistline along my back.  My wife started getting worried it was that bad for that long.) but imagine the instability created by the uneven balance of that crap, the access the bad guy might have to my tools in transitions.
> 
> The above is why global statements on "this is what works" annoy me so much.  We all have different reasons we study as passionately as we do.  There is no "special sauce."


By the way, did you pull that first image from a video, by any chance? I want to see the context of that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> That's good. Not sure if as area it is neglected, I do think it is, but you pretty much have two choices. Stand your ground and ride it, or look for the exit. For me that kind of training is really important. Not for causing damage or some kind of Chuck Norris badge, but for making the space to retreat. No shame in that, just evaluating what is what. Does that make sense?


Exactly. Most of our multiple-attacker work is about movement, navigating through the group, including using their pursuit habits to get them in each other's way. On top of that, we add dropping bodies in their way when possible, as well as learning to work in a way that doesn't give them our back.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> The last photo is the LAST thing I think anyone should want to do in self defense. Concrete and tile hurt in real life. more if you have this around your waist, turn the mag pouch 90 degrees so you can fit a Taser and you have mine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not just the potential injury issue (when I was younger and rock and rolled the stereotypical judo ground game I went for a few years, not an exaggeration, with bruises on my hips and the waistline along my back. My wife started getting worried it was that bad for that long.) but imagine the instability created by the uneven balance of that crap, the access the bad guy might have to my tools in transitions.
> 
> The above is why global statements on "this is what works" annoy me so much. We all have different reasons we study as passionately as we do. There is no "special sauce."


I forgot to reply to this part, too.

I sometimes see folks mocking the idea that gravel and glass and such is an issue worth considering. I've seen Gracie videos where they did some of their work on pavement, and have had people tell me they successfully did groundwork on gravel. I don't doubt that. But it's percentages. Doing groundwork on pavement adds chance of getting injured, for both parties. Do it on gravel, and that chance goes up in some ways and down in others. Add glass (even one sharp piece), and it's a whole new possibility of injury. Are those things common? Depends where you are, and I want to limit the adjustments I have to make for environment. So, I tend to work more condensed and close to reduce the adjustments I have to make for constrained spaces. I tend to stay standing so I don't have to account for debris. And so forth. Are there compromises in those decisions? Yes, of course.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> I forgot to reply to this part, too.
> 
> I sometimes see folks mocking the idea that gravel and glass and such is an issue worth considering. I've seen Gracie videos where they did some of their work on pavement, and have had people tell me they successfully did groundwork on gravel. I don't doubt that. But it's percentages. Doing groundwork on pavement adds chance of getting injured, for both parties. Do it on gravel, and that chance goes up in some ways and down in others. Add glass (even one sharp piece), and it's a whole new possibility of injury. Are those things common? Depends where you are, and I want to limit the adjustments I have to make for environment. So, I tend to work more condensed and close to reduce the adjustments I have to make for constrained spaces. I tend to stay standing so I don't have to account for debris. And so forth. Are there compromises in those decisions? Yes, of course.



There was a Fight Quest episode on Silat, where training on gravel was used. Was on a Volcano. Probably quite risky, but I believe it was to aid balance, more than being an insane idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> There was a Fight Quest episode on Silat, where training on gravel was used. Was on a Volcano. Probably quite risky, but I believe it was to aid balance, more than being an insane idea.


I like the idea of training on surfaces. I do outdoor classes from time to time to let students practice on uneven surfaces. I wouldn't do the throws on gravel (that just seems like torture), but the movements on gravel would be good practice.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> By the way, did you pull that first image from a video, by any chance? I want to see the context of that.


No but clearly it is from a video.  From the original link it appears to be from the Gracie Combatives series.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I like the idea of training on surfaces. I do outdoor classes from time to time to let students practice on uneven surfaces. I wouldn't do the throws on gravel (that just seems like torture), but the movements on gravel would be good practice.



You definitely need to be prepared but I think you hit a good point with the Gracies thing.  The other day I found a video by the two who do the combatives series.  The video was good in part they actually acknowledged that Gracie BJJ has two forms, one for sport and one for self defense and if you train the sport one only you can have issues.  The bad thing about the video was that they said "this is the best self-defense art..." Blah blah blah.  Once you are convinced of that idea then "oh you can do it on glass no problem." becomes a necessity regardless of the reality of the situation.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That is definitely true of one-leg moves like that sweep (and ours). It's far less true of some other takedowns, and mostly only a risk where they have already locked onto you (at which point you're at risk of going to the ground, and putting them down hard is an improvement).


That is why I am a bigger fan of one leg take downs that have to driving up, rather than sweeping.  They still have a chance to bring you with them but I find that it happens far less often


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> That is definitely true of one-leg moves like that sweep (and ours). It's far less true of some other takedowns, and mostly only a risk where they have already locked onto you (at which point you're at risk of going to the ground, and putting them down hard is an improvement).


