# Sport And TMA....Again



## MJS

Didn't want to further sidetrack the "Is BJJ good for SD" thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.  In that thread, Steve and I were talking about sport and TMAs, and the misconceptions that some people may have, as to the effectiveness of sport fighting arts.

This is a comment that I made:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...JJ-work-in-a-real-fight?p=1610425#post1610425

I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.  

So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?


----------



## K-man

MJS said:


> Didn't want to further sidetrack the "Is BJJ good for SD" thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.  In that thread, Steve and I were talking about sport and TMAs, and the misconceptions that some people may have, as to the effectiveness of sport fighting arts.
> 
> This is a comment that I made:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...JJ-work-in-a-real-fight?p=1610425#post1610425
> 
> I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.
> 
> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?


I wish you would hijack the other thread. We all agreed on page one that you could use BJJ for SD! 

Within in martial arts, I believe there are at least two groups. There are those who are young and fit and look at MAs as a means of testing their skills against others or maybe even representing their country. These ideals are more than enough to validate the sporting nature of martial arts. Anyone who has developed their skill to that level, or indeed the level to compete in a local tournament will have developed skills to help them in an altercation with an untrained or street wise attacker. Is the average martial artist going to match it with a highly trained professional MMA fighter? Most likely not.

Of course we now have the problem we have had in other threads as to the definition of TMA. Can we take it that TMA refers to those arts that have existed for generations, were developed to protect life and property and are not used in competition?

So the next group are those who have no interest in completion. They might be older, they might be people with an interest in MA, they might be people looking for the ability to defend themselves or their families if the need were to arise. They do not feel the need to test themselves in competition. 

Now you specifically mentioned Kenpo as your example. You said they train techniques against just about every attack. In some ways I can see the logic but I think that it is only at the basic level that those techniques are applicable. We can train to receive a variety of punches to a variety of targets. By the time you have worked all those out you might have 50 ways of defending. Then you get attacked on the street. Are you going to use any of those things? Highly unlikely. You are going to experience adrenal dump and you will react with flinch response. Most reality based systems are based on flinch response and that is also how I train my students. So as you asked is it fallacy? The answer as always is not clear cut. You learn basic techniques, then you forget them. In a fight you are relying on the principles you have learned to produce the appropriate response and this applies across the board, sport or TMA. In the end you are relying on pure fighting skill. The difference is how you arrive at that point.

The difference to me between sport and TMA is context. Sport is to play and the side benefit is self defence skills. TMA is to protect your life by whatever means necessary.

Much has been said of kata, most not complimentary. My teaching revolves around kata. I use it to teach basics, I use it to teach techniques, I use it to teach applications and I use it to teach combinations. But most importantly, I teach it as RBSD. Most sport oriented MAs do not pay much attention to kata at all. That's why I get so annoyed when people who don't understand kata start bagging it. 

So we get to your final question, "Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill?" Basically you train the techniques, then rely on the fighting skill that you have developed. 
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

I think another misconception is that TMAs don't compete?  Do you believe fighting for fun is new?  Of course not.  As long as there have been men they have had competitions so long before MMA and UFC.  Guys would train and fight for "sport". It wasn't govt sanction or for belts and rankings but people have been competing for 1000s of years in fighting arts.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.



I would say the public at large thinks that boxers, wrestlers, and MMA fighters can beat the crap out of someone, and handle themselves well in a self-defense situation. I've heard plenty of folks say that Karate or Kung Fu doesn't work in the street, but I have yet to hear anyone say the same about MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc. So the question then becomes; Who thinks that martial athletes can't defend themselves?

Sports athletes tend to be more fit, have healthier diets, fight more often, and train more often than their non sport counterparts. In any SD situation, those factors are very important.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I would say the public at large thinks that *boxers, wrestlers, and MMA fighters can beat the crap out of someone, and handle themselves well in a self-defense situation.* I've heard plenty of folks say that *Karate or Kung Fu doesn't work in the street*, but I have yet to hear anyone say the same about MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc. So the question then becomes; Who thinks that martial athletes can't defend themselves?
> 
> Sports athletes tend to be more fit, have healthier diets, fight more often, and train more often than their non sport counterparts. In any SD situation, those factors are very important.


Why don't you keep those opinions to the posts that you have steered that way and leave this one to discussing the issues that *MJS* has raised.

No one is suggesting here or elsewhere that martial athletes can't defend themselves, that is *NOT* the question at all.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

MJS said:


> I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.
> 
> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?



There's a lot to discuss here.  I'm going to leave aside the issue of defense against weapons for the moment because that's a whole big topic in itself that I could easily get sidetracked on.

One thing to consider is the type of sporting competition you are talking about.  A MMA practitioner certainly has tools in his kit to handle pretty much any type of unarmed attack.  On the other hand, a BJJer who trains exclusively for IBJJF competition is in a similar position to a TKD practitioner who only trains for Olympic style competition.  Both can be dangerous because they are tough athletes with the tools to cause serious harm.  Both are potentially vulnerable because they are training for rules which don't allow the most common real world attacks and encourage some bad habits for street self-defense.  Of course, just because someone trains for competition doesn't mean they can't also train for self-defense.  Both BJJ and TKD have techniques to deal with the sorts of attacks which are not included in competition. I teach a BJJ fundamentals class and my primary focus is on making sure my students can use their skills in a self-defense context first and foremost.  Tournament techniques can come later.

There are other dangers to focusing too much on a competition mindset.  It encourages a dueling mentality where two players are facing each other, having agreed to fight and having agreed on the rules, waging a symmetric fight to overcome the other's defenses.  There are good lessons to be learned from that sort of exercise, but it is rather different from the realities of self-defense.  To balance that out I would recommend scenario-based training and asymmetric drills where the participants have different rules and objectives.

The bit about "preset techniques vs pure fighting skill" is somewhat irrelevant.  Whether you're training for competition or for the street you need both.  For competition you need to spend more time training counters for sophisticated martial arts techniques which are mostly irrelevant for a street fight.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I would say the public at large thinks that boxers, wrestlers, and MMA fighters can beat the crap out of someone, and handle themselves well in a self-defense situation. I've heard plenty of folks say that Karate or Kung Fu doesn't work in the street, but I have yet to hear anyone say the same about MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc. So the question then becomes; Who thinks that martial athletes can't defend themselves?


So because the non-educated "public at large" believes something it must be true?  Also Im not sure what this "public at large" is you speak of since I see Karate, TKD, and Kung Fu schools on almost every corner.  If the public at large didnt believe they were effective they wouldn't still be in business


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So because the non-educated "public at large" believes something it must be true?  Also Im not sure what this "public at large" is you speak of since I see Karate, TKD, and Kung Fu schools on almost every corner.  If the public at large didnt believe they were effective they wouldn't still be in business



I've read that many martial arts schools are actually in decline in the US while MMA schools are on the upswing. Karate for example declined by 26% in the last few years. 

I'll see if I can dig up the article.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I've read that many martial arts schools are actually in decline in the US while MMA schools are on the upswing. Karate for example declined by 26% in the last few years.
> 
> I'll see if I can dig up the article.



So your saying people are into the "next new thing". Yeah that happens.  These things change every decade or so.  Karate after WW2 then Kung fu and similar stuff in the 60s and 70s then TKD in the 80s and 90s. Krav for a few years  MMA now until the next new thing comes along.  its all cyclical.  Still if "the public at large" as you claim thinks Karate does not work why are there still schools packed with people.  If everyone knows MMA can "beat the crap out of people".   Why do people bother learning anything else?  Maybe its the attitude of "beating the crap out of people" that turn most people off since most people have no desire to go around "beating the crap out of people"


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> So your saying people are into the "next new thing". Yeah that happens.  These things change every decade or so.  Karate after WW2 then Kung fu and similar stuff in the 60s and 70s then TKD in the 80s and 90s. Krav for a few years  MMA now until the next new thing comes along.  its all cyclical.  Still if "the public at large" as you claim thinks Karate does not work why are there still schools packed with people.  If everyone knows MMA can "beat the crap out of people".   Why do people bother learning anything else?  Maybe its the attitude of "beating the crap out of people" that turn most people off since most people have no desire to go around "beating the crap out of people"



Since the majority of karate and tkd on every street corner is mcdojo id say your wrong about them going out of business if they didn't work.  The skill sets from mcdojo's don't work yet they still remain.  

People who can "beat the crap out of people" generally can also defend them selves very well.  Maybe its time TMA look at mma as the THE threat they are. Thugs and gangsta's are not training karate, they are doing mma...  IF tma can not meet the threat that mma truly is, then tma needs to end or change.  MMA is the the most dangerous unarmed threat to the average person and martial artist of our time. IF your art is not realistically prepared to meet it, then it needs to end.  All this BS of "to deadly for the ring" is just BS.  Stop relying on low percentage techs and focus on high percentage ones.  The high percentage techs set up the low percentage "deadly" techs. 

  MMA is constantly evolving and adding new techniques, yet TMA is stagnant having learned nothing from the spanking they got from 1993 onwards.  You would think that tma would start addressing there shortcomings after your best and brightest get spanked, yet they didn't.  Videos still crop up of TMA getting spanked.   Im willing to bet, the time will come, when you start seeing mma guys, start applying and making a real art out active deflections. Once they figure out they need to move past boxing,  they will out karate-karate, and out WC-WC. 

Darwinism needs to finally apply to the martial arts.


----------



## Steve

Here's an interesting video, just food for thought:






The description starts with:  The simple truth is, the bad guys are learning. With the explosive growth of MMA around the world, basic submissions, positions, and fight strategies have never been so familiar to everyday people around the world.


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> Since the majority of karate and tkd on every street corner is mcdojo id say your wrong about them going out of business if they didn't work.  The skill sets from mcdojo's don't work yet they still remain.
> 
> That is just not true. I don't know much about TKD schools but TKD is an Olympic sport and a lot of parents would like the dream of their child representing their country. I would say the vast majority of TKD schools would be genuine. Same goes for karate schools. There are a few McDojo around but I think the McDojo thread may have clouded the vision. Not only that but despite their ethics McDojo can still produce reasonable martial artists and often they will advertise their success in tournaments.
> 
> People who can "beat the crap out of people" generally can also defend them selves very well.  Maybe its time TMA look at mma as the THE threat they are. Thugs and gangsta's are not training karate, they are doing mma...  IF tma can not meet the threat that mma truly is, then tma needs to end or change.
> 
> What's with the style bashing that's come to MT since a certain person has come on board. TMAs aren't threatened by MMA. Millions of people train TMAs. TMAs don't need to change anything. TMAs are part of a smorgasbord of martial arts available to people.
> 
> MMA is the the most dangerous unarmed threat to the average person and martial artist of our time. IF your art is not realistically prepared to meet it, then it needs to end.  All this BS of "to deadly for the ring" is just BS.  Stop relying on low percentage techs and focus on high percentage ones.  The high percentage techs set up the low percentage "deadly" techs.
> 
> Where did that nonsense come from? Really? Most MMA students are just like the students in any other decent MA school. You're one of the only ones here spouting off about 'too deadly for the ring'. And ... "_MMA the most dangerous unarmed threat to the average person and martial artist of our time." _Unbelievable!  :idunno:  Say it often enough and it becomes a fact!
> 
> *  MMA is constantly evolving* and adding new techniques, yet *TMA is stagnant *having learned nothing from the spanking they got from 1993 onwards.  You would think that tma would start addressing there shortcomings after *your best and brightest get spanked*, yet they didn't.  Videos still crop up of TMA getting spanked.   Im willing to bet, the time will come, when you start seeing mma guys, start applying and making a real art out active deflections. Once they figure out they need to move past boxing,  they will out karate-karate, and out WC-WC.
> 
> Darwinism needs to finally apply to the martial arts.


OMG!  One of the best style bashing posts I have ever seen.
:hb:


----------



## Kframe

K man  you say TMA don't need to change. Why is that?  Do you think that run of the mill karate training will prepare someone to deal with a thug mma artist? Which is common despite you not thinking they are. I met all kinds of them during my stint in mma.  About the only modern art with out the thuggery is BJJ, of course I could be wrong. 

It may be style bashing but I don't understand this head in the sand attitude that most tma have. This refusal to address the new threats and how to effectively deal with them.  

Thugs and other social miscreants are drawn to MMA. MMA is very effective at takeing down TMA arts. If your art can not deal with and defeat even a mma with 1 year of experience then it has failed.  There are not nice people in mma. Karate does not draw in those types.  The threat has changed, why hasn't TMA?  

The more I train, the more I watch, the more I read, the more I see one sided martial arts as dinosaurs.  Why am I the only one that can see the threat they pose.   

I used to long to do karate/tkd. To emulate my father.. Then reality hit me.. My father is one of a kind born out through countless hours of self study and sparring with his wrestle/boxer twin.  This epiphany has lead me to become quite disillusioned with Traditional arts as of late.   Some time ago, I even walked into a KKW tkd dojang. I was ready to sign up.  Guy taught  traditional as well as the Olympic. Was a judo black belt, with several other arts.  He brought up the question of dealing with the ground.  He never taught any of the many valid judo syllabus on Newaza to his students.  His only statement was we don't go to the ground, I teach to avoid it.  (ya, how? What specific technique)

Knowing full well he could teach good ground, and refused, and then this BS statement I hear many tma make, I knew then Id never be satisfied and would feel only like half a martial artist. 

So ya, maybe I shouldn't style bash. That does not change, my feelings that, traditional martial artists need to be realistic with themselves.  They need to take a deep hard look at how they train and ask if they are realistically prepared to deal with emerging threats.  

Why shouldn't tma change. There is no  reason why a art like karate should take 5-6 years before you can understand it enough to actually use it in a fight or situation..  Ill put it to you the way my coach put it. (he had lots of years in karate as well as catch wrestling and bjj)  "I don't judge a martial art by their black belts, I judge them based on how well there white belts can defend them selves."


----------



## RTKDCMB

For response, see any of the 100 or so other threads on the subject.


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> K man  you say TMA don't need to change. Why is that?  Do you think that run of the mill karate training will prepare someone to deal with a thug mma artist? Which is common despite you not thinking they are. I met all kinds of them during my stint in mma.  About the only modern art with out the thuggery is BJJ, of course I could be wrong.
> 
> Firstly most people training TMA are learning it for reasons other than beating up people on the street. Where I live that is highly unlikely and if you practise common sense and don't go looking for trouble most people will never need to use their training. Even training in a McDojo can provide what some people are happy with.
> 
> It may be style bashing but I don't understand this head in the sand attitude that most tma have. This refusal to address the new threats and how to effectively deal with them.
> 
> One of the great things about MT is that people don't style bash. Those that do have little orange boxes under their name and often end up banned. We all train our different arts for different reasons and none of us would be training if we believed our style wasn't what we want then we would change. I did that after training in a McDojo years ago.
> 
> Thugs and other social miscreants are drawn to MMA. MMA is very effective at takeing down TMA arts. If your art can not deal with and defeat even a mma with 1 year of experience then it has failed.  There are not nice people in mma. Karate does not draw in those types.  The threat has changed, why hasn't TMA?
> 
> I happen to believe that TMA taught properly is every bit as effective as MMA or BJJ. Sure we don't spend as much time rolling as those guys but we do train to escape from the ground. I would agree that one year of karate training is not going to give you a lot of protection on the street but if that is what someone wants I would teach them Krav or Systema. But here again, Krav and Systema took there techniques from other MAs like Aikido, Muay Thai and Karate. Almost every technique in Aikido is identifiable in our karate kata so I teach all those. The softness of Systema and the isolation of various body parts in moving kicking and striking is very close to what you find in aikido and Goju karate. Krav is simple, brutal and effective. Once again you see the similarities to karate when you train these styles.
> 
> The more I train, the more I watch, the more I read, the more I see one sided martial arts as dinosaurs.  Why am I the only one that can see the threat they pose.
> 
> Now this is interesting. I would agree that one sided martial arts are not the best option. Nothing I teach or train is one dimensional. My Aikido contains punches, elbows, knees, kicks ground work as well as all the locks holds and takedowns. My Krav also has all that as does my Systema. Everything in those systems is in my Goju karate which is one of the few true Okinawan TMAs. There is no threat to my martial art from MMA.
> 
> I used to long to do karate/tkd. To emulate my father.. Then reality hit me.. My father is one of a kind born out through countless hours of self study and sparring with his wrestle/boxer twin.  This epiphany has lead me to become quite disillusioned with Traditional arts as of late.   Some time ago, I even walked into a KKW tkd dojang. I was ready to sign up.  Guy taught  traditional as well as the Olympic. Was a judo black belt, with several other arts.  He brought up the question of dealing with the ground.  He never taught any of the many valid judo syllabus on Newaza to his students.  His only statement was we don't go to the ground, I teach to avoid it.  (ya, how? What specific technique)
> 
> I'm not going to bag TKD. As I said before, people train TKD for different reasons. Like you, it is not my first choice.
> 
> Knowing full well he could teach good ground, and refused, and then this BS statement I hear many tma make, I knew then Id never be satisfied and would feel only like half a martial artist.
> 
> That BS statement is just a generalisation. Most of us don't want to go to the ground and you can teach in such a way as to reduce that happening. Both Systema and Aikido teach similar tactics. However, it is inevitable that at some stage you are likely to go to the ground. I would rather teach how to get off the ground than to stay on the ground.
> 
> So ya, maybe I shouldn't style bash. That does not change, my feelings that, traditional martial artists need to be realistic with themselves.  They need to take a deep hard look at how they train and ask if they are realistically prepared to deal with emerging threats.
> 
> Once again, I can agree with your sentiment. But again, it depends on what people want to get from their training. If you have read many of my other posts you would find me referring to 'schoolboy' karate. This is not putting it down but it is the basic level of training and some people never get beyond that level. In karate we call it kihon. All the basics you see and the line drills are kihon. Kata as you see it in competition is kihon. You don't fight using kihon techniques, these are for learning. The advanced training should occur next but often it is missing. If it is not your intention to use your training in the ring or on the street then it doesn't matter. A lot of people in TMA cross train to achieve the skills they feel they need, and I did the same myself. Then I found that everything I was cross training was in my own style, just that I hadn't had a teacher with the knowledge necessary to teach it.
> 
> Why shouldn't tma change. There is no  reason why a art like karate should take 5-6 years before you can understand it enough to actually use it in a fight or situation..
> 
> Again, I am only speaking for karate as I don't pretend to know much about ninjutsu etc. Karate has no need to change. For me it is a lifetime of exploration and development, a journey if you like. If you want immediate fighting skills, sure there are things like Krav and combatives are available. But even BJJ takes about 10 years to blackbelt.
> 
> Ill put it to you the way my coach put it. (he had lots of years in karate as well as catch wrestling and bjj)  "I don't judge a martial art by their black belts, I judge them based on how well there white belts can defend them selves."
> 
> I think it is unreasonable to look at a white belt in that way. That is only up to three months training and you are struggling to get a grasp of basics at that level. I don't normally teach kids but I do have two fourteen year olds in class, one is my grandson and the other the son of one of the blackbelts. Last week in class the later was in the centre of a ring of six adults who were pushing, shoving and lightly hitting him. His spirit was fantastic. He should grade up from his white belt later this week.


There are many reasons why TMAs don't wish to compete or train a sport based style. Don't mistake that for a lack of skill or ability.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Here's an interesting video, just food for thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The descripoint starts with:.[COL33333]The simple truth is, the bad guys are learning. With the explosive growth ofwround the world, basic submissions, ptions, and fight strategies have never been so familiar to everyday people around the world. [/COLOR]



Ive seen that before.  My biggest problem with that clip is the officers were given strict rules about what they can and cant do .  Mainly no strikes or pressure points or other tools like baton taser or OC spray.  Im not rolling around in the ground with you like that.  You resist im upping the force.  First a few knees to your thigh.  If that dont work a few strikes to the arms.  Stll no ill uae my baton for leverage to pry your arm out.  Still no then im moving to drive stun with taser or im using facial pressure points like under the nose or behind the jaw.  
Ive been to a class taught by guys that went to that Gracie class.  When i askes why we dont start going up the force ladder they said "because it defeats the purpose of the drill"   I asked if the purpose of the drill was to grapple or actually arrest him.  They got pissed and walked away.

My biggest problem with a long grappling exchange with a suspect is your laying on him he's exerting himself.  Most people we arrest are normally under the influence of something you risk positional asphyxia.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe do you really believe that someone learning karateor other TMA ccan't defend himself against a MMA thug?  What special super secret deadly techniques are you learning in MMA that TMA does no have?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> Thugs and other social miscreants are drawn to MMA.



Then that's something they need to work on, either by fixing them or sending them away.



Kframe said:


> MMA is very effective at takeing down TMA arts.



Like so many others, you are only basing that only on what you have seen in MMA compettitions, the UFC and the like and YouTube, This represents only a relatively miniscule amount of information. If, for example, you based that assumption only on the UFC and no other source, there were only a few fights where a TMA was taken down a peg and all of the fights involved only one or two martial artists from any one system, and only those who chose to compete. Not really a good sized sample for which to form an opinion (you cannot put in a gold mine based on finding a few nuggets here and there, you have to test the whole area). After a few UFC's fighters started training specifically for MMA making any kind of comparison less and less accurate.



Kframe said:


> If your art can not deal with and defeat even a mma with 1 year of experience then it has failed.  There are not nice people in mma. Karate does not draw in those types.  The threat has changed, why hasn't TMA?



The biggest threat MMA poses to a TMAist is getting grabbed and taken down, particularly the single or double leg takedown. certainly not the striking. The double leg takedown is not much more different to the tackle and TMA's have been teaching the defence for that since day one, the same applies to bearhugs for the clinch.



Kframe said:


> Some time ago, I even walked into a KKW tkd dojang. I was ready to sign up.  Guy taught  traditional as well as the Olympic. Was a judo black belt, with several other arts.  He brought up the question of dealing with the ground.  He never taught any of the many valid judo syllabus on Newaza to his students.  His only statement was we don't go to the ground, I teach to avoid it.  (ya, how? What specific technique)
> 
> Knowing full well he could teach good ground, and refused, and then this BS statement I hear many tma make, I knew then Id never be satisfied and would feel only like half a martial artist.



Then that is a failure of that particular school/dojang and/or instructor, not the art itself and certainly not all forms of it.



Kframe said:


> So ya, maybe I shouldn't style bash. That does not change, my feelings that, traditional martial artists need to be realistic with themselves.  They need to take a deep hard look at how they train and ask if they are realistically prepared to deal with emerging threats.



Realism is a part of any good self defence martial art.



Kframe said:


> There is no  reason why a art like karate should take 5-6 years before you can understand it enough to actually use it in a fight or situation.



It only takes about 3 months to start to get some practical self defence benefit out of a TMA if it's taught correctly, I don't know where you got the 5-6 years from.



Kframe said:


> MMA is constantly evolving and adding new techniques, yet TMA is  stagnant having learned nothing from the spanking they got from 1993  onwards.  You would think that tma would start addressing there  shortcomings after your best and brightest get spanked, yet they didn't.   Videos still crop up of TMA getting spanked.   Im willing to bet, the  time will come, when you start seeing mma guys, start applying and  making a real art out active deflections. Once they figure out they need  to move past boxing,  they will out karate-karate, and out WC-WC.
> 
> Darwinism needs to finally apply to the martial arts.



Again you are basing that on limited information. I can't speak for anyone else but my art is constantly evolving, new techniques are being devised and taught, new training methods have been intoduced, the ways of doing certain techniques have changed over the years (since I have been training the basic turning kick has changed at least twice to make it more powerful). You really have no good idea what goes on most of the time in my school, or any one of the hundreds of schools out there based on what is shown in videos. It's like judging a movie based only on the previews  

A  note on Darwinism - It took the MMA world nearly 20 years to finally  figure out that the front snap kick is an effective technique (when  Lyoto Machida started knocking people out with it) whereas in TMA it has  been likely known for centuries. And lets not forget his famous quote "Ignorance begets confidence far more that does wisdom".


----------



## seasoned

K-man said:


> There are many reasons why TMAs don't wish to compete or train a sport based style. Don't mistake that for a lack of skill or ability.
> :asian:


The least of which are ALL low kicks, you are what you train, not hampered by a rule set, not limited by all the protective gear, a desire to end it as soon as possible.
A mind set that if I can get to your eyes you can't see and if I can nail your knee I can slow down your mobility. :asian:


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Kframe do you really believe that someone learning karateor other TMA ccan't defend himself against a MMA thug?  What special super secret deadly techniques are you learning in MMA that TMA does no have?



I wouldn't say its a super deadly technique in so much as its competition that is giving MMA the edge over TMA. For example, after the first UFC, ground fighting exploded, and everyone realized how important it was to learn how to defend yourself if someone puts you on the ground. Before that, most people didn't train for ground fighting at all. In fact, when the Gracies first arrived in the states, they had a hard time getting students because no one wanted to fight on the ground. With Royce's performance in the UFC, that all changed. Today, most people think you're crazy if you don't teach ground fighting of some type for sport AND self defense.

In Bjj, the Triangle Choke re-emerged because a Brazilian was flipping through an old Judo book from the 1920s, and decided to use the technique during a Bjj match. The choke was so effective that it was quickly added into the Bjj curriculum.

A lot of MMA gyms are currently seeking Boxing coaches because a lot of MMA fighters are requesting it to help in their stand up. Anderson Silva's evasion tactics, and Alexander Gustafsson's strong performance against Jon Jones showed how great Boxing skills can make a difference in a fight.

That isn't to say that all competition can be good. Some arts definitely suffer because of it. Judo being a prime example of how sport rules can damage a martial art. However, if utilized properly, competition can make a martial art a lot better, and push its evolution. MMA and Bjj are great examples of that.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't say its a super deadly technique in so much as its competition that is giving MMA the edge over TMA. For example, after the first UFC, ground fighting exploded, and everyone realized how important it was to learn how to defend yourself if someone puts you on the ground. Before that, most people didn't train for ground fighting at all. In fact, when the Gracies first arrived in the states, they had a hard time getting students because no one wanted to fight on the ground. With Royce's performance in the UFC, that all changed. Today, most people think you're crazy if you don't teach ground fighting of some type for sport AND self defense.
> 
> In Bjj, the Triangle Choke re-emerged because a Brazilian was flipping through an old Judo book from the 1920s, and decided to use the technique during a Bjj match. The choke was so effective that it was quickly added into the Bjj curriculum.
> 
> A lot of MMA gyms are currently seeking Boxing coaches because a lot of MMA fighters are requesting it to help in their stand up. Anderson Silva's evasion tactics, and Alexander Gustafsson's strong performance against Jon Jones showed how great Boxing skills can make a difference in a fight.
> 
> That isn't to say that all competition can be good. Some arts definitely suffer because of it. Judo being a prime example of how sport rules can damage a martial art. However, if utilized properly, competition can make a martial art a lot better, and push its evolution. MMA and Bjj are great examples of that.



..,..


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't say its a super deadly technique in so much as its competition that is giving MMA the edge over TMA. For example, after the first UFC, ground fighting exploded, and everyone realized how important it was to learn how to defend yourself if someone puts you on the ground. Before that, most people didn't train for ground fighting at all. In fact, when the Gracies first arrived in the states, they had a hard time getting students because no one wanted to fight on the ground. With Royce's performance in the UFC, that all changed. Today, most people think you're crazy if you don't teach ground fighting of some type for sport AND self defense.
> 
> In Bjj, the Triangle Choke re-emerged because a Brazilian was flipping through an old Judo book from the 1920s, and decided to use the technique during a Bjj match. The choke was so effective that it was quickly added into the Bjj curriculum.
> 
> A lot of MMA gyms are currently seeking Boxing coaches because a lot of MMA fighters are requesting it to help in their stand up. Anderson Silva's evasion tactics, and Alexander Gustafsson's strong performance against Jon Jones showed how great Boxing skills can make a difference in a fight.
> 
> That isn't to say that all competition can be good. Some arts definitely suffer because of it. Judo being a prime example of how sport rules can damage a martial art. However, if utilized properly, competition can make a martial art a lot better, and push its evolution. MMA and Bjj are great examples of that.


Again your making the assumption that MMA and BJJ are the only ones training for ground fighting.  That's just not the case.  You also assume because the Gracie's did well in UFC that ment all other arts are not effective.  Again just not the case.  Gracie's were better then the guys they fought.  That's the point.  Its people fighting not styles.  Just because someone claims to be a TKD fighter or Isshin Ryu or Goju fighter doesn't mean they are any good.  Just like when I spar with my friend Joe that trains BJJ I crush him 9 out of 10 times.  Not because BJJ is not effective but because he just isn't very good he gets impatient and sloppy.  So does he represent BJJ or does he represent Joe?  Do I represent Goju or Do I represent me?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Again your making the assumption that MMA and BJJ are the only ones training for ground fighting.  That's just not the case.  You also assume because the Gracie's did well in UFC that ment all other arts are not effective.  Again just not the case.  Gracie's were better then the guys they fought.  That's the point.  Its people fighting not styles.  Just because someone claims to be a TKD fighter or Isshin Ryu or Goju fighter doesn't mean they are any good.  Just like when I spar with my friend Joe that trains BJJ I crush him 9 out of 10 times.  Not because BJJ is not effective but because he just isn't very good he gets impatient and sloppy.  So does he represent BJJ or does he represent Joe?  Do I represent Goju or Do I represent me?



I never said any of that. I said that before the first UFC, none of the traditional styles trained for ground fighting at all. Even Judo, from which Bjj came from had pretty much neglected ground fighting.

Fast forward to today, and almost everyone does ground fighting. Why? Because the Gracies proved that fighting on the ground was viable for fighting and self defense purposes. All of that emerged from a small competition that was held in 1993 that eventually blew up to become a popular global sport. The very fact that no one questions the value of learning groundfighting these days as opposed to 20 years ago when most people didn't even acknowledge it as a viable form of fighting shows how important competition and sport can be in the martial arts.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I never said any of that. I said that before the first UFC, none of the traditional styles trained for ground fighting at all. Even Judo, from which Bjj came from had pretty much neglected ground fighting.
> 
> Fast forward to today, and almost everyone does ground fighting. Why? Because the Gracies proved that fighting on the ground was viable for fighting and self defense purposes. All of that emerged from a small competition that was held in 1993 that eventually blew up to become a popular global sport. The very fact that no one questions the value of learning groundfighting these days as opposed to 20 years ago when most people didn't even acknowledge it as a viable form of fighting shows how important competition and sport can be in the martial arts.


And again you assume ground fighting wasn't already a part of the TMAs arsenal.  It may not have been taught at the time or maybe it was.  Maybe the type of guy that was entering these fight comps had a mind set that they didn't need ground fighting because they can "kick peoples butts" and won't end up on the ground.  That does not mean it wasn't in the "old dust books" of the styles.  Most people do train in ground fighting now where do you think these skills came from?  

Also you keep mixing sport fights vs real life which are totally different.


----------



## Kframe

K man, I was not talking about black belts with regards to taking 5-6years to learn to use the art. I was talking in general. About the only art were black belt means any thing is BJJ and that usually denotes mastery, and that is how the art is set up. I kinda thought it was common knowledge that black belt was only part way through the system in many tma. 

I agree with your sentiment that much of what people cross train for may be found in your karate.  Problem is, not many are teaching it very well.  Out of all the dojo I visited, I saw nothing that told me they had advanced beyond basic understanding.     SO sure what you or I may need is found in the system, but there is a sizeable amount of schools not teaching it in any quality way.    I keep coming back to the striking defense. You would think a lineage of karate, say GOJO or Shorin, would have set ways of dealing with attacks throught the entirety of the system. Sadly you can take 4 different schools from the same Lineage and they will have 4 different applications of the same defense.  The fact that karate cant even agree with it self on how to use the defenses is just odd....    Is each defense a combo or a rather long way to learn on movment?   Its questions like this that go on debated and unanswered. About the only real answere is to do what your teacher says, but what if he is teaching you something diluted.

There is so much potential in tma for such awesomeness. Yet so many places train so softly.. Hell its the only complaint I have with Budo Taijutsu. It is no were near the intensity im used to. Both in speed of the attacks I have to deal with and the pacing of the class.   Thankfully I can supplement my cardio in a good spin class.

I am sorry if I came across as style bashing. Maybe ill try to think a little harder about what I type. 

I still believe that thugs are in mma. They are training very hard, in what amounts to a full service dojo. Not only are they getting a high intensity martial art, they are getting a full service conditioning coach all on the same area and included in the monthly cost..  The thug mma will be truly frightening. He is stronger, faster and has incredible cardio.. Can your students meet that threat in a dark ally, or parking lot or bar room?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> And again you assume ground fighting wasn't already a part of the TMAs arsenal.  It may not have been taught at the time or maybe it was.  Maybe the type of guy that was entering these fight comps had a mind set that they didn't need ground fighting because they can "kick peoples butts" and won't end up on the ground.  That does not mean it wasn't in the "old dust books" of the styles.  Most people do train in ground fighting now where do you think these skills came from?



In modern times, those skills come from Bjj because by 1993, no one had been training in those methods for decades. Not even Judo.



> Also you keep mixing sport fights vs real life which are totally different.



I have my reasons;


----------



## Kframe

The 5-6 years comment was born out of the comment I have heard repeatedly here and from various instructors. " you don't really start to learn the real art until black belt". Which is 4-6 years way depending on style. So  ya, if your only learning glorified basics, and not really being taught the art, how can you expect to be able to use anything if what your learning is not the real art?


----------



## Aiki Lee

MJS said:


> I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.
> 
> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?



As a youth I thought what made a martial art different from another martial art was the variety of techniques it had compared to others. It wasn't until much later that I learned that it is the principles and specific strategies and tactics that make an art unique and effective. Using preset techniques to teach these lessons and principles will improve skill and help a student understand why something works and how to properly apply that technique or a similar one with similar principles. To view preset techniques as something along the lines of "this is my hook punch defense" or "this is my not getting stabbed in the face defense" is rather limiting I believe. I don't see how someone could access the correct folder in his brain to pull out the correct technique under pressure.

Using techniques as examples to teach specific skills are the way to go.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> The 5-6 years comment was born out of the comment I have heard repeatedly here and from various instructors. " you don't really start to learn the real art until black belt". Which is 4-6 years way depending on style. So  ya, if your only learning glorified basics, and not really being taught the art, how can you expect to be able to use anything if what your learning is not the real art?



Knowing enough to defend yourself is a far different thing then beginning to fully understand something.  You learn to write in elementary school buy still take English classes in college right?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> In modern times, those skills come from Bjj because by 1993, no one had been training in those methods for decades. Not even Judo.


They didn't just invent them from thin air.  They came from other arts like you said people looked through old Judo books or remembered old techniques.  Also there were guys still training for ground fighting prior to the 90s my Goju teacher remembers doing some arm bars and wrist locks and chokes back in the 70s 
Of course not to the level of BJJ that's not the main focus of "striking" arts.  But its there and always been there.  I've seen pictures of old Okinawan training legs locks back in the 30s before.  



> I have my reasons;


I can't watch them from my phone but I will when I get to a computer


----------



## Aiki Lee

Kframe said:


> Since the majority of karate andtkd on every street corner is mcdojo id say your wrong about them going out ofbusiness if they didn't work. The skill sets from mcdojo's don't work yet theystill remain.


Any martial art taught poorly isnt going to work. Justbecause there are a lot of bad apples claiming to represent something doesntmean they actually do represent the way a specific art is meant to be taughtand presented.



Kframe said:


> People who can "beat the crap out of people"generally can also defend them selves very well.


I would argue there is a difference between defendingyourself and fighting. Some people are good at both, and some are only good atone or the other.




Kframe said:


> Maybe its time TMA look at mma asthe THE threat they are. Thugs and gangsta's are not training karate, they aredoing mma. IF tma can not meet the threat that mma truly is, then tma needs toend or change. MMA is the the most dangerous unarmed threat to the averageperson and martial artist of our time. IF your art is not realisticallyprepared to meet it, then it needs to end.


I disagree with a lot of this and heres why. Criminalsin my area with gang affiliation tend to do less beating up and more stabbingor shooting. Im not saying there arent people who practice MMA so they can gomisuse it, but I would not say it is as common of a practice you might lead usto believe. Certainly something to consider but not adjust a whole curriculumover it.  Also if a martial art does notaddress any kind of issues one might perceive from MMA that does not mean itneeds to change. All martial arts are designed for a specific reason and meantheir own specific needs to the unique challenges for which they were designed.Besides just because someone doesnt recognize if an art has a method ofdealing with a specific situation or threat does not mean it does not exist inthat art.