Not letting your opponent's arms to surround your waist is important. If you can use your

- back arm to wrap your opponent's leading arm,
- leading arm to under hook, or over hook his back arm,
- you then let go your leading arm control and press down on his back shoulder,
- spring one of his legs,

it will be hard for him to drag you down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> No but clearly it is from a video.  From the original link it appears to be from the Gracie Combatives series.


Dang. I wanted to see what they are explaining, because part of what I see there looks like a structural problem. They don't usually have structural problems, so I'm curious whether they were demonstrating the problem, or if there's something they do differently there that avoids the problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> You definitely need to be prepared but I think you hit a good point with the Gracies thing.  The other day I found a video by the two who do the combatives series.  The video was good in part they actually acknowledged that Gracie BJJ has two forms, one for sport and one for self defense and if you train the sport one only you can have issues.  The bad thing about the video was that they said "this is the best self-defense art..." Blah blah blah.  Once you are convinced of that idea then "oh you can do it on glass no problem." becomes a necessity regardless of the reality of the situation.


Agreed. I think everyone should *believe* their art (or mix thereof) to be the best for their purposes, while intellectually acknowledging that is never wholly true.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not letting your opponent's arms to surround your waist is important. If you can use your
> 
> - back arm to wrap your opponent's leading arm,
> - leading arm to under hook, or over hook his back arm,
> - you then let go your leading arm control and press down on his back shoulder,
> - spring one of his legs,
> 
> it will be hard for him to drag you down.


He doesn't have to get an arm around you to take advantage of a one-legged stance. A handful of t-shirt can suffice, and I've demonstrated to students that even a wrist grip will work if I hold their wrist to my chest as I fall. The real saving in this video is that the thrower doesn't actually bring his leg up - he drives through, with his foot barely leaving the ground. He's maintaining a 2-footed stance for the majority of that movement.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Dang. I wanted to see what they are explaining, because part of what I see there looks like a structural problem. They don't usually have structural problems, so I'm curious whether they were demonstrating the problem, or if there's something they do differently there that avoids the problem.


What's the issue you see?  Just curious because that makes sense that me, in a very particular context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> What's the issue you see?  Just curious because that makes sense that me, in a very particular context.


Nage's back is to uke. A small pull and uke should be able to put him off-balance to his heels. Even as a transitional position, it's a problem, in case the attacker stumbles right there. It would be unlike the Gracies to have a gap like that in a technique, so I'm wondering if they have something else built in to mitigate it.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Nage's back is to uke. A small pull and uke should be able to put him off-balance to his heels. Even as a transitional position, it's a problem, in case the attacker stumbles right there. It would be unlike the Gracies to have a gap like that in a technique, so I'm wondering if they have something else built in to mitigate it.



Ah, okay.  The way I was picturing it was this.  First picture there being a knife in the restrained arm.  Once there your next move wouldn't be a restraint or takedown.  Your "inside" arm becomes an upward elbow strike to the retrained elbow to break it and force the knife to drop, if not dropped you strip the knife.

While it creates a momentary vulnerability having that position it makes sense in the knife realm.  First, often, the knife wielder is going to be focused on maintaining control of the knife.  Then having the ball and socket joint of the elbow wide open like that means that the bad guy can't effectively wrestle for control of the knife with that arm due to how that kind of joint works as I am sure you know.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Dang. I wanted to see what they are explaining, because part of what I see there looks like a structural problem. They don't usually have structural problems, so I'm curious whether they were demonstrating the problem, or if there's something they do differently there that avoids the problem.



Their stand up can be a bit off some times. But normally that arm control is a Russian tie. as almost nobody lets you get a straight arm bar takedown.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I forgot to reply to this part, too.
> 
> I sometimes see folks mocking the idea that gravel and glass and such is an issue worth considering. I've seen Gracie videos where they did some of their work on pavement, and have had people tell me they successfully did groundwork on gravel. I don't doubt that. But it's percentages. Doing groundwork on pavement adds chance of getting injured, for both parties. Do it on gravel, and that chance goes up in some ways and down in others. Add glass (even one sharp piece), and it's a whole new possibility of injury. Are those things common? Depends where you are, and I want to limit the adjustments I have to make for environment. So, I tend to work more condensed and close to reduce the adjustments I have to make for constrained spaces. I tend to stay standing so I don't have to account for debris. And so forth. Are there compromises in those decisions? Yes, of course.



The compromise is loosing fights and getting your face smashed in. Fine i like to stay standing. I like to avoid punches and kicks.  I would like arm bars and take downs to work.

But fighitng for some reason has other ideas.