Kframe said:


> All this BS of "to deadly forthe ring" is just BS. Stop relying on low percentage techs and focus onhigh percentage ones. The high percentage techs set up the low percentage"deadly" techs.


I think a lot of people with limited skill or confidencewill use the argument that our techniques are too dangerous for the ring, butin some cases it can be true. Bear with me here most traditional martial artsbreak the rules in MMA competitions. Now this doesnt mean the sportsman cantdo it either, but some TMAs only train this way and cant operate without breakinga competition rule. The most dangerous techniques are the simplest ones andthey end fights quickly which is exactly the opposite of what people want in acompetition. So I think an argument can be made for this, but not if someone isusing it as a cover up for their lack of confidence in their art. 




Kframe said:


> MMA is constantly evolving and adding new techniques, yetTMA is stagnant having learned nothing from the spanking they got from 1993onwards.


There was very little quality control of who got tocompete in the early UFC competitions. You cant possibly believe that thosesingle individuals represent entire disciplines do you?




Kframe said:


> You would think that tma wouldstart addressing there shortcomings after your best and brightest get spanked,yet they didn't.


Can you point out where the best and brightest gotserved? When did this happen?




Kframe said:


> Videos still crop up of TMA gettingspanked. Im willing to bet, the time will come, when you start seeing mma guys,start applying and making a real art out active deflections. Once they figureout they need to move past boxing, they will out karate-karate, and out WC-WC.


IF you out karate, karate or out WC, WC how are theykarate or WC any more?



Kframe said:


> Darwinism needs to finally apply to the martial arts.


Dont confuse evolution with improvement because thewords dont mean the same thing. No one thinks the chicken is an improvementover the tyrannosaurus. Evolution of the martial arts occurs when an art findsits niche and works to become efficient in that area. MMA has found that nichein competition. The skills you learn at an MMA gym are supposed to be thethings that will help you win a fight in the ring better than other skills inother areas. You want to learn how to defend yourself against a bigger more aggressiveperson trying to hurt you instead of beat you? Go to aikido over MMA. Differentarts are meant for different things. Just because a TMA does not meet a needyou think it should does not mean it needs to change. Crocodiles have beenaround for millions of years and birds are relatively new. The crocodile ismade for a different environment than the bird so there is no reason for it toevolve wings and change itself so it can be something it was never meant to be.
I hope that makes as much sense in writing as it does inmy head.




Kframe said:


> Do you think that run of the millkarate training will prepare someone to deal with a thug mma artist? Which iscommon despite you not thinking they are. I met all kinds of them during mystint in mma. About the only modern art with out the thuggery is BJJ, of courseI could be wrong.


There are demented people in every art MMA, Karate, BJJ,even aikido probably. Poor karate training, or poor aikido training, or TKD, orninjutsu, or whatever is just poor training period. The key here isnt that aTMA isnt prepared for such an attacker as you describe, but that many TMA donot have a method to pressure test their skills which is important if anyonewants to have any ability. There isnt a problem with the arts themselvesrather with the way they are presented and trained by the majority.



Kframe said:


> Why shouldn't tma change. There is no reason why a art like karate should take5-6 years before you can understand it enough to actually use it in a fight orsituation.. Ill put it to you the way my coach put it. (he had lots of years inkarate as well as catch wrestling and bjj) "I don't judge a martial art bytheir black belts, I judge them based on how well there white belts can defendthem selves."


Different arts have different reasons for theirprogression rates. Some arts have very counter intuitive ideas that need to betrained for years before they become natural enough to rely on in combat. 
I dont understand the reason for judging an art on itsbeginners. Beginners anywhere cant be compared with one another because thefocus is on different things.




Kframe said:


> I agree with your sentiment that much of what people cross train for may befound in your karate. Problem is, not many are teaching it very well. Out ofall the dojo I visited, I saw nothing that told me they had advanced beyondbasic understanding. SO sure what you or I may need is found in the system, butthere is a sizeable amount of schools not teaching it in any quality way.


I agree.



Kframe said:


> There is so much potential in tmafor such awesomeness. Yet so many places train so softly.. Hell its the onlycomplaint I have with Budo Taijutsu. It is no were near the intensity im usedto. Both in speed of the attacks I have to deal with and the pacing of theclass. Thankfully I can supplement my cardio in a good spin class.


With the slow movement during training, I think slower movementshelp one better learn something than speeding it up. You dont learn to write,drive, or whatever by going fast. You start slow. Now I believe you need tospeed things up and add realistic reactions from partners to test if what youare learning is working for you, but not many TMA do that as far as I am aware.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> The 5-6 years comment was born out of the comment I have heard repeatedly here and from various instructors. " you don't really start to learn the real art until black belt". Which is 4-6 years way depending on style. So  ya, if your only learning glorified basics, and not really being taught the art, how can you expect to be able to use anything if what your learning is not the real art?



I am curious, If a a complete newbie walked into an MMA gym and began lessons, how long would it take for him to know enough to compete in his first competition?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Himura Kenshin said:


> No one thinks the chicken is an improvement over the tyrannosaurus.



No, but they taste better.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> They didn't just invent them from thin air.  They came from other arts like you said people looked through old Judo books or remembered old techniques.  Also there were guys still training for ground fighting prior to the 90s my Goju teacher remembers doing some arm bars and wrist locks and chokes back in the 70s
> Of course not to the level of BJJ that's not the main focus of "striking" arts.  But its there and always been there.  I've seen pictures of old Okinawan training legs locks back in the 30s before.



Yeah, i didn't say they invented it, but they cradled it, modified it, advocated for it, and made it better. It's also important to note that a lot of people thought the Gracie's were idiots for focusing so much on ground fighting in the first place. When the Gracie's proved the benefits of ground fighting in the first UFC, they deservedly reaped the rewards. Bjj is now the main source of ground fighting for MMA and other arts who seek to improve their ground fighting.

Your Goju teacher having vague memories of doing locks and holds (which probably came from pre-war Judo) isn't really the same thing. Again, no one was even thinking about ground fighting until the first UFC rolled around and proved just how massive a hole martial arts had dug itself in. 


The UFC revolutionized modern martial arts, and it all stemmed from BJJ and competition.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, i didn't say they invented it, but they cradled it, modified it, advocated for it, and made it better. It's also important to note that a lot of people thought the Gracie's were idiots for focusing so much on ground fighting in the first place. When the Gracie's proved the benefits of ground fighting in the first UFC, they deservedly reaped the rewards. Bjj is now the main source of ground fighting for MMA and other arts who seek to improve their ground fighting.


Yet you admit it existed prior to BJJ.  You seem to be talking in circles saying there was no ground finghting prior to the early 90's  and thats just wrong.  


> Your Goju teacher having vague memories of doing locks and holds (which probably came from pre-war Judo) isn't really the same thing. Again, no one was even thinking about ground fighting until the first UFC rolled around and proved just how massive a hole martial arts had dug itself in.


How do you know what MY teacher knows and where he learned it.  Thats pretty bold of you to tell me something I have first hand knowledge of.  Im not sure how many times you can be told almost EVERY Martial art has some grappling and ground fighting including Goju.  Where did I say his memories were vague?  Do you know him?  You are not just trying to argue to argue your not even making sense


> The UFC revolutionized modern martial arts, and it all stemmed from BJJ and competition.


NO UFC revolutionized SPORT fighting.  The rest of your post is all opinion


----------



## jks9199

Steve said:


> Here's an interesting video, just food for thought:
> 
> 
> The description starts with:  The simple truth is, the bad guys are learning. With the explosive growth of MMA around the world, basic submissions, positions, and fight strategies have never been so familiar to everyday people around the world.



It's an advertisement/promo video for Gracie Combatives.  Their program isn't bad, and they've responded well to criticisms about it -- but take videos promoting it with a grain of salt, like you would any other ad.  I don't even want to touch the "scenario" 'cause it makes no sense.  "Hi, how you doin?" Let's tackle him!


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Yet you admit it existed prior to BJJ.  You seem to be talking in circles saying there was no ground finghting prior to the early 90's  and thats just wrong.



Where exactly did it exist prior to 1993? Outside of Bjj ground fighting was largely non-existent in the MA world. Again, judo had all but abandoned newaza because of Olympic rules  and Other MAs weren't teaching ground fighting in any form whatsoever. So where's the confusion? 



> How do you know what MY teacher knows and where he learned it.  Thats pretty bold of you to tell me something I have first hand knowledge of.  Im not sure how many times you can be told almost EVERY Martial art has some grappling and ground fighting including Goju.  Where did I say his memories were vague?  Do you know him?  You are not just trying to argue to argue your not even making sense



I know that your teacher wasn't teaching ground fighting utilizing traditional Okinawan MA. If you wish to prove otherwise please do so. Documentation and photographs would be very useful. Some traditional kata where an Okinawan is rolling around on the ground doing leg locks and arm locks would help a lot.

Again, Newaza was rare in Judo prior to the late 90s, and even at that point they really didn't think it was useful for their goals. So you'll forgive me if I don't believe that your Goju instructor was teaching the lost art of Okinawan ground fighting to his students.

Even if he were, it was the Gracies that pushed ground fighting into the forefront of MA, not TMA instructors finding lost round fighting techniques in their systems. This is why people hire Bjj black belts to teach ground fighting instead of digging through ancient texts to find their art's style of ground fighting (it doesn't help that ground fighting simply doesn't exist in many MA styles).



> NO UFC revolutionized SPORT fighting.  The rest of your post is all opinion



Which is why traditional MA schools across the country are actively including Bjj and grappling into their curriculums?


----------



## Kframe

RTKDCMB said:


> I am curious, If a a complete newbie walked into an MMA gym and began lessons, how long would it take for him to know enough to compete in his first competition?



In my neck of the woods, it is about 6 months of consistent training depending on weather or not they have any wrestling in there background and how much they attend class.


----------



## SENC-33

YOU and/or the art you choose to train for self defense purposes is only as good as your ability to effectively translate what you learn to the real world. Statistics don't mean squat. Youtube videos don't mean squat. Who is famous for practicing your chosen style doesn't really mean squat. There isn't a style out there that can't be used for self defense but whatever you choose you must have confidence in it and it SHOULD fit your natural abilities.

The likelihood of you being attacked by a highly trained, skilled fighter is slim. You are more likely to be attacked by a sucker puncher. The greatest fear any person should have is defending against a knife or the potential for multiple threats.

I train combatives instead of TMA with a small group of like minded individuals for one reason only and that is control. I have been around long enough to know that the best training for ME is to take what I know will be effective for ME from every style.


----------



## Kframe

Hanzou said:


> Again, Newaza was rare in Judo prior to the late 90s, and even at that point they really didn't think it was useful for their goals. So you'll forgive me if I don't believe that your Goju instructor was teaching the lost art of Okinawan ground fighting to his students.



Do the Okinawans even have a native ground submission art?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Where exactly did it exist prior to 1993? Outside of Bjj ground fighting was largely non-existent in the MA world. Again, judo had all but abandoned newaza because of Olympic rules  and Other MAs weren't teaching ground fighting in any form whatsoever. So where's the confusion?


Im not the one thats confused.  So all ground fighting just appeared in 1993 by the gracies prior to that there was none huh?  So thousands of years for Wrestling didnt exist?, 
Where do you think the Gracies learned it from?


> I know that your teacher wasn't teaching ground fighting utilizing traditional Okinawan MA.


You KNOW nothing thats the problem


> Again, Newaza was rare in Judo prior to the late 90s, and even at that point they really didn't think it was useful for their goals. So you'll forgive me if I don't believe that your Goju instructor was teaching the lost art of Okinawan ground fighting to his students.


Nothing lost about it.  Its always been there.  Nobody claimed Goju was only ground fighting.  But there is ground fighting techniques, in Goju. Not to the lvl of BJJ because its not Goju's focus.  In comparison to BJJ its very elementary but its there and has always been there.  Its also effective against normal people.  Would I try to out ground fight a BJJ guy with what I learn in Goju of course not.  Id use other techniques from  in close stand up. Which is what Goju is good at.





Here is a photo of ground controlling someone.  Its the end of a Bunkai used to defend a single leg takedown 


> Which is why traditional MA schools across the country are actively including Bjj and grappling into their curriculums?


And?  Nobody said BJJ was bad.  Its great for what it is.  BUT its not the ONLY ground game that ever existed as you seem to think.


----------



## Kframe

Himura Kenshin(awesome anime by the way)  IF you want proof, look not to the UFC which is were hanzou I failing his argument. Look to the Hundreds of Gracie challenge matches that took place before the first UFC.  They are all on Youtube, every single one of them, plus you can get the DVD.  It shows them walking into ANY dojo they can find that would accept the challenge, to a NO RULES fight  to see who wins. Many of the schools were top notch schools.   Im sure your going to bring up the controversy regaring Judo Gene Lebell and I agree that stank but, doesn't change the outcome of the hundreds of other challenge matches.

 Your correct, the UFC was not the best example to use.. The Gracie challenge matches, all of which exist on youtube, hundreds of them, make the point far better then the UFC ever did.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Where exactly did it exist prior to 1993? Outside of Bjj ground fighting was largely non-existent in the MA world. Again, judo had all but abandoned newaza because of Olympic rules  and Other MAs weren't teaching ground fighting in any form whatsoever. So where's the confusion?



In your head as usual, many martial arts were teaching ground defence long before 1993, just not the way BJJ was doing it, the object was not to stay on the ground, trying to improve your position and finishing them off it was to stop someone from getting on top of you and get back up and either finish them off or escape.



Hanzou said:


> Which is why traditional MA schools across the country are actively including Bjj and grappling into their curriculums?



Some are, many are not my school is not doing it, the Karate class after us on Mondays and Wednesdays are not doing it, the Hapkido I did briefly was not doing it, none of the TMA schools I have seen personally are doing it.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Himura Kenshin(awesome anime by the way)  IF you want proof, look not to the UFC which is were hanzou I failing his argument. Look to the Hundreds of Gracie challenge matches that took place before the first UFC.  They are all on Youtube, every single one of them, plus you can get the DVD.  It shows them walking into ANY dojo they can find that would accept the challenge, to a NO RULES fight  to see who wins. Many of the schools were top notch schools.   Im sure your going to bring up the controversy regaring Judo Gene Lebell and I agree that stank but, doesn't change the outcome of the hundreds of other challenge matches.
> 
> Your correct, the UFC was not the best example to use.. The Gracie challenge matches, all of which exist on youtube, hundreds of them, make the point far better then the UFC ever did.


So does that say BJJ is better or the Gracie was just that good.  Could an average BJJ guy do the same thing?  No  Some guys are just that good no matter what.  If it was just BJJ was better then everything out there then why bother cross training in anything?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> Himura Kenshin(awesome anime by the way)  IF you want proof, look not to the UFC which is were hanzou I failing his argument. Look to the Hundreds of Gracie challenge matches that took place before the first UFC.  They are all on Youtube, every single one of them, plus you can get the DVD.  It shows them walking into ANY dojo they can find that would accept the challenge, to a NO RULES fight  to see who wins. Many of the schools were top notch schools.   Im sure your going to bring up the controversy regaring Judo Gene Lebell and I agree that stank but, doesn't change the outcome of the hundreds of other challenge matches.
> 
> Your correct, the UFC was not the best example to use.. The Gracie challenge matches, all of which exist on youtube, hundreds of them, make the point far better then the UFC ever did.



I remember seeing one on YouTube where a rather hapless Hapkido instructor of probably 10 years or so experience fought against a Gracie who trained all of his life and was a 9th Dan and people wonder why the Hapkido guy lost. that was typical of the challenges I have seen on YouTube, a high level Gracie against a fighter who doesn't know what the hell he's doing, I mean the guy just basically stood there frozen, threw out a half-assed side kick and then got taken down. In any case a challenge match will never be an accurate measure of how well a martial art or martial artist works because there will always be some set conditions that will be met by both sides such as; nobody else get involved, no weapons, we stop when someone gives up etc.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> I never said any of that. I said that before the first UFC, none of the traditional styles trained for ground fighting at all. Even Judo, from which Bjj came from had pretty much neglected ground fighting.
> 
> Fast forward to today, and almost everyone does ground fighting. Why? Because the Gracies proved that fighting on the ground was viable for fighting and self defense purposes. All of that emerged from a small competition that was held in 1993 that eventually blew up to become a popular global sport. The very fact that no one questions the value of learning groundfighting these days as opposed to 20 years ago when most people didn't even acknowledge it as a viable form of fighting shows how important competition and sport can be in the martial arts.



Do you know anyone who trained in the 50s, 60s or 70s?  I know that martial artists in numerous styles most certainly did include ground training as part of their practice.  It wasn't BJJ rolling (unless they happened to be wrestlers) -- but they did indeed work on what to do either if they were taken down, or if they had to take someone down.  With the rise of the heavily commercialized MAs of the late 70s and 80s, a lot of this got lost from the regular practice...  But I can say that I was learning some grappling, both standing and ground, as early/late as 1988.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> In my neck of the woods, it is about 6 months of consistent training depending on weather or not they have any wrestling in there background and how much they attend class.



By complete newbe I mean someone with no martial arts background whatsoever, including combat sports or wrestling.


----------



## SENC-33

The biggest problem I have with these ground fighting arguments is the multiple attacker dilemma which is real and prevalent. The BJJ gyms I have been to train to STAY on the ground (sport competition) which is fine for the mat but these guys don't focus on actual self defense like getting up and escaping which is what they would be wise to do.

The mindset of the majority of people who train BJJ or any other ground sport fighting isn't for self defense.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> I wish you would hijack the other thread. We all agreed on page one that you could use BJJ for SD!



LOL!  



> Within in martial arts, I believe there are at least two groups. There are those who are young and fit and look at MAs as a means of testing their skills against others or maybe even representing their country. These ideals are more than enough to validate the sporting nature of martial arts. Anyone who has developed their skill to that level, or indeed the level to compete in a local tournament will have developed skills to help them in an altercation with an untrained or street wise attacker. Is the average martial artist going to match it with a highly trained professional MMA fighter? Most likely not.



Agreed.  Like I said in that other thread, I really don't have a huge desire to compete.  I do feel there are benefits to it, and do plan on doing it next year.  As for the last line...that's true.  I'm sure the majority of people that we'd have to defend against, will be the untrained thug, but then again, I don't want to assume that they won't be skilled.  



> Of course we now have the problem we have had in other threads as to the definition of TMA. Can we take it that TMA refers to those arts that have existed for generations, were developed to protect life and property and are not used in competition?



Sure.



> So the next group are those who have no interest in completion. They might be older, they might be people with an interest in MA, they might be people looking for the ability to defend themselves or their families if the need were to arise. They do not feel the need to test themselves in competition.



True.  For those that don't wish to test in competition, I suggested that they do it on their own, with a training partner.  



> Now you specifically mentioned Kenpo as your example. You said they train techniques against just about every attack. In some ways I can see the logic but I think that it is only at the basic level that those techniques are applicable. We can train to receive a variety of punches to a variety of targets. By the time you have worked all those out you might have 50 ways of defending. Then you get attacked on the street. Are you going to use any of those things? Highly unlikely. You are going to experience adrenal dump and you will react with flinch response. Most reality based systems are based on flinch response and that is also how I train my students. So as you asked is it fallacy? The answer as always is not clear cut. You learn basic techniques, then you forget them. In a fight you are relying on the principles you have learned to produce the appropriate response and this applies across the board, sport or TMA. In the end you are relying on pure fighting skill. The difference is how you arrive at that point.



Well, with 154 techs plus various extensions on those, IMHO, as a former Kenpoist, I've felt for a long time, that there're way too many, but that's just me.  Personally, I'd rather see a list much smaller, more work on the basics, and then, over time, have the students become more spontaneous, so as to form their own tech, situation depending.  



> The difference to me between sport and TMA is context. Sport is to play and the side benefit is self defence skills. TMA is to protect your life by whatever means necessary.



Yes, I can agree with that.  



> Much has been said of kata, most not complimentary. My teaching revolves around kata. I use it to teach basics, I use it to teach techniques, I use it to teach applications and I use it to teach combinations. But most importantly, I teach it as RBSD. Most sport oriented MAs do not pay much attention to kata at all. That's why I get so annoyed when people who don't understand kata start bagging it.
> 
> So we get to your final question, "Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill?" Basically you train the techniques, then rely on the fighting skill that you have developed.
> :asian:



Sounds like we're in agreement.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Im not the one thats confused.  So all ground fighting just appeared in 1993 by the gracies prior to that there was none huh?  So thousands of years for Wrestling didnt exist?,
> Where do you think the Gracies learned it from?




You seem to be, since you keep attributing things to me that I never said. Again, who was teaching ground fighting prior to 1993? What art was teaching ground fighting equal to, or at the level of the Bjj exponents? That's the ground fighting that's being taught throughout MA today.



> Nothing lost about it.  Its always been there.  Nobody claimed Goju was only ground fighting.



There you go again. Who was claiming the Goju was only ground fighting? I said that I highly doubt your Goju instructor was teaching ground fighting. And even if he was, it's pretty irrelevant since it was the Gracies that brought it to the forefront of MA, not individual instructors who suddenly found its value as a method of self defense.



> But there is ground fighting techniques, in Goju. Not to the lvl of BJJ because its not Goju's focus.  In comparison to BJJ its very elementary but its there and has always been there.  Its also effective against normal people.  Would I try to out ground fight a BJJ guy with what I learn in Goju of course not.  Id use other techniques from  in close stand up. Which is what Goju is good at.
> Here is a photo of ground controlling someone.  Its the end of a Bunkai used to defend a single leg takedown



Takedown defense isn't ground fighting. That guy in the photo is still on his feet.



> And?  Nobody said BJJ was bad.  Its great for what it is.  BUT its not the ONLY ground game that ever existed as you seem to think.



No one is accusing anyone of saying that. Nor is anyone saying that Bjj is the only form of ground fighting that ever existed. What I'm saying is that Bjj revolutionized modern MA, and its vehicle was the first UFC *competition*.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

SENC-33 said:


> The biggest problem I have with these ground fighting arguments is the multiple attacker dilemma which is real and prevalent.


The biggest problem I have with these ground fighting arguments is the ability to resist against throw. In the following teacher and student Q&A, We can see the problem.

Teacher: Why didn't you resist when your opponent tried to take you down?
Student: Why should I resist if ground game is my bread and butter? 

If you don't train "take down resistance", your ability of "take down resistance" will never be fully developed. Many BJJ guys came to my student's Sanda/Sanshou school to learn their throwing skill. They all had the same attitude as "Why should I resist any take down"? 

Here are examples of "take down resistance" training:

http://imageshack.us/a/img4/9863/hookak.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XQrk6BwxDI&feature=youtu.be

Since Sanda/Sahshou is kick + punch + throw, there is no ground game involved, to be able to remain standing when your opponent tries to take you down is important. Also the "take down resistance" can be a valid skill in street self defense environment.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> I would say the public at large thinks that boxers, wrestlers, and MMA fighters can beat the crap out of someone, and handle themselves well in a self-defense situation. I've heard plenty of folks say that Karate or Kung Fu doesn't work in the street, but I have yet to hear anyone say the same about MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc. So the question then becomes; Who thinks that martial athletes can't defend themselves?
> 
> Sports athletes tend to be more fit, have healthier diets, fight more often, and train more often than their non sport counterparts. In any SD situation, those factors are very important.



I'd say a lot of that may have to do with things being viewed as the 'flavor of the week'.  Any time something new comes along, people flock to it.  As I've said, anything has the potential of working, it's all how its trained.  I will agree though, that on face value, folks that compete are in better shape, etc.  I'll use myself as an example.  I thought I was in good shape when I was training kenpo.  Yet when I started Kyokushin, I could barely make it thru the hour long class.  I was gassed within 30min.  Now, 2yrs later, I'm in much better shape, much better stamina, etc.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You seem to be, since you keep attributing things to me that I never said. Again, who was teaching ground fighting prior to 1993? What art was teaching ground fighting equal to, or at the level of the Bjj exponents? That's the ground fighting that's being taught throughout MA today.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. Who was claiming the Goju was only ground fighting? I said that I highly doubt your Goju instructor was teaching ground fighting. And even if he was, it's pretty irrelevant since it was the Gracies that brought it to the forefront of MA, not individual instructors who suddenly found its value as a method of self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Takedown defense isn't ground fighting. That guy in the photo is still on his feet.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is accusing anyone of saying that. Nor is anyone saying that Bjj is the only form of ground fighting that ever existed. What I'm saying is that Bjj revolutionized modern MA, and its vehicle was the first UFC *competition*.



I give up.  Your right man. There was nobody touching the ground prior to the 90s.  Even when there are people here telling you they trained ground fighting prior to the Gracie's and BJJ you tell them they don't know what they were learning.  Even when there is photographic evidence of someone controlling a guy on the ground from 100 years ago that's wrong too.  So believe what you will.  Your the only one that thinks your right.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I never said any of that. I said that before the first UFC, none of the traditional styles trained for ground fighting at all. Even Judo, from which Bjj came from had pretty much neglected ground fighting.
> 
> Fast forward to today, and almost everyone does ground fighting. Why? Because the Gracies proved that fighting on the ground was viable for fighting and self defense purposes. All of that emerged from a small competition that was held in 1993 that eventually blew up to become a popular global sport. The very fact that no one questions the value of learning groundfighting these days as opposed to 20 years ago when most people didn't even acknowledge it as a viable form of fighting shows how important competition and sport can be in the martial arts.
> 
> :bs:


Mmm! Perhaps history isn't your strong suite or is it selective amnesia?

Chojun Miyagi, the founder of Goju Ryu studied Judo. 



> In 1910 he was incorporated in the army for two years were he studied judo and Okinawan sumo, different from the Japanese one. His attachment to the medical corps determined somehow his study of the physical aspects



His successor in the Garden dojo Eiichi Myazoto was also a judo man.


> Miyazato joined the Ryukyu Police Department on Miyagi's recommendation in 1946. He served as physical education instructor at the police academy, and assisted Miyagi (then an instructor at the academy), teaching karate and judo there. Upon Miyagi's death in 1953, Miyazato inherited his teacher's training equipment, and the family also passed on Miyagi's gi (uniform) and obi (belt) to him. Miyazato took up the position of teaching at the 'Garden dojo,' which had been Miyagi's dojo.
> In 1957, Miyazato opened his own dojo, the Jundokan, in Asato, Naha. The building had three levels, with Miyazato's dwelling located on the top level. In 1972, he retired from the police force and devoted the rest of his life to teaching karate. Through the early 1970s, he served as Vice-President of the Okinawan Judo Federation and President of the Okinawa Prefecture Karate-do Federation.


So you are saying that the guys who founded the karate system that I study and practise who were both Judo instructors wouldn't have passed on the finer points of judo to their students. How stupid would that be. The fact that 90% of our training is hands on at grappling distance doesn't reflect that? You are totally ignorant of other styles and systems and constantly present bulls#1t as fact.


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> So does that say BJJ is better or the Gracie was just that good.  Could an average BJJ guy do the same thing?  No  Some guys are just that good no matter what.  If it was just BJJ was better then everything out there then why bother cross training in anything?



That is a fantastic question.  Im contemplating focusing a lot more of my time to learning it. I have not made the decision yet..  When it comes to holes, BJJ does not have as many..  Watch some of the Gracie stuff regarding stand up tactics. The Gracies put a lot of emphasis on stand up aspects..


----------



## Kframe

RTKDCMB said:


> By complete newbe I mean someone with no martial arts background whatsoever, including combat sports or wrestling.



I stand by my quote. About 6 months give or take. The only thing that factors in, is the amount of class's they attend.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> In modern times, those skills come from Bjj because by 1993, no one had been training in those methods for decades. Not even Judo.


OMG! It just goes on! :bs1:


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> I'd say a lot of that may have to do with things being viewed as the 'flavor of the week'.  Any time something new comes along, people flock to it.  As I've said, anything has the potential of working, it's all how its trained.  I will agree though, that on face value, folks that compete are in better shape, etc.  I'll use myself as an example.  I thought I was in good shape when I was training kenpo.  Yet when I started Kyokushin, I could barely make it thru the hour long class.  I was gassed within 30min.  Now, 2yrs later, I'm in much better shape, much better stamina, etc.



This "flavor of the week" has lasted for over 20 years.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Where exactly did it exist prior to 1993? Outside of Bjj ground fighting was largely non-existent in the MA world. Again, judo had all but abandoned newaza because of Olympic rules  and Other MAs weren't teaching ground fighting in any form whatsoever. So where's the confusion?
> 
> Judo only became an Olympic sport in 1972. (It was a demo sport in Tokyo in 1964) Funny how we were rolling round on the floor with my judo mates in the 60s. Any we were grappling in Goju back in the early 80s when I started.
> 
> *I know that your teacher wasn't teaching ground fighting utilizing traditional Okinawan MA*. If you wish to prove otherwise please do so. Documentation and photographs would be very useful. Some traditional kata where an Okinawan is rolling around on the ground doing leg locks and arm locks would help a lot.
> 
> :bs:  It was taught in traditional Okinawan karate. There are drawings of ground fighting in the Bubishi.
> 
> Again, Newaza was rare in Judo prior to the late 90s, and even at that point they really didn't think it was useful for their goals. So you'll forgive me if I don't believe that your Goju instructor was teaching the lost art of Okinawan ground fighting to his students.
> 
> You know nothing about traditional karate and you continually demonstrate your ignorance.
> 
> Even if he were, it was the Gracies that pushed ground fighting into the forefront of MA, not TMA instructors finding lost round fighting techniques in their systems. This is why people hire Bjj black belts to teach ground fighting instead of digging through ancient texts to find their art's style of ground fighting (it doesn't help that ground fighting simply doesn't exist in many MA styles).
> 
> What's the big deal with learning BJJ unless you want to compete in MMA competition? Sure people will cross train.
> 
> Which is why traditional MA schools across the country are actively including Bjj and grappling into their curriculums.
> 
> And the evidence for that is?


Ignorance is bliss, stupidity is forever!


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> Do the Okinawans even have a native ground submission art?


It is called Tegumi and was a form of Okinawan wrestling. The guys who developed what became karate combined the techniques they learned from the Chinese martial arts with Tegumi. That is why in my dojo we train it every session and it is a grading requirement from yellow belt up.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Mmm! Perhaps history isn't your strong suite or is it selective amnesia?
> 
> Chojun Miyagi, the founder of Goju Ryu studied Judo.
> 
> His successor in the Garden dojo Eiichi Myazoto was also a judo man.
> 
> So you are saying that the guys who founded the karate system that I study and practise who were both Judo instructors wouldn't have passed on the finer points of judo to their students. How stupid would that be. The fact that 90% of our training is hands on at grappling distance doesn't reflect that? You are totally ignorant of other styles and systems and constantly present bulls#1t as fact.



Where did I say that the founder of Goju Ryu never studied Judo? I'm saying that by 1993 most martial arts had largely  ignored ground fighting for decades, and that included Judo.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> I give up.  Your right man. There was nobody touching the ground prior to the 90s.  Even when there are people here telling you they trained ground fighting prior to the Gracie's and BJJ you tell them they don't know what they were learning.  Even when there is photographic evidence of someone controlling a guy on the ground from 100 years ago that's wrong too.  So believe what you will.  Your the only one that thinks your right.


Just to refresh my mind. Is you understanding of "TROLL" the same as mine?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I'm saying that .



And your wrong


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that the founder of Goju Ryu never studied Judo? I'm saying that by 1993 most martial arts had largely  ignored ground fighting for decades, and that included Judo.


You didn't, but you implied that ground fighting didn't exist in the TMAs and that is patent BS like most of the crap you have been posting. And if you reread your posts I'm sure you will find no sign of  'largely ignored'. In you posts you are saying apart from Judo there was no ground game and that even judo wasn't doing much.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> This "flavor of the week" has lasted for over 20 years.


Sorry! Here the new 'flavour of the week' is MMA, and the up and coming one seems to be Krav Maga. BJJ is an established style but not all that popular and recently a number of schools have closed including the one in the dojo where I study aikido. 

Maybe BJJ is huge in your own mind but not necessarily elsewhere. A bit like you actually!


----------



## SENC-33

A self defense situation is meant to end quickly as possible.....Ground fighting as your primary defense is in no way, shape or form the best application to accomplish that goal. If you watch your common bjj sparring you see guys break free, escape and get to their feet all the time. Then they go right back to the ground again because they are trained to go there as if it is a wise arena to do battle.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> You didn't, but you implied that ground fighting didn't exist in the TMAs and that is patent BS like most of the crap you have been posting. And if you reread your posts I'm sure you will find no sign of  'largely ignored'. In you posts you are saying apart from Judo there was no ground game and that even judo wasn't doing much.



Im pretty sure that I said it wasn't being trained by TMAs, and combat sports in general not that they didn't exist in TMAs. Even Judoka cross train in Bjj, despite many of the moves already existing in Judo. Why? Because Judo by and large didn't teach Newaza in depth for decades.

Regardless, all of that is irrelevant. The *point* is that Bjj revolutionized MA via competition.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Regardless, all of that is irrelevant. The *point* is that Bjj revolutionized MA via competition.


No one is disputing that and no one is disputing the effectiveness of BJJ in self defence. How come you have spent so much times putting down other styles?


----------



## Takai

K-man said:


> No one is disputing that and no one is disputing the effectiveness of BJJ in self defence. How come you have spent so much times putting down other styles?



Arrogance? Lack of understanding perhaps? You can lead a (insert your preferred animal here) but, you can't make them drink.

I can't believe that I got sucked down this spiraling rabbit hole discussion again.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> No one is disputing that and no one is disputing the effectiveness of BJJ in self defence. How come you have spent so much times putting down other styles?



I fail to see how saying that ground fighting wasn't the focus of many classical martial art styles is "putting them down". Punching and kicking isn't the focus of Bjj and Judo and in many cases isn't taught. Kicks and takedowns aren't taught in Boxing. Is that putting down Judo, Bjj, and boxing, or merely pointing out what the art focuses on?

if the norm in MA and combat sports was grappling and ground fighting, and some little known art came along and was knocking people out with devastating punches and kicks in a NHB competition within a matter of minutes, it would revolutionize that MA world just like Bjj did to ours. That happened because MA had by and large ignored the benefits of ground fighting.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I fail to see how saying ground fighting wasn't the focus of many classical martial art styles is "putting them down". Punching and kicking isn't the focus of Bjj and Judo and in many cases isn't taught. Kicks and takedowns aren't taught in Boxing. Is that putting down Judo, Bjj, and boxing, or merely pointing out what the art focuses on?



You never said its not the focus of other arts thats correct its not,  you said it didn't exist, wasn't taught, ect.  When then given examples of what was taught and what existed you said they were vague memories and were wrong.  You even had the Gaul to claim ground fighting wasn't being taught in Judo anymore which was just wrong.  Watch judo clips from the 60s and from today there isn't much difference other then rule changes.


----------



## K-man

Takai said:


> I can't believe that I got sucked down this spiraling rabbit hole discussion again.


True, but arguing on MT is the only form of sparring we do in TMAs. *Everyone* knows we can't fight. 

But seriously, if you don't refute bulls#1t when it surfaces, others start to accept it as fact and even though this is classic trolling it will crop up again and again in other threads. Better to discredit it now than wish we had done later.
: asian:


----------



## Takai

Hanzou said:


> I fail to see how saying that ground fighting wasn't the focus of many classical martial art styles is "putting them down". Punching and kicking isn't the focus of Bjj and Judo and in many cases isn't taught. Kicks and takedowns aren't taught in Boxing. Is that putting down Judo, Bjj, and boxing, or merely pointing out what the art focuses on?



So if I said that BJJ couldn't "punch its way out of wet paper bag" that wouldn't be putting it down? That in reality is what you are saying about all of the other martial arts. "If it ain't BJJ than it ain't C$#%. You are sticking to a nonsensical argument. Even when the facts that you have quote have been refuted multiple times you still ignore them. And continue in your own zealous way to spout garbage.

This isn't a discussion anymore (not sure that it ever was) it is merely your zealous crusade to ignore evidence and push your own agenda even when you contradict yourself. You keep saying it is all about the style and not individual instructors. Yet the only people that you credit with anything are the Gracies.