There comes a time in a fight where you really need to stop messing around with a guy and shoot that double.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> Ah, okay.  The way I was picturing it was this.*  First picture there being a knife in the restrained arm.  Once there your next move wouldn't be a restraint or takedown*.  Your "inside" arm becomes an upward elbow strike to the retrained elbow to break it and force the knife to drop, if not dropped you strip the knife.
> 
> While it creates a momentary vulnerability having that position it makes sense in the knife realm.  First, often, the knife wielder is going to be focused on maintaining control of the knife.  Then having the ball and socket joint of the elbow wide open like that means that the bad guy can't effectively wrestle for control of the knife with that arm due to how that kind of joint works as I am sure you know.



Why?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> the thrower doesn't actually bring his leg up - he drives through, with his foot barely leaving the ground. He's maintaining a 2-footed stance for the majority of that movement.


Of course if you have both feet on the ground, you will have better balance yourself. Sometime when you use one leg to kick your opponent's body off the ground, you may have intention to drop your body weight on top of him. A good body drop can end a fight if the ground is hard.

If you can use one leg to lift your opponent's body off the ground, you can take him down with both feet on the ground. The other way around may not be true. IMO, that's a good testing for your "single leg balance during throwing". 

- In fighting, you may want to play safe. 
- In training, you want to challenge yourself to the maximum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Ah, okay.  The way I was picturing it was this.  First picture there being a knife in the restrained arm.  Once there your next move wouldn't be a restraint or takedown.  Your "inside" arm becomes an upward elbow strike to the retrained elbow to break it and force the knife to drop, if not dropped you strip the knife.
> 
> While it creates a momentary vulnerability having that position it makes sense in the knife realm.  First, often, the knife wielder is going to be focused on maintaining control of the knife.  Then having the ball and socket joint of the elbow wide open like that means that the bad guy can't effectively wrestle for control of the knife with that arm due to how that kind of joint works as I am sure you know.



We use a technique very close to what I'm sure they are doing there (given their Judo/Jujutsu roots). We call that variant a Rollover Arm Bar, and the destruction is pulling up on the wrist while dropping body weight through the elbow. I looked at it again, and he's not as far from my preferred structure as I first thought. For some reason, I had processed the front foot at a different angle earlier. Still, I'd prefer to be angled further toward the uke. It sacrifices the clamp a bit (an issue with someone trained in the same technique) and gains stability. If their next move is to completely sacrifice their weight and drop to a seated or kneeling position to create the destruction, then the weaker foundation is not an issue.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Why?



This position is used as a knife disarm technique because it totally opens up the shoulder joint.  When a ball and socket joint is opened like that it loses most of its strength so it helps to control the limb for a break/strip.  It also puts you in a position away from the pointy end.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> This position is used as a knife disarm technique because it totally opens up the shoulder joint.  When a ball and socket joint is opened like that it loses most of its strength so it helps to control the limb for a break/strip.  It also puts you in a position away from the pointy end.



What if he has two knives? Then he just gets stabbed by the other one.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> What if he has two knives? Then he just gets stabbed by the other one.



And the purpose of this strawman?  That's akin to saying "what if he has hold out pistol, then you just get shot.

A question was asked, it was answered factually and you didn't even address the biomechanical facts noted in the response, just strawman time.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> And the purpose of this strawman?  That's akin to saying "what if he has hold out pistol, then you just get shot.
> 
> A question was asked, it was answered factually and you didn't even address the biomechanical facts noted in the response, just strawman time.



Knives are very comon in a real self defence situation. I like to address my self defence towards real threats.

I gear my training to an uncontrolled environment where knives may be present.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Knives are very comon in a real self defence situation. I like to address my self defence towards real threats.
> 
> I gear my training to an uncontrolled environment where knives may be present.



Indeed knives are common.  Someone dual wielding knives, one in either hand, not so much.  

Not sure if serious or taking a shot.  The later more likely but not certain.


----------



## wayfaring

gpseymour said:


> Dang. I wanted to see what they are explaining, because part of what I see there looks like a structural problem. They don't usually have structural problems, so I'm curious whether they were demonstrating the problem, or if there's something they do differently there that avoids the problem.



 I would tell him it's a knife disarm but he can't see it.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> Knives are very comon in a real self defence situation. I like to address my self defence towards real threats.
> 
> I gear my training to an uncontrolled environment where knives may be present.



Yes a drawback of that specific Gracie disarm technique is that you are so fully engaged with the weapon arm that 2 knives (or other things for that matter - brass knuckles, spiked boot, even a knee) could get you.

The advantage of that disarm technique is it works in a live scenario in that it achieves the goal of fully isolating the weapon arm away from the body and controlling it.  That is step 1, leading to the disarm at step 2.  To clarify weapons disarms are not in Gracie Combatives, that's another source - maybe LEO training.


----------