You can't see what other people are saying because either 1) you don't want to (and prefer the bubble that in which BJJ is completely omnipotent, or 2) are unable to accept than anyone may know things that you don't. Either way it really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter to the rest of us. It really isn't our job to correct your misunderstandings. Several very respected members here have already attempted to to so politely and been ignored or nastily rebuffed (and still not have a solid, undeniable argument).

I for one am done with this pointless (and circular logic) argument that you keep using. I will continue to train hard in my chosen TMA as I am sure that you will keep training in yours. 

Enjoy the journey but, stop telling everyone else that they don't anything about their own.


----------



## Takai

K-man said:


> True, but arguing on MT is the only form of sparring we do in TMAs. *Everyone* knows we can't fight.



Shhh...no one is supposed to know that.



K-man said:


> But seriously, if you don't refute bulls#1t when it surfaces, others start to accept it as fact and even though this is classic trolling it will crop up again and again in other threads. Better to discredit it now than wish we had done later.
> : asian:



I was pretty sure that the last several pages had already done that. I think that we could probably just go back and cut & paste our previous responses to the argument that keeps being used.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> You never said its not the focus of other arts thats correct its not,  you said it didn't exist, wasn't taught, ect.


 
Because it wasn't/didn't. Again this is why when people from other styles wish to learn ground fighting, they don't dust off the ancient manuals of their mother style, they crosstrain in Bjj. Even 20 years after ground fighting exploded on the scene following the first UFC, groundfighting still isn't taught in many TMA schools. Kframe's anecdote about the TKD school has largely been my experience as well, which is why I just went ahead and learned Bjj.



> When then given examples of what was taught and what existed you said they were vague memories and were wrong.  You even had the Gaul to claim ground fighting wasn't being taught in Judo anymore which was just wrong.  Watch judo clips from the 60s and from today there isn't much difference other then rule changes.



Well a takedown defense hidden at the end of a kata form isn't something I would consider a vast ground work curriculum. As for Judo, I never said it wasn't being taught, I said it was largely being ignored because the focus of Judo has always been throws. The exact opposite happened with Bjj that largely ignored throws in favor of takedowns and ground work. Tachiwaza still exist in Bjj, and Newaza still exists in Judo, however the key difference between the two is the focus of each style.


----------



## Hanzou

Takai said:


> So if I said that BJJ couldn't "punch its way out of wet paper bag" that wouldn't be putting it down? That in reality is what you are saying about all of the other martial arts. "If it ain't BJJ than it ain't C$#%. You are sticking to a nonsensical argument.


 
Please post the quote where I stated or implied that other MAs ain't "_____". 

More to the point, if I said the Bjj doesn't teach you to kick as well as a TKD exponent, or punch as well as a Boxer, I would have no problem with that statement. I'm curious as to why some of you are having such a problem with me stating that Bjj and the Gracies brought ground fighting, a largely ignored aspect of fighting up to that time, to the forefront of martial arts after the first UFC in 1993.



> This isn't a discussion anymore (not sure that it ever was) it is merely your zealous crusade to ignore evidence and push your own agenda even when you contradict yourself. You keep saying it is all about the style and not individual instructors. Yet the only people that you credit with anything are the Gracies.



Given the context of this discussion (competition changing martial arts), I think crediting the Gracies is a perfectly fair thing to do, because they definitely changed the MA landscape.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm curious as to why some of you are having such a problem with me stating that Bjj and the Gracies brought ground fighting, a largely ignored aspect of fighting up to that time, to the forefront of martial arts after the first UFC in 1993.
> 
> Given the context of this discussion (competition changing martial arts), I think crediting the Gracies is a perfectly fair thing to do, because they definitely changed the MA landscape.


If that was all you were saying we would all be in full agreement.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Because it wasn't/didn't.


And your still WRONG Prove it prove that nobody was training for the ground prior to BJJ. Since you ignore all evidence PROVING the contrary.


> Again this is why when people from other styles wish to learn ground fighting, they don't dust off the ancient manuals of their mother style, they crosstrain in Bjj. Even 20 years after ground fighting exploited on the scene following the first UFC, groundfighting still isn't taught in many TMA schools.


Prove it.  Just because its not your style of ground fighting does not mean it's not being taught.  So prove that nobody is teaching ground fighting in TMA schools


> Kframe's anecdote about the TKD school has largely been my experience as well, which is why I just went ahead and learned Bjj.


I doubt you actually have learned or train in anything other then watching Youtube



> Well a takedown defense hidden at the end of a kata form isn't something I would consider a vast ground work curriculum


Who said it was vast?  I simply said it was there.  Its also more then takedown defense.  


> . As for Judo, I never said it wasn't being taught, I said it was largely being ignored because the focus of Judo has always been throws. The exact opposite happened with Bjj that largely ignored throws in favor of takedowns and ground work. Tachiwaza still exist in Bjj, and Newaza still exists in Judo, however the key difference between the two is the focus of each style.


thats not what you said.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Please post the quote where I stated or implied that other MAs ain't "_____".


How about;


> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I don't believe that TMAs are all that effective. Swinging a sword around or doing katas/forms isn't going to prepare you for that 250lb gorilla trying to bring pain down upon you. The martial sports are simply better. Why? Because the martial sports get you in better shape, are highly competitive, are highly combative, and cross train constantly. [/FONT]


or


> Its not just sport karate that loses out to boxers and wrestlers. Its karate in general, along with many other traditional styles. Hence why those styles shy away from competition. Competition would expose their effectiveness in a fight.


and again


> The fact that Judoka and Bjj practitioners can perform locks and throws in a competitive environment while traditional arts cannot proves my point. Regardless of the training method your TMA employs, the superior method of utilizing locks, throws, and submissions was created by the Kodokan over a century ago.


and


> Aikido isn't a part of the standard MMA curriculum you see in many MMA schools. Mostly because its viewed as ineffective, despite it being a modern form of MA.


and


> Again correct, because traditional karatekas don't compete. So there's no way for anyone to actually gauge the effectiveness of anything they're doing. There's no way for anyone to actually see if Iain Abernethy can actually apply any of that pretty bunkai on an opponent trying to cave his face in. That's the problem. Unfortunately for students of such styles, its also the perfect scam.


and this little gem


> If a Bjj school opens up and other Bjj practitioners go to that school and find out its a joke, its not going to be open very long. However, there's numerous examples of TMA scammers and phonies being open for decades.


or


> I haven't trained in a traditional MA style. Mostly because I could never verify whether it was real or some scam. Also all the squabbles about lineage and "purity" was annoying and childish. I moved over to Judo/Bjj and boxing. Much quieter, and quite a bit more effective.


and another putdown


> The difference being of course how each one trains. MMAs tend to be more modern and alive. TMAs tend to utilize old training methods and patterned movements. Its like comparing an AK-47 to a musket.


And a genuine apology to finish


> I apologize if you think I'm "bashing" TMAs. I'm simply pointing out their flaws, and the problems that I have witnessed from their practitioners. Nothing more, nothing less.



Sorry I wasn't sure of the quote to which you were referring so I've posted a few!  

and  do just one more for luck;



> Let's just say that I've been around the block a few times. Being trained in martial arts has allowed me to experience many different styles of martial arts. I am thankful for that, because it has allowed me to cut through the BS of a lot of claims and fantasies. Again, if my children were seeking a Martial Art for self defense, a TMA wouldn't be on the radar.



I didn't have time to reread the entire thread but the first 10 pages or nearly 60 produced these. I'm sure there are plenty more where these came from.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> And your still WRONG Prove it prove that nobody was training for the ground prior to BJJ. Since you ignore all evidence PROVING the contrary.



You mean other than traditional MAs teaching Bjj techniques for ground fighting?




















> Prove it.  Just because its not your style of ground fighting does not mean it's not being taught.  So prove that nobody is teaching ground fighting in TMA schools



The videos above prove it. The examples above are of schools that went outside their art to learn ground fighting. I'm willing to bet that the majority of TMA schools aren't going outside of their arts to learn it or teach it, since it isn't their focus.



> Who said it was vast?  I simply said it was there.  Its also more then takedown defense.



A takedown defense at the end of a kata sequence doesn't mean your art has ground fighting.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> How about;



How about posting some quotes from this thread instead of posting quotes out of context from a different thread?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> How about posting some quotes from this thread instead of posting quotes out of context from a different thread?


Because you asked to be shown where you had bagged any other styles! Whether you have in this thread or not is irrelevant. Your attitude to other MAs has been deplorable and those quotes were not out of context. I made sure of that before I posted them.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You mean other than traditional MAs teaching Bjj techniques for ground fighting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to say that cross training is not a good thing to do but in most of the situations shown there were other options rather than learning sport based technique. I encourage cross training but the question that has to be asked is, "how will the cross training supplement my training?" The TKD guys may have been training for an MMA competition. There was nothing there that made me want to include it in my training.
> 
> The take down in the final video we used to do back in the 60s messing about. Absolutely nothing to do with BJJ.
> 
> The videos above prove it. The examples above are of schools that went outside their art to learn ground fighting. I'm willing to bet that the majority of TMA schools aren't going outside of their arts to learn it or teach it, since it isn't their focus.
> 
> So why do you think they should learn it if it is outside their focus? If I offered to teach you application from kata it is outside your focus.
> 
> A takedown defense at the end of a kata sequence doesn't mean your art has ground fighting.
> 
> Again bulls#1t! There are takedowns right the way through the kata, not just at the end. Many finish in chokes or arm bars. The ones that go to the floor would normally go to a side mount.


Why do you keep posting uninformed comment about things that you don't understand?


----------



## Aiki Lee

Kframe said:


> Himura Kenshin(awesome anime by the way)  IF you want proof, look not to the UFC which is were hanzou I failing his argument. Look to the Hundreds of Gracie challenge matches that took place before the first UFC.  They are all on Youtube, every single one of them, plus you can get the DVD.  It shows them walking into ANY dojo they can find that would accept the challenge, to a NO RULES fight  to see who wins. Many of the schools were top notch schools.   Im sure your going to bring up the controversy regaring Judo Gene Lebell and I agree that stank but, doesn't change the outcome of the hundreds of other challenge matches.
> 
> Your correct, the UFC was not the best example to use.. The Gracie challenge matches, all of which exist on youtube, hundreds of them, make the point far better then the UFC ever did.



I will have to look up these things before I can base any kind of opinion on this.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> The take down in the final video we used to do back in the 60s messing about. Absolutely nothing to do with BJJ.



Did you also call it "Jumping Guard" back in the 60s like the Ninjas in that video did?

http://youtu.be/AgZfab7LVX8





> So why do you think they should learn it if it is outside their focus? If I offered to teach you application from kata it is outside your focus.



Because its training in an important fight phase that their main art lacks.



> Again bulls#1t! There are takedowns right the way through the kata, not just at the end. Many finish in chokes or arm bars. The ones that go to the floor would normally go to a side mount.



Okay.


----------



## Aiki Lee

I looked for a few videos about Gracie challenges and these are some of the best examples I could find. if others have more feel free to share them. Here are my observations.

Obviously the Gracies spent a considerable amount of time training and developing their approach and they do a bang up job. Their opponents don't seem that good though; i mean it's hard to judge skill based off just one example but they seem to lack some very serious fundamentals. Also while I see some things that would be considered against modern rules, the duels definitely have sort of pre-agreed upon rule set, and that is where BJJ in general really shines is in competition, which is what it was developed for.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Did you also call it Jumping Guard back in the 60s like the Ninjas in that video did?
> 
> http://youtu.be/AgZfab7LVX8
> 
> No, that was in the days before I had even heard of judo. We just called it wrestling as a genetic term that pretty much covered everything except boxing.
> 
> Because its training in an important fight phase that their main art lacks.
> 
> It is only important if you want to fight on the ground. If your focus is to get off the ground ASAP then the focus of your training is different.
> 
> Okay.


Can I give you a bit of history. I studied the Japanese form of Goju. That was pretty much where MAs Oyama got his grounding before starting Kyokushin. My Sensei and his sister who also trained with us back then were members of the Australian karate team. We had a big emphasis on competition. If I had been 20 years younger and had the inclination to go down the competition path I would have absolutely no need to train BJJ. All I needed was in my own dojo. My Sensei's teacher was the Australian coach. For you to say I needed to train BJJ is as nonsensical as saying that Mohamed Ali needed to learn BJJ.

Fast forward twenty years and I started to look at karate in a totally different way. In my early 50s I had no desire to compete in competition although we still did a lot of that type of sparring. Up until then I had thought of kata as pretty much a waste of time, just like your understanding. We 'learned' a new kata every so often and obviously the more kata you 'knew' the better you were. 

What I actually found was I knew nothing. I knew how to fight in a tournament and I could handle someone on the street and I had some reasonable skills on the ground, but in fact I knew jacks*** about karate. I started looking at other styles and I started cross training. Eventually I found it necessary to change to the Okinawan style because virtually everything I was learning elsewhere was contained in the kata if you knew where to look and how to interpret it. Now, because I understand more of my own system I can teach it to my students. Do they need to cross train? Hopefully they don't feel the need but I would encourage them to cross train anything they want. Do I need ground skills? Sure. Do I need to go to BJJ to learn those skills? No, I don't need that depth of training to do what I do. 
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Can we PLEASE stop using YouTube to "prove" stuff?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that the founder of Goju Ryu never studied Judo? I'm saying that by 1993 most martial arts had largely  ignored ground fighting for decades, and that included Judo.



I had 2 lessons of Judo in the early 1980's, I distinctly remember wrestling around on the floor with other students. Doesn't sound like ignored ground fighting to me.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> _No, that was in the days before I had even heard of judo. We just called it wrestling as a genetic term that pretty much covered everything except boxing._



Well that branch of Ninjutsu uses Bjj to supplement their fighting skills. They don't even bother to change the name.

_



			It is only important if you want to fight on the ground. If your focus is to get off the ground ASAP then the focus of your training is different.
		
Click to expand...

_
Controlling the ground makes it a lot easier to get off the ground ASAP.

Thank you for sharing your history. It was very interesting. :asian:


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I had 2 lessons of Judo in the early 1980's, I distinctly remember wrestling around on the floor with other students. Doesn't sound like ignored ground fighting to me.



That isn't to say they never taught it, it wasn't the focus of their training. This is why Bjj was able to carve a large niche for itself and flourish as a different martial art.

Here's Ronda Rousey talking about this exact thing;



> *Luke Thomas: Talk to me about newaza in judo. I think a lot of people have poor conception of what it actually entails both in terms of newaza training and newaza as a function of competition in judo. How does it work? How much training is involved in submissions in judo and how much of it matters in competition?
> **
> Ronda Rousey:'Training in newaza in judo is not mandatory. You can get away with not knowing any ground and just knowing how to defend and stay standing. I just happen to come from a background where my mom, she tore her knees out when she was like 17 so all of her fights, she won on the ground and then when I was 16, I tore my knee out and I spent that entire year only doing ground work and when I moved away from home, I went to [Jimmy] Pedro's. They're known as mostly a very ground based judo school so the difference I think between a judo and jiu-jitsu ground game is in judo, you only have sometimes only three seconds, even less than that to make something work so it pushes the transition and the pace on the ground to be faster than any other grappling sport.*
> *
> Luke Thomas: Is that the key to the game? It seems like once you get that rush in, the two on one and then the trip, it's just a matter of seconds at that point. Do you think the jiu-jitsu guys don't have the same sense of urgency in their submission application?*
> *
> Ronda Rousey: **Yeah, they don't have any sense of urgency and they don't have as much need to be able to transition between the stand-up and the ground as quickly as a judo player does because we don't have an undisclosed amount of time to work on the ground and so I think that's a big advantage. A lot of judo players like I said neglect learning any kind of ground game at all. It's kind of like some judo players I think have an amazing ground game that transfers better to MMA than any style but some judo players are just completely useless on the ground. It's kind of random.*


*

http://www.mmafighting.com/strikefo...a-rousey-miesha-tate-unorthodox-judo-mma-news*

Here's a good article that discusses Judo's struggles to maintain its popularity in the face of the rising popularity of Bjj. This gentleman here proposed a newaza league for Judo (pretty genius actually), but that proposal was largely ignored. Its important to note that many Bjj schools offer Judo instruction for those that are interested. Bjj rules don't negatively impact throwing, whereas Judo rules negatively impact ground fighting quite a bit.

http://theselfdefenceexpert.com/the-judo-newaza-league/#


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Bjj rules don't negatively impact throwing, ...



Strongly disagree on this. If "pull guard" can achieve the same ground game result, why would anybody want to train "leg lift throw (Uchi Mata)"? You can learn "pull guard" in 1 month. How long does it take you to learn "leg lift throw (Uchi Mata)"? Not only you need to have good single leg balance, you also need to have leg flexibility. 

http://imageshack.us/a/img832/7585/changleglifting.jpg

http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/uchimata.htm


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You mean other than traditional MAs teaching Bjj techniques for ground fighting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The videos above prove it. The examples above are of schools that went outside their art to learn ground fighting. I'm willing to bet that the majority of TMA schools aren't going outside of their arts to learn it or teach it, since it isn't their focus.
> 
> 
> 
> A takedown defense at the end of a kata sequence doesn't mean your art has ground fighting.


That doesn't prove people were not training ground techniques prior to UFC1.  That proves people are cross training today.  Which is smart to do.  I cross train.  Goju with Judo and I go to a BJJ class like once a month.  Bjj is a poor choice for police work so I don't put a lot of time in but its cool yo learn so I go every now and then.


----------



## MJS

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's a lot to discuss here.  I'm going to leave aside the issue of defense against weapons for the moment because that's a whole big topic in itself that I could easily get sidetracked on.



Oh by all means, please feel free to talk about weapons.  



> One thing to consider is the type of sporting competition you are talking about.  A MMA practitioner certainly has tools in his kit to handle pretty much any type of unarmed attack.  On the other hand, a BJJer who trains exclusively for IBJJF competition is in a similar position to a TKD practitioner who only trains for Olympic style competition.  Both can be dangerous because they are tough athletes with the tools to cause serious harm.  Both are potentially vulnerable because they are training for rules which don't allow the most common real world attacks and encourage some bad habits for street self-defense.  Of course, just because someone trains for competition doesn't mean they can't also train for self-defense.  Both BJJ and TKD have techniques to deal with the sorts of attacks which are not included in competition. I teach a BJJ fundamentals class and my primary focus is on making sure my students can use their skills in a self-defense context first and foremost.  Tournament techniques can come later.



Oh I have no doubt that a trained MMA fighter could handle himself in an unarmed confrontation.  I'm also sure that in some schools, SD is covered more in-depth, however the majority of schools in may area are geared more towards competition.  



> There are other dangers to focusing too much on a competition mindset.  It encourages a dueling mentality where two players are facing each other, having agreed to fight and having agreed on the rules, waging a symmetric fight to overcome the other's defenses.  There are good lessons to be learned from that sort of exercise, but it is rather different from the realities of self-defense.  To balance that out I would recommend scenario-based training and asymmetric drills where the participants have different rules and objectives.



Agreed.



> The bit about "preset techniques vs pure fighting skill" is somewhat irrelevant.  Whether you're training for competition or for the street you need both.  For competition you need to spend more time training counters for sophisticated martial arts techniques which are mostly irrelevant for a street fight.



Agreed.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> I've read that many martial arts schools are actually in decline in the US while MMA schools are on the upswing. Karate for example declined by 26% in the last few years.
> 
> I'll see if I can dig up the article.



That's news to me.  If you can find the article, I'd be interested in seeing it.  Of course, it could be, as I said, that people tend to flock to the 'flavor of the month'.


----------



## MJS

Kframe said:


> K man  you say TMA don't need to change. Why is that?  Do you think that run of the mill karate training will prepare someone to deal with a thug mma artist? Which is common despite you not thinking they are. I met all kinds of them during my stint in mma.  About the only modern art with out the thuggery is BJJ, of course I could be wrong.
> 
> It may be style bashing but I don't understand this head in the sand attitude that most tma have. This refusal to address the new threats and how to effectively deal with them.
> 
> Thugs and other social miscreants are drawn to MMA. MMA is very effective at takeing down TMA arts. If your art can not deal with and defeat even a mma with 1 year of experience then it has failed.  There are not nice people in mma. Karate does not draw in those types.  The threat has changed, why hasn't TMA?
> 
> The more I train, the more I watch, the more I read, the more I see one sided martial arts as dinosaurs.  Why am I the only one that can see the threat they pose.
> 
> I used to long to do karate/tkd. To emulate my father.. Then reality hit me.. My father is one of a kind born out through countless hours of self study and sparring with his wrestle/boxer twin.  This epiphany has lead me to become quite disillusioned with Traditional arts as of late.   Some time ago, I even walked into a KKW tkd dojang. I was ready to sign up.  Guy taught  traditional as well as the Olympic. Was a judo black belt, with several other arts.  He brought up the question of dealing with the ground.  He never taught any of the many valid judo syllabus on Newaza to his students.  His only statement was we don't go to the ground, I teach to avoid it.  (ya, how? What specific technique)
> 
> Knowing full well he could teach good ground, and refused, and then this BS statement I hear many tma make, I knew then Id never be satisfied and would feel only like half a martial artist.
> 
> So ya, maybe I shouldn't style bash. That does not change, my feelings that, traditional martial artists need to be realistic with themselves.  They need to take a deep hard look at how they train and ask if they are realistically prepared to deal with emerging threats.
> 
> Why shouldn't tma change. There is no  reason why a art like karate should take 5-6 years before you can understand it enough to actually use it in a fight or situation..  Ill put it to you the way my coach put it. (he had lots of years in karate as well as catch wrestling and bjj)  "I don't judge a martial art by their black belts, I judge them based on how well there white belts can defend them selves."



Actually, I agree with what you've said here.  Sure, competitions existed for years, but we really didn't hear a lot about BJJ until the UFC began.  So, that said, when I joined this forum, I went to the Kenpo section and was talking about the need for Kenposits to learn some ground work.  I took so much **** for saying that, it wasn't funny.  If we look at Jeff Speakman, and his Kenpo 5.0, he's done just that...taken his Kenpo to the next level, and has added ground work and made his empty hand techs more oriented to what you'd commonly see on the street.  

Hey, I'm not the martial arts police, nor do I care to be.  I offer suggestions, that's all.  People can take 'em or leave 'em.  For myself though, I want to stay with the times.  Now, in my Kyokushin classes, after 2yrs., I've yet to see anything to address a takedown or escape from the mount.  Personally, it's not really my position to tell my teacher what he should be teaching.  For myself, if I want something, if I want to improve on something, I'll seek it out on my own.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> I happen to believe that TMA taught properly is every bit as effective as MMA or BJJ. Sure we don't spend as much time rolling as those guys but we do train to escape from the ground. I would agree that one year of karate training is not going to give you a lot of protection on the street but if that is what someone wants I would teach them Krav or Systema. But here again, Krav and Systema took there techniques from other MAs like Aikido, Muay Thai and Karate. Almost every technique in Aikido is identifiable in our karate kata so I teach all those. The softness of Systema and the isolation of various body parts in moving kicking and striking is very close to what you find in aikido and Goju karate. Krav is simple, brutal and effective. Once again you see the similarities to karate when you train these styles.



I agree with this! However, the problem, IMO anyways, is finding someone to do what you said...properly teach the art!  Oh, I'm not saying that every teacher out there is a joke, but when it comes to really understanding something, well, IMHO, those are what I call the rare gems. They're out there, but you really have to look hard, very hard sometimes, to find them.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> And again you assume ground fighting wasn't already a part of the TMAs arsenal.  It may not have been taught at the time or maybe it was.  Maybe the type of guy that was entering these fight comps had a mind set that they didn't need ground fighting because they can "kick peoples butts" and won't end up on the ground.  That does not mean it wasn't in the "old dust books" of the styles.  Most people do train in ground fighting now where do you think these skills came from?
> 
> Also you keep mixing sport fights vs real life which are totally different.



You know, back when I was making those comments in the Kenpo section, I heard people say that ground fighting was done.  The goal, which makes sense, was to do what you had to do to get back up, rather than prolong your time on the ground.  Oddly enough, when I asked why we no longer see any of this in Kenpo schools today, I couldn't get an answer.  Furthermore, there is a clip of a high ranking Kenpoist doing a tech from the mount.  Needless to say, it looked poor at best.

This isn't to say that it's not out there, taught, etc., but if it was, you'd figure it'd be more visible.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> You know, back when I was making those comments in the Kenpo section, I heard people say that ground fighting was done.  The goal, which makes sense, was to do what you had to do to get back up, rather than prolong your time on the ground.  Oddly enough, when I asked why we no longer see any of this in Kenpo schools today, I couldn't get an answer.  Furthermore, there is a clip of a high ranking Kenpoist doing a tech from the mount.  Needless to say, it looked poor at best.
> 
> This isn't to say that it's not out there, taught, etc., but if it was, you'd figure it'd be more visible.


Ground fighting doesnt need to be both people on the ground rolling around.  If Im standing up but keeping you on the ground with a standing arm bar or wrist lock is that ground fighting?  To me it is. Its controlling a person on the ground Im just not there with him.  Mounting someone and bashing their skull in with hammer fists, or putting someone in a triangle or Arm bar is not the only way to fight the ground.


----------



## MJS

Himura Kenshin said:


> As a youth I thought what made a martial art different from another martial art was the variety of techniques it had compared to others. It wasn't until much later that I learned that it is the principles and specific strategies and tactics that make an art unique and effective. Using preset techniques to teach these lessons and principles will improve skill and help a student understand why something works and how to properly apply that technique or a similar one with similar principles. To view preset techniques as something along the lines of "this is my hook punch defense" or "this is my not getting stabbed in the face defense" is rather limiting I believe. I don't see how someone could access the correct folder in his brain to pull out the correct technique under pressure.
> 
> Using techniques as examples to teach specific skills are the way to go.



I agree.  Interestingly enough, I was shocked at the number of people that I used to teach, that seemed to crumble under pressure, when the 'preset' tech that they were doing, suddenly didn't work, because the attacker did something else, or they couldn't reach the specific target because of height differences, etc.  My reply was fairly simple...who cares if you can't reach the face.  Are there no other targets available?  See, the problem was, was that others would make the students feel so bound by the technique at hand, that they had to do it verbatim, no matter what.  I call BS on that.  Oh, so you're 5'6 and your attacker is 6'2.  Oh, you can't reach his face?  Hmm...can you change the face shot to a strike to the chest instead?  Can you kick the guy in the balls to make him bend over?  Oh you can, good, then do it!   That is why I'd preach the use of the basics so much.  Adapt on the fly.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> This "flavor of the week" has lasted for over 20 years.



you're right...probably because nothing new has come along.  And frankly, with everything already out there, IMHO, we really don't need anything new.  Anyone claiming to be inventing their own style is probably full of it.  

Seriously though, think about it.  In the 70s it was Karate.  80s we saw everyone running around in black uniforms with their face covered, because Ninjutsu was the big thing.  We saw it with Krav Maga.  Hell the KMWW group was one of the biggest pushers.  Last but not least, the Gracies/BJJ/UFC.


----------



## SENC-33

These style arguments are exactly why I enjoy raw combatives. I can take the best from my nerve striking days, my Muay Thai days and throw in the most effective things I have learned from training with Silat and Kali guys and wrap it up into Systema.....I have grown very fond of Tai-Chi the last few years and as I have grown older and wiser it all makes sense now.


----------



## MJS

Takai said:


> I can't believe that I got sucked down this spiraling rabbit hole discussion again.



Unfortunately, this thread is turning into the same as the other 2.  It is however, not the direction I intended.


----------



## RTKDCMB

MJS said:


> I agree.  Interestingly enough, I was shocked at the number of people that I used to teach, that seemed to crumble under pressure, when the 'preset' tech that they were doing, suddenly didn't work, because the attacker did something else, or they couldn't reach the specific target because of height differences, etc.  My reply was fairly simple...who cares if you can't reach the face.  Are there no other targets available?  See, the problem was, was that others would make the students feel so bound by the technique at hand, that they had to do it verbatim, no matter what.  I call BS on that.  Oh, so you're 5'6 and your attacker is 6'2.  Oh, you can't reach his face?  Hmm...can you change the face shot to a strike to the chest instead?  Can you kick the guy in the balls to make him bend over?  Oh you can, good, then do it!   That is why I'd preach the use of the basics so much.  Adapt on the fly.



That's pretty much how it is taught in my school, if you can't reach here strike there instead, if someone grabs you like this, do this, if he is too big and strong, do that instead, if you are too close for a knifehand strike, use an elbow etc.


----------



## SENC-33

MJS said:


> I agree.  Interestingly enough, I was shocked at the number of people that I used to teach, that seemed to crumble under pressure, when the 'preset' tech that they were doing, suddenly didn't work, because the attacker did something else, or they couldn't reach the specific target because of height differences, etc.  My reply was fairly simple...who cares if you can't reach the face.  Are there no other targets available?  See, the problem was, was that others would make the students feel so bound by the technique at hand, that they had to do it verbatim, no matter what.  I call BS on that.  Oh, so you're 5'6 and your attacker is 6'2.  Oh, you can't reach his face?  Hmm...can you change the face shot to a strike to the chest instead?  Can you kick the guy in the balls to make him bend over?  Oh you can, good, then do it!   That is why I'd preach the use of the basics so much.  Adapt on the fly.



Agree.....I think the most important thing you can teach anybody is how to handle pressure and stress quickly and accordingly and how to control adrenaline so it works for you not against you. Training to relax and breath is just as important if not the most important thing you can do IMO. You can be a highly trained practitioner of anything but if you can't relax, think clearly and control emotion, panic will take over and that is the last thing you want to deal with.


----------



## SENC-33

RTKDCMB said:


> That's pretty much how it is taught in my school, if you can't reach here strike there instead, if someone grabs you like this, do this, if he is too big and strong, do that instead, if you are too close for a knifehand strike, use an elbow etc.



Absolutely!!!!!!


----------



## MJS

Takai said:


> So if I said that BJJ couldn't "punch its way out of wet paper bag" that wouldn't be putting it down? That in reality is what you are saying about all of the other martial arts. "If it ain't BJJ than it ain't C$#%. You are sticking to a nonsensical argument. Even when the facts that you have quote have been refuted multiple times you still ignore them. And continue in your own zealous way to spout garbage.
> 
> This isn't a discussion anymore (not sure that it ever was) it is merely your zealous crusade to ignore evidence and push your own agenda even when you contradict yourself. You keep saying it is all about the style and not individual instructors. Yet the only people that you credit with anything are the Gracies.
> 
> You can't see what other people are saying because either 1) you don't want to (and prefer the bubble that in which BJJ is completely omnipotent, or 2) are unable to accept than anyone may know things that you don't. Either way it really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter to the rest of us. It really isn't our job to correct your misunderstandings. Several very respected members here have already attempted to to so politely and been ignored or nastily rebuffed (and still not have a solid, undeniable argument).
> 
> I for one am done with this pointless (and circular logic) argument that you keep using. I will continue to train hard in my chosen TMA as I am sure that you will keep training in yours.
> 
> Enjoy the journey but, stop telling everyone else that they don't anything about their own.



HA! Funny you say that, because UFC 60 Hughes vs. Gracie, we saw Royce pretty much get dominated by punches thrown by Matt.  This proves to me, that while in the beginning, BJJ may've been the superior art, we saw it easily defeated by a striker.  

In the end, it's like I always say...all arts can benefit from each other.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Please post the quote where I stated or implied that other MAs ain't "_____".
> 
> More to the point, if I said the Bjj doesn't teach you to kick as well as a TKD exponent, or punch as well as a Boxer, I would have no problem with that statement. I'm curious as to why some of you are having such a problem with me stating that Bjj and the Gracies brought ground fighting, a largely ignored aspect of fighting up to that time, to the forefront of martial arts after the first UFC in 1993.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the context of this discussion (competition changing martial arts), I think crediting the Gracies is a perfectly fair thing to do, because they definitely changed the MA landscape.



Yes, we know they did.  However, it should be very obvious, in this thread, as well as the other 2, that you're extremely pro BJJ.  In a number of posts, you've disregarded TMAs.  I'm sure I, as well as others, can show you those posts.


----------



## SENC-33

What the gracie's brought to MMA was an effective method of winning sport competitions and a false sense of security that because it works well in the octagon that the average martial artist should add this (BJJ) to his training regiment. That simply isn't the case.....


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Ground fighting doesnt need to be both people on the ground rolling around.  If Im standing up but keeping you on the ground with a standing arm bar or wrist lock is that ground fighting?  To me it is. Its controlling a person on the ground Im just not there with him.  Mounting someone and bashing their skull in with hammer fists, or putting someone in a triangle or Arm bar is not the only way to fight the ground.



You're correct.  Even in Arnis, which is not a ground based art, there are things there, just as you described.  I guess I was just referring to something in the event that one finds themselves on the ground.


----------



## jks9199

MJS said:


> Unfortunately, this thread is turning into the same as the other 2.  It is however, not the direction I intended.



Let's try to get back on track...

Is there a place for competition in traditional martial arts training?  I certainly think there can be!  Competition is one form of pressure; it's a chance to see how your stuff works against someone different -- with a bit of competitive drive to win mixed in.  You may have to adapt your techniques to the rules -- but you should be able to maintain the principles consistently, even if you can't do everything.  There are limits, of course.  A BJJ stylist would have a heck of a time adapting his art to a boxing ruleset -- and would probably be beyond lost in a fencing match!  But if your style says "evade the attack, and counter" -- well, you should be able to take the kicks out of it, and do that in a boxing match.


----------



## MJS

SENC-33 said:


> What the gracie's brought to MMA was an effective method of winning sport competitions and a false sense of security that because it works well in the octagon that the average martial artist should add this (BJJ) to his training regiment. That simply isn't the case.....



You're probably correct in this, however, that certainly isn't the way things turned out.


----------



## SENC-33

I wouldn't even call what I see in your common BJJ facility "fighting". It's really just submission grappling......Of course if you throw striking in their it becomes MMA but most BJJ practitioners I know hit softer than my wife.


----------



## Steve

How did Bjj become the center of a discussion about sport and tma?  While Bjj certainly has a well defined and robust competitive element, it isn't the only art to have one.  Judo, kyokushin karate, TKD, Muay Thai, sambo, mma, boxing, fencing, wrestling, Chinese wrestling (won't even try to spell it with autocorrect on), San shou, and the list goes on and on.

The discussion at hand is, I believe, whether or not sport and a competitive element is beneficial or not.  I believe that a competitive element can make most arts stronger, not weaker, provided the competition remains in context, and the practitioners remain self aware.  

I would love to hear more comments, but the style bashing is petty and unconstructive, whether it's bashing on traditional arts or bashing on Bjj.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> How did Bjj become the center of a discussion about sport and tma?


Take that up with your fellow BJJer Hanz that's turned it into a BJJ is the king of the world all else sucks.  



> While Bjj certainly has a well defined and robust competitive element, it isn't the conteve one.  Judo, kyokushin karate, TKD, Muay Thai, sambo, mma, boxing, fencing, wrestling, Chinese wrestling (won't even tryto spell it with autocorrect on), San shou, and the list goes on and on.


True.  All have there benefits and draw backs.  Comps are not my thing mainly because they are against rules for my job and also because i have a real job and can't risk injuries.  But its cool to watch and takes guts to do it.


> The discussion at hand is, I believe, whether or not sport and a competitive element is beneficial or not.  I believe that a competitive element can make most arts stronger, not weaker, provided the competition remains in context, and the practitioners remain self aware.


Keeping it in context is the key.  Comps all have rules.  In my opinion rules for arts like JUDO have hurt the sport.  I understand what they are trying to do with all the rule changes but I think its hurting Judo as a whole.


> I would love to hear more comments, but the style bashing is petty and unconstructive, whether it's bashing on traditional arts or bashing on Bjj.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I agree every art has its strong point and weak point.  The trick is to see what they are ans adjust accordingly


----------



## SENC-33

A sport element CAN be helpful (it certainly can't hurt) but I find I get more out of scenario based training when it comes to self defense. The trick is knowing how to go about it correctly and safely and that obviously comes down to having experienced individuals leading the way. Knowing how to move, how to utilize focus mitts and other pads and shields. I wasn't keen on the slow speed of Systema until I was instructed on how to approach it properly.


----------



## Grenadier

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this discussion civil, and on-topic.  While you allowed to criticize an art, all-out art bashing is not allowed. 

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Strongly disagree on this. If "pull guard" can achieve the same ground game result, why would anybody want to train "leg lift throw (Uchi Mata)"? You can learn "pull guard" in 1 month. How long does it take you to learn "leg lift throw (Uchi Mata)"? Not only you need to have good single leg balance, you also need to have leg flexibility.
> 
> http://imageshack.us/a/img832/7585/changleglifting.jpg
> 
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/uchimata.htm



Well you're talking about something completely different. Pulling Guard is easy to do and effective, so a lot of competitive Bjj practitioners use it. That doesn't really hurt throwing, it just means that for Bjj competition you're more likely to see Guard pulls than any other takedown.

In Judo, newaza is actually penalized, and landing on your back is an Ippon. Because of this, Judo puts less emphasis on ground fighting.


----------



## MJS

Just as a refresher, please take note of my OP:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1610449#post1610449

Here is the question:

"So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defend against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?"

Let's stick to the topic please.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Just as a refresher, please take note of my OP:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1610449#post1610449
> 
> Here is the question:
> 
> "So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defend against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?"
> 
> Let's stick to the topic please.



You need both.  Beginners need preset techs and then a teacher to help them think outside the box.  When I teach a standard Bunkai I then make the students change it into their own to see what else is out there you can see a huge difference between the creativity of a newer person and someone that's been at it a while.


----------



## Spinedoc

MJS said:


> Just as a refresher, please take note of my OP:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1610449#post1610449
> 
> Here is the question:
> 
> "So, what are your thoughts? Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defend against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?"
> 
> Let's stick to the topic please.



Yes would be my answer, because you need to build muscle memory. Let's think of another sport. Pick one. Golf, Tennis, Basketball, any skill sport. All work on the fundamentals. I played tennis at a high level as a junior. I remember hitting balls off of a brick wall for so long that I would almost fall asleep. Golf.....do you think Tiger Woods is thinking about everything as he swings? No. This stuff has to be ingrained into you, because the moment is just that....a moment. It's the same in a fight. You can't think. You try to anticipate and react. IMO, preset techs help to establish those fundamentals. That base from which to work from. And you have to do them 100,000 times. They have to be ingrained into the subconcious realm of your brain. 

There's a great book on tennis, called "Inner Tennis", and it talks about how most tennis matches are won before they are even played. It's the mental things. Thinking about everything....well, that kills you. You need to let go, and play instinctively but with good form through hundreds of hours of practice. You need to think about strategy, not "how should I hit this forehand"....

The same concepts apply to the MA, with a more serious outcome. YMMV.

Mike


----------



## SENC-33

I built a dark room 8' x 10' padded......You put 2 guys in it with headgear and eye protection and one has to get out (no punching). You have to rely on instinct and creativity with your arms, hands and body movement. This helps with your split second decision making and increases your ability to react without thinking because you can't see


----------



## Steve

Pulling guard isn't a technique.  It's a tactic used in competitions.  In a competition,  points are awarded for a takedown, but not for pulling guard.  So, if I'm confident that my bottom game is very good, I can opt to pull guard and get the fight to the ground without conceding two points, and I can then get my own two points for a sweep.  So, really, any mention of pulling guard in a discussion about anything other than a game plan for a BJJ or Submission Grappling even is inappropriate.  It's as relevant as discussing board breaking.  

With regards to the topic at hand, however, the confidence that a jiu jitiero has from the bottom is, I believe, well founded.  No one would WANT to be on the bottom, on the ground, in a self defense scenario.  However, the average jiu jitiero will be able to create space to return to standing, or reverse position and then choose to engage on the ground OR disengage and return to standing (whether to run away or not).  The differences between Judo, Sambo, modern CACC wrestling and BJJ isn't so much in the techniques taught.  It's about philosophy and emphasis.  This isn't good or bad, IMO.  It just is what it is.  

I think that "reality based" arts often suffer from a lack of pressure testing.  While a competitive element may focus training, I think that it would be easier for the average competitor to translate skills to practical, effective self defense, than it would be for the average non-competitor.


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> I built a dark room 8' x 10' padded......You put 2 guys in it with headgear and eye protection and one has to get out (no punching). You have to rely on instinct and creativity with your arms, hands and body movement. This helps with your split second decision making and increases your ability to react without thinking because you can't see


Sounds like a competition to me.  Your rule set is a little more restrictive than the early UFCs but less so than the current rules.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Just as a refresher, please take note of my OP:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1610449#post1610449
> 
> Here is the question:
> 
> "So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defend against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?"
> 
> Let's stick to the topic please.


The fighting skills stem from technique, MJS.  I don't know that I quite understand what you're getting at.  At some point, the golfer, tennis player, banjo player or whatever, will take the skills and apply them outside of the pre-arranged drills.  Whether you're talking about the transition from the driving range to the links, or from scales and arpeggios to playing songs to riffing with an improvisational jazz band, at some point, in order to effectively transition past basic skills you have to apply the skills outside context of training.

I don't think sports are equivalent to self defense.  I simply believe that, in a world in which most of us DON'T get into fights routinely, sports get us closer to combat than simulations and drills.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> I wouldn't even call what I see in your common BJJ facility "fighting". It's really just submission grappling......Of course if you throw striking in their it becomes MMA but most BJJ practitioners I know hit softer than my wife.



We like to give love taps before we put you to sleep or snap your arm. That's just how we roll.



> What the gracie's brought to MMA was an effective method of winning sport competitions and a false sense of security that because it works well in the octagon that the average martial artist should add this (BJJ) to his training regiment. That simply isn't the case.....




Only if you forget that the Gracies and others spent decades advancing and improving Bjj in street fights and various NHB competitions like Vale Tudo. Let's also not forget the various examples of Bjj protecting people in SD situations.


----------



## SENC-33

Steve said:


> Sounds like a competition to me.  Your rule set is a little more restrictive than the early UFCs but less so than the current rules.



Competition to me is applying pre-trained skills to defeat an opponent with a 3rd party declaring the victor. You don't get anything special for getting out of the room first other than knowledge.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Take that up with your fellow BJJer Hanz that's turned it into a BJJ is the king of the world all else sucks.



I would love to see posts from this thread where I stated or implied any such thing.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> We like to give love taps before we put you to sleep or snap your arm. That's just how we roll.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you forget that the Gracies and others spent decades advancing and improving Bjj in street fights and various NHB competitions like Vale Tudo. Let's also not forget the various examples of Bjj protecting people in SD situations.



By all means let me know when you snap your first arm.......If you want to love tap your training partner that's a personal problem!


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> K man, I was not talking about black belts with regards to taking 5-6years to learn to use the art. I was talking in general. About the only art were black belt means any thing is BJJ and that usually denotes mastery, and that is how the art is set up. I kinda thought it was common knowledge that black belt was only part way through the system in many tma.
> 
> Don't underplay the value of black belts. Sure some are handed out pretty easily and it sticks in my craw when a 22 year old kid is a fourth dan. But that said it takes an effort and dedication to get to black belt. BJJ is probably the longest at 10 years but it took me 7 years to get my Aikido black. I was 64 at the time. To say that the BJJ black is the only one that means anything is just not right.
> 
> I agree with your sentiment that much of what people cross train for may be found in your karate.  Problem is, not many are teaching it very well.  Out of all the dojo I visited, I saw nothing that told me they had advanced beyond basic understanding.     SO sure what you or I may need is found in the system, but there is a sizeable amount of schools not teaching it in any quality way.
> 
> Some schools teach basics up to black belt then have advanced classes after that. Because it is not visible in a normal class doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I will agree, often it doesn't.
> 
> I keep coming back to the striking defense. You would think a lineage of karate, say GOJO or Shorin, would have set ways of dealing with attacks throught the entirety of the system. Sadly you can take 4 different schools from the same Lineage and they will have 4 different applications of the same defense.  The fact that karate cant even agree with it self on how to use the defenses is just odd....    Is each defense a combo or a rather long way to learn on movment?   Its questions like this that go on debated and unanswered. About the only real answere is to do what your teacher says, but what if he is teaching you something diluted.
> 
> In fact I don't believe that you should have a set defence for each attack. I believe in teaching principles that apply to all attacks, then you don't have to remember which technique to use. Certainly learn the technique ... then forget it.
> 
> The thug mma will be truly frightening. He is stronger, faster and has incredible cardio.. Can your students meet that threat in a dark ally, or parking lot or bar room?
> 
> Hopefully yes.  But then there are other SD mechanisms as an alternative to fighting.


Sorry, I meant to respond to this yesterday.


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> Competition to me is applying pre-trained skills to defeat an opponent with a 3rd party declaring the victor. You don't get anything special for getting out of the room first other than knowledge.



Whatever floats your boat.  In my opinion, there is nothing more clearly competitive than, "two men enter; one man leaves."

An 8x10 room, with safety gear and rules sounds a lot like a competition to me.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm pro competition.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## SENC-33

Steve said:


> Whatever floats your boat.  In my opinion, there is nothing more clearly competitive than, "two men enter; one man leaves."
> 
> An 8x10 room, with safety gear and rules sounds a lot like a competition to me.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm pro competition.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Well both people actually get to come out of the room. No different than if you and another dude go into the head at the same time and one comes out before the other.....Is that a competition too?


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> By all means let me know when you snap your first arm.......If you want to love tap your training partner that's a personal problem!



I already did. It was at a competition, and the idiot forgot to tap. I also dislocated another guy's shoulder because he didn't tap.

If you don't hear a tap, you're probably going to hear a snap.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> I already did. It was at a competition, and the idiot forgot to tap. I also dislocated another guy's shoulder because he didn't tap.
> 
> If you don't hear a tap, you're probably going to hear a snap.



Sorry but  I call complete BS.......


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> That isn't to say they never taught it, it wasn't the focus of their training. This is why Bjj was able to carve a large niche for itself and flourish as a different martial art.
> 
> Here's Ronda Rousey talking about this exact thing;
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronda Rousey:'Training  in newaza in judo is not mandatory. You can get away with not knowing  any ground and just knowing how to defend and stay standing. *
Click to expand...

Absolute hogwash.  Newaza techniques are, and have been, a requirement for United States Judo Association kyu rank tests.   Choking techniques (12 of 'em + variations), arm and shoulder locks (10 of 'em + variations), hold downs (20 of 'em); all requirements for various kyu ranks.  Only thing held back is ankle and knee locks.  And a crapload of entries into matwork, positions, and escapes.  You can see how many of what are required per kyu rank here:
http://www.usja-judo.org/forms/Docs/srpromo.pdf

I have no idea why she would say that but it isn't the truth and never has been.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> Well both people actually get to come out of the room. No different than if you and another dude go into the head at the same time and one comes out before the other.....Is that a competition too?



You're seriously comparing your training to urinating? That's pretty funny.  I hope you clean your mats.

But funny aside, your analogy doesn't really work, unless in your training, the two guys enter the room for some reason other than to fight each other and be the one to emerge first.

That both people actually get to leave the room is a given.  It's competition.  The rules you have in place are for safety.  Right?  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> Sorry but  I call complete BS.......



You seriously don't believe that people's limbs get broken in Bjj competitions?














It happens dude.


----------



## SENC-33

Steve said:


> You're seriously comparing your training to urinating? That's pretty funny.  I hope you clean your mats.
> 
> But funny aside, your analogy doesn't really work, unless in your training, the two guys enter the room for some reason other than to fight each other and be the one to emerge first.
> 
> That both people actually get to leave the room is a given.  It's competition.  The rules you have in place are for safety.  Right?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Nothing we do in my training facility is considered a competition by those who walk through the doors and that's all that really matters unless you just want me to argue back and forth with you......done that already on the other thread.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> You seriously don't believe that people's limbs get broken in Bjj competitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens dude.



Of course it happens.....I don't believe YOU to be one who has done it.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> In Judo, newaza is actually penalized


No, it isn't.



> and landing on your back is an Ippon.


That's not penalizing newaza.  That's like saying that Lancashire Catch Wrestling penalizes ground work for getting a solid back-throw.  No.  It just means that a certain, very specific, "method" of you hitting the ground costs you points.



> Because of this, Judo puts less emphasis on ground fighting.


Look, I have some issues with some of the Judo competition rules, but your take on them is biased by your BJJ and is, frankly, not accurate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Steve said:


> Pulling guard isn't a technique.  It's a tactic used in competitions.  In a competition,  points are awarded for a takedown, but not for pulling guard.  So, if I'm confident that my bottom game is very good, I can opt to pull guard and get the fight to the ground without conceding two points, and I can then get my own two points for a sweep.  So, really, any mention of pulling guard in a discussion about anything other than a game plan for a BJJ or Submission Grappling even is inappropriate.  It's as relevant as discussing board breaking.
> 
> With regards to the topic at hand, however, the confidence that a jiu jitiero has from the bottom is, I believe, well founded.  No one would WANT to be on the bottom, on the ground, in a self defense scenario.  However, the average jiu jitiero will be able to create space to return to standing, or reverse position and then choose to engage on the ground OR disengage and return to standing (whether to run away or not).  The differences between Judo, Sambo, modern CACC wrestling and BJJ isn't so much in the techniques taught.  It's about philosophy and emphasis.  This isn't good or bad, IMO.  It just is what it is.
> 
> I think that "reality based" arts often suffer from a lack of pressure testing.  While a competitive element may focus training, I think that it would be easier for the average competitor to translate skills to practical, effective self defense, than it would be for the average non-competitor.


I regret that I can only hit "thanks" on this post once.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> Nothing we do in my training facility is considered a competition by those who walk through the doors and that's all that really matters unless you just want me to argue back and forth with you......done that already on the other thread.


i think you have a unique definition of competition.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## SENC-33

Steve said:


> i think you have a unique definition of competition.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Competition to me is two parties striving for something that can't be shared.......When guys walk through my doors we do the exact opposite. We share our time, our resources and our knowledge for a greater goal called self preservation.

But I can see why you wouldn't understand that


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I assume "sport" may mean "cross training" and TMA may mean to "keep system pure" (it may not mean "cross training"). I also assume that we are not talking about sport such as boxing, wrestling, Judo, ... here. So the discussion of "sport" vs. "TMA" is really to discuss whether or not the "cross training" is necessary, or whether or not TMA is against "cross training".

Here is a question. When your opponent tries to punch you, will you

1. block his punch?
2. dodge his punch?
3. wrap his punching arms to obtain "clinch"?

If you apply the 1st and the 2nd strategies, your opponent will punch you again. If you apply the 3rd strategy, what will you do after you have obtained a "clinch"? In order to continue after "clinch", you have to be good in grappling. If "cross training" is a must then "sport testing" is also a must. When you take this approach, I truly don't see any difference between "sport" and "TMA".

We all know that it's better to use

- striking to against a grappler.
- grappling to against a striker.

If you want to have both abilities, your will need to "cross train" and you will need to test your integration of striking and grappling in "sport".


----------



## Hanzou

lklawson said:


> No, it isn't.



Getting stood up after 5 seconds isn't penalizing newaza?



> That's not penalizing newaza.  That's like saying that Lancashire Catch Wrestling penalizes ground work for getting a solid back-throw.  No.  It just means that a certain, very specific, "method" of you hitting the ground costs you points.



You win the match if your opponent gets thrown on their back. The back is a highly defensive position in newaza, and not being able to land on your back into a defensive position on the ground does penalize newaza.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> Of course it happens.....I don't believe YOU to be one who has done it.



Is there a reason you're making this personal? There's no need for that.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> Is there a reason you're making this personal?



Sorry if you feel that way......certainly not my intentions.


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> Competition to me is two parties striving for something that can't be shared


As I said, your definition of competition is unique.  You have a room, you have rules, you have safety gear, and you have a singular goal for which both competitors strive.  I think that pretty well describes any competition.

Now, sport takes competition a little further.  





> When guys walk through my doors we do the exact opposite. We share our time, our resources and our knowledge for a greater goal called self preservation.
> 
> But I can see why you wouldn't understand that


You just can't seem to help yourself.  Snide personal insults aside, it sounds like you train with like minded guys in what you believe to be an ego-free environment.  I think that if you ever spent time in a quality MMA or BJJ school, you'd be pleasantly surprised at the fellowship and lack of ego.


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> Of course it happens.....I don't believe YOU to be one who has done it.


Injuries in BJJ competitions are really pretty rare.  That said, in my experience, injuries in competition are most likely to occur either at the very lowest levels or among the elite guys for whom championships are a means to making a living.

White belts in competition are more about aggression than technique, and they often don't have the technical ability to defend submissions correctly.  Sometimes, they will not even realize the danger they're in until it's too late.  There's also the tendency for adrenaline to kick in and impair judgement.  The referee is there to keep the athletes safe, and, at least locally, the refs will step in and "tap" for the competitor if they're too stupid to do it themselves... at least for white belts.  This goes double for kids.

At blue or above, it's presumed that you know what you're doing.  At the highest levels, in the adult black belt divisions, there is more on the line, and so you will sometimes see guys like Jacare continue grappling even after his arm is broken.

But again, while the techniques are effective it is FAR more common for someone to be rendered unconscious than to see an elbow or shoulder get seriously injured.  Most people will tap.


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume "sport" may mean "cross training" and TMA may mean to "keep system pure" (it may not mean "cross training"). I also assume that we are not talking about sport such as boxing, wrestling, Judo, ... here. So the discussion of "sport" vs. "TMA" is really to discuss whether or not the "cross training" is necessary, or whether or not TMA is against "cross training".
> 
> Here is a question. When your opponent tries to punch you, will you
> 
> 1. block his punch?
> 2. dodge his punch?
> 3. wrap his punching arms to obtain "clinch"?
> 
> If you apply the 1st and the 2nd strategies, your opponent will punch you again. If you apply the 3rd strategy, what will you do after you have obtained a "clinch"? In order to continue after "clinch", you have to be good in grappling. If "cross training" is a must then "sport testing" is also a must. When you take this approach, I truly don't see any difference between "sport" and "TMA".
> 
> We all know that it's better to use
> 
> - striking to against a grappler.
> - grappling to against a striker.
> 
> If you want to have both abilities, your will need to "cross train" and you will need to test your integration of striking and grappling in "sport".


You do realize there is more to option 1 and 2 besides block or dodge right?  
Dodge and counter strike hard enough and he's not hitting you back.


----------



## Kframe

RTKDCMB said:


> Can we PLEASE stop using YouTube to "prove" stuff?



Why RTKDCMB? A nice cross section of martial arts, including TKD was shown and they got defeated.  It seams every time this type of video is posted, the same comment gets thrown out. "Oh he was not a good xxxx practitioner."  The comments are always vague saying they lacked basic fundamentals. These comments crop up every single time.  IF there are so many Great TMA out there, why are they not being represented? Why haven't they accepted the challenge and proven them selves and there art legit?  

I keep hearing about all these fantastic TMA that wouldn't fall prey, yet they never appear.  

I honestly don't care what anyone learns, they need to do more then a few minutes of ground grappling every week so they don't spaz out when they inevitably get taken down.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Why RTKDCMB? A nice cross section of martial arts, including TKD was shown and they got defeated.  It seams every time this type of video is posted, the same comment gets thrown out. "Oh he was not a good xxxx practitioner."  The comments are always vague saying they lacked basic fundamentals. These comments crop up every single time.  IF there are so many Great TMA out there, why are they not being represented? Why haven't they accepted the challenge and proven them selves and there art legit?
> 
> I keep hearing about all these fantastic TMA that wouldn't fall prey, yet they never appear.
> 
> I honestly don't care what anyone learns, they need to do more then a few minutes of ground grappling every week so they don't spaz out when they inevitably get taken down.


Why?   Because it proves nothing other then that guy lost that day to that guy.  Thats it.  Its means nothing beyond that


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> Why?   Because it proves nothing other then that guy lost that day to that guy.  Thats it.  Its means nothing beyond that



Ballen your are incorrect. It means more. So much more.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Ballen your are incorrect. It means more. So much more.



So if Joe schmoe from the street caught a Gracie with a lucky punch and KOed him would that mean BJJ failed. Or would it mean on that day at that time Gracie got caught.  You tube clips  only prove what you want to see.


----------



## Aiki Lee

SENC-33 said:


> A sport element CAN be helpful (itcertainly can't hurt) but I find I get more out of scenario based training whenit comes to self defense. The trick is knowing how to go about it correctly andsafely and that obviously comes down to having experienced individuals leadingthe way. Knowing how to move, how to utilize focus mitts and other pads andshields. I wasn't keen on the slow speed of Systema until I was instructed onhow to approach it properly.


I would agree that SD training works best when approachedfrom a scenario type exercise. I would disagree where you say that a sportelement can&#8217;t hurt someone&#8217;s SD training. If competitive elements are the onlyway a school pressure tests then there are always going to be limitations aboutwhat tactics someone can or can&#8217;t employ. Think of all the targets you wouldattack in SD and why you wouldn&#8217;t want to do that in a competiton. So you caneither go fast and hard and eliminate certain tools from your tool box duringtraining or you can keep those tools and go slower.
If I tap your ankle to simulate a crushing attack and youignore it because I didn&#8217;t use enough force and you didn&#8217;t notice you shouldhave responded for the sake of the exercise then that exchange benefits no one.Focusing too much on a competitive atmosphere will hinder the learningenvironment. There is a place for both if you want competition, but if you arelooking for SD then competition can on occasions hinder your progress.




Steve said:


> I think that "reality based" arts often suffer from a lack ofpressure testing. While a competitive element may focus training, I think thatit would be easier for the average competitor to translate skills to practical,effective self defense, than it would be for the averagenon-competitor.



I agree that on average a competitor will be able totranslate his/her skills more easily than someone with no pressure testing.However I still stand by scenario based pressure testing as a more reliablemethod to improve SD skills over competition. I think you and I would agreethat pressure testing is required to build realistic skill.




Kframe said:


> A nice cross section of martialarts, including TKD was shown and they got defeated. It seams every time thistype of video is posted, the same comment gets thrown out. "Oh he was nota good xxxx practitioner." The comments are always vague saying theylacked basic fundamentals. .


A very limited cross section of very poor performers wasshown, not a nice cross section. What&#8217;s vague about saying they lacked basicfundamentals? Clearly the opponents in the videos I watched did not maintaincontrol of distance and were attmepting to winnable strategies. That may betheir fault, or the fault of their teachers for not properly instructing them,but it does not reflect an entire art. It shows that Gracie is a good martialartist and a good teacher as his students appear able to replicate his actions.However soemone culd come along with limited knowledge of his system and poorlyteach it to others, which is what happened with many karate systems over theyears.



Kframe said:


> These comments crop up every singletime. IF there are so many Great TMA out there, why are they not beingrepresented? Why haven't they accepted the challenge and proven them selves andthere art legit?


Probably because they aren&#8217;t meant for that kind ofcompetition. I see the opponents in the videos attempting to fight the same wayGracie does. They are playing his game and they are losing because he is thebest at it. Gracie is a great martial artist because he is manipulating hisopponent into playing to his strengths. The others are not doing that.
For many TMA many of their strategies do not apply in acompetition like that. Any raking action with the hands is illegal but a greatSD tool in many systems. Half of the tactics I like to employ rely on a personbeing committed to causing harm and not wanting me to escape and don&#8217;t workwith the type of energy emitted by people in a competition. That leaves manyTMA practitioners with many of the same skills an MMA fighter would have, butthey don&#8217;t practice them nearly as often.
To be as good at competitions as an MMA fighter I wouldhave to neglect a large majority of my training that I enjoy and work betterfor SD. I&#8217;m not interested in limiting myself. That&#8217;s what competition does, itlimits your skills for the purpose of prolonging a fight for sport. That&#8217;s nota bad thing if you like to compete and test yourself that way, it just isn&#8217;t thesame goal that other MAs have.



Kframe said:


> I honestly don't care what anyone learns, they need to do more then a fewminutes of ground grappling every week so they don't spaz out when theyinevitably get taken down.


Now realistically for SD I think some ground fightingskills are necessary. I don&#8217;t think anyone debates that. But you don&#8217;t have tofight like they do in competition. In my opinion it is good to know some ofthat so you can be aware of what someone is trying to do to you if they havebasic understanding of grappling, but I don&#8217;t have to play that game. If I&#8217;mfighting on the ground I would much rather fight for a superior position fromwhere I could make my escape than continue rolling with him on the ground wherein all likelihood I won&#8217;t be as good as he is.


----------



## Kframe

Himura. My point is, that you need to train the high percentage maneuvers more often because they are the ones that set up the Illegal for competition low percentage maneuvers.  It is easier to perform that face rake(I assume that's what your talking about) if you can deal with this strikes and distract him with your own.   One thing I don't understand about my new art of budo taijutsu is the lack of separating the striking and striking defense and getting lots of reps on them. So far I have seen no use of strike shields and focus mits.  The striking and striking defense aspect is IMHO so very important to setting up everything else. 

I whole heartedly agree with you regarding TMA and ground. I would expand what your saying with this. There needs to be a focus on the main positions. Guard/mount both bottom and top/ half guard and side guard.    I think that tma that want to do something on the ground besides spaz out need to put in many repititons on escaping each of those situations. I would also put attention in to the escape bottom of mount with punch defense.  Another thing, that I notice is, that many tma that fall prey to when they get taken down by a grappler is they end up on top, in guard then get pulled down, into the bottom guys armpits and then guillotined.  They need to learn to avoid that, and learn basic submission defense from each position.   Grapplers are more vulnerable when they are going for a submission.  I think that, if they focus on those basic things,  and actually put in a lot of time practicing it, more then a few minutes a week they would be ok.  

They don't need 600+ techniques, but they do need to put in quality time on a the things I outlined above and they will do just fine. I just feel they don't do enough time dedicated to it.  Heck bring in a BJJ guy and let your guys go to town on him. They will learn a lot.


----------



## Cyriacus

Kframe said:


> Ballen your are incorrect. It means more. So much more.





ballen0351 said:


> So if Joe schmoe from the street caught a Gracie with a lucky punch and KOed him would that mean BJJ failed. Or would it mean on that day at that time Gracie got caught. You tube clips only prove what you want to see.



Ill bite.

Id argue that a sucker punch or tackle or whatever sort of precludes a whole lot of things. But after you get sucker punched or tackled, i cant help but think itd be nice to have some experience, whether its through an art of a course or grabbing a friend and figuring it out or whatever, in how to get out of your now detrimental position, since youre still conscious to do that apparently.

By this reasoning, for that particular situation, its the persons ability to get up and not get beaten on moreso than what art they studied. But those videos werent of street ambushes. They were consensual matches held in various places and with various people. Videos of people being grappled in MMA as opposed to the number who get struck trying to grapple (as opposed to being defensively grappled) would probably be better for trying to make a point, but thats still in a specific arena where it makes sense.

Im with both of you.
Just my point of view.


----------



## Kframe

Himura,  you mentioned that the defeated opponents tried to fight gracies way. My question is, what if a art is a close range standing grappling heavy art like Hapkido or budo taijutsu(at least from what I have done so far it seams that way)? Arts like that, in their strongest area are in the gracies as well.  It could be argued though that the hapkidoan could just stay at range and kick him and keep back peddling but, then that wouldn't be Hapkido that would be TKD.  Edit to add. I mentioned Hapkido because in one Gracie challenge video the poor guy tries 3 times and it just gets worse and worse. He even tries to grab Roylers jewels during one exchange and still didn't work. 

So what is your opinion on that. What if your art, is at its strongest, up close and that is exactly were the gracies wanted it??


----------



## Kframe

Cyriacus said:


> Ill bite.
> 
> Id argue that a sucker punch or tackle or whatever sort of precludes a whole lot of things. But after you get sucker punched or tackled, i cant help but think itd be nice to have some experience, whether its through an art of a course or grabbing a friend and figuring it out or whatever, in how to get out of your now detrimental position, since youre still conscious to do that apparently.
> 
> By this reasoning, for that particular situation, its the persons ability to get up and not get beaten on moreso than what art they studied. But those videos werent of street ambushes. They were consensual matches held in various places and with various people. Videos of people being grappled in MMA as opposed to the number who get struck trying to grapple (as opposed to being defensively grappled) would probably be better for trying to make a point, but thats still in a specific arena where it makes sense.
> 
> Im with both of you.
> Just my point of view.




Can you clarify that. Im dense and trying to figure out what your exactly saying in your second paragraph?


----------



## ballen0351

Cyriacus said:


> Ill bite.
> 
> Id argue that a sucker punch or tackle or whatever sort of precludes a whole lot of things. But after you get sucker punched or tackled, i cant help but think itd be nice to have some experience, whether its through an art of a course or grabbing a friend and figuring it out or whatever, in how to get out of your now detrimental position, since youre still conscious to do that apparently.
> 
> By this reasoning, for that particular situation, its the persons ability to get up and not get beaten on moreso than what art they studied. But those videos werent of street ambushes. They were consensual matches held in various places and with various people. Videos of people being grappled in MMA as opposed to the number who get struck trying to grapple (as opposed to being defensively grappled) would probably be better for trying to make a point, but thats still in a specific arena where it makes sense.
> 
> Im with both of you.
> Just my point of view.



You don't need to sucker punch someone to get a lucky punch.  They happen all the time in the UFC the crazy knock out that shouldn't have happened but did.  Does that mean that guy was better or does it mean he got lucky.  Was Matt Serra a better fighter then GSP or on that night at that time did he win?  That's the point of these videos all it proved was one guy beat the other at that time.  Were the Gracie's better?  Yes I'm sure they are because they were the top of their field hell they practically invented their field.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Himura,  you mentioned that the defeated opponents tried to fight gracies way. My question is, what if a art is a close range standing grappling heavy art like Hapkido or budo taijutsu(at least from what I have done so far it seams that way)? Arts like that, in their strongest area are in the gracies as well.  It could be argued though that the hapkidoan could just stay at range and kick him and keep back peddling but, then that wouldn't be Hapkido that would be TKD.  Edit to add. I mentioned Hapkido because in one Gracie challenge video the poor guy tries 3 times and it just gets worse and worse. He even tries to grab Roylers jewels during one exchange and still didn't work.
> 
> So what is your opinion on that. What if your art, is at its strongest, up close and that is exactly were the gracies wanted it??


What about it?  Because a Gracie beat some random Hapkido dude it means BJJ is better then Hapkido?  Or does it mean that Gracie is better then that Hapkido guy.


----------



## Cyriacus

Kframe said:


> Can you clarify that. Im dense and trying to figure out what your exactly saying in your second paragraph?



Being ambushed takes away alot of your options and doesnt give you a chance to do your thing. I misread ballen as saying sucker punch when he literally meant lucky punch. Thats my bad.
So from the ground after being put down, certain skills become more useful in that situation.



ballen0351 said:


> You don't need to sucker punch someone to get a lucky punch.  They happen all the time in the UFC the crazy knock out that shouldn't have happened but did.  Does that mean that guy was better or does it mean he got lucky.  Was Matt Serra a better fighter then GSP or on that night at that time did he win?  That's the point of these videos all it proved was one guy beat the other at that time.  Were the Gracie's better?  Yes I'm sure they are because they were the top of their field hell they practically invented their field.



Im inclined to concur, when you put it that way.


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> What about it?  Because a Gracie beat some random Hapkido dude it means BJJ is better then Hapkido?  Or does it mean that Gracie is better then that Hapkido guy.



That contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion nor to my valid question.  Some arts, are in their zone at ranges which is exactly where GJJ shines.. How do those arts deal.  It is easier for a grappler to force his way to the ground then it is a stand up fighter to stay on his feet.  So my question in my previous post still stands.


----------



## Takai

MJS said:


> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?



The thread seems to be drifting again.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> That contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion nor to my valid question.  Some arts, are in their zone at ranges which is exactly where GJJ shines.. How do those arts deal.  It is easier for a grappler to force his way to the ground then it is a stand up fighter to stay on his feet.  So my question in my previous post still stands.


Again what about it?  My art is a inside stand up art.  So what?  It becomes your strong suit against mine and the best man wins.  It means nothing about the style being better.  If I win does it mean Goju is better then BJJ or does it mean I was better then my opponent at that time.  If I loose does it mean Bjj is better then Goju or again that guy was able to beat me.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume "sport" may mean "cross training" and TMA may mean to "keep system pure" (it may not mean "cross training"). I also assume that we are not talking about sport such as boxing, wrestling, Judo, ... here. So the discussion of "sport" vs. "TMA" is really to discuss whether or not the "cross training" is necessary, or whether or not TMA is against "cross training".
> 
> There are many competitions within martial arts that don't need cross training, dependent on the rules. For example, if you are Kyokushin and want to compete in their championships you don't need to cross train at all. Same for TKD and a lot of others. Certainly if you want to fight MMA cross training is mandatory.
> 
> Here is a question. When your opponent tries to punch you, will you
> 
> 1. block his punch?
> 
> Never, unless taken by surprise.
> 
> 2. dodge his punch?
> 
> Sometimes, but always moving in as the punch goes past.
> 
> 3. wrap his punching arms to obtain "clinch"?
> 
> Almost never.
> 
> 4. enter to control and generally strike or take down (but the control is rarely a clinch)
> 
> Probably this over 90% of the time.
> 
> 
> If you apply the 1st and the 2nd strategies, your opponent will punch you again.
> 
> Not with number 2 if done properly.
> 
> If you apply the 3rd strategy, what will you do after you have obtained a "clinch"? In order to continue after "clinch", you have to be good in grappling. If "cross training" is a must then "sport testing" is also a must. When you take this approach, I truly don't see any difference between "sport" and "TMA".
> 
> My idea of grappling is to control your opponent without your opponent controlling you. Cross training has absolutely no requirement for 'sport testing'. If you can't see the difference between sport and TMA, you haven't been paying attention. *Hanzou*'s big gripe was that TMAs don't fight in competition.
> 
> We all know that it's better to use
> 
> - striking to against a grappler.
> - grappling to against a striker.
> 
> Do we? In a sporting context maybe.
> 
> If you want to have both abilities, your will need to "cross train" and you will need to test your integration of striking and grappling in "sport".


If you want to compete in sport and you want to have both abilities you *may* need to cross train. In reality now with the proliferation of places advertising MMA I would assume they cover all aspects of MMA competition. I know they do here.

If you don't want to compete in sport there is absolutely no need to cross train. Whether a TMA teaches all aspects of fighting or not it depends on your reason for training and whether you feel the need to cross train or not will depend on the training provided.

In my training which is truly a TMA I don't feel the need to go off and study BJJ. I haven't been in a real fight on the ground in the past fifty years. Why should I need to learn extra ground grappling skills now? 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> Why RTKDCMB? A nice cross section of martial arts, including TKD was shown and they got defeated.  It seams every time this type of video is posted, the same comment gets thrown out. "Oh he was not a good xxxx practitioner."  The comments are always vague saying they lacked basic fundamentals. These comments crop up every single time.  IF there are so many Great TMA out there, why are they not being represented? Why haven't they accepted the challenge and proven them selves and there art legit?
> 
> Whatever you find on Youtube is an example, not proof.
> 
> I keep hearing about all these fantastic TMA that wouldn't fall prey, yet they never appear.
> 
> I have posted heaps of stuff.
> 
> I honestly don't care what anyone learns, they need to do more then a few minutes of ground grappling every week so they don't spaz out when they inevitably get taken down.


As I said in my previous post, I haven't needed to go to the ground in the past 50 years. Why, all of a sudden, do I need fantastic BJJ grappling skills?
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> Himura. My point is, that you need to train the high percentage maneuvers more often because they are the ones that set up the Illegal for competition low percentage maneuvers.
> 
> See below. I totally disagree.
> 
> It is easier to perform that face rake(I assume that's what your talking about) if you can deal with this strikes and distract him with your own.   One thing I don't understand about my new art of budo taijutsu is the lack of separating the striking and striking defense and getting lots of reps on them. So far I have seen no use of strike shields and focus mits.  The striking and striking defense aspect is IMHO so very important to setting up everything else.
> 
> Maybe they take a different view.
> 
> I whole heartedly agree with you regarding TMA and ground. I would expand what your saying with this. There needs to be a focus on the main positions. Guard/mount both bottom and top/ half guard and side guard.    I think that tma that want to do something on the ground besides spaz out need to put in many repititons on escaping each of those situations. I would also put attention in to the escape bottom of mount with punch defense.
> 
> TMAs are no more likely to 'spaz' out than anyone else. I just don't want to stay on the ground for any reason.
> 
> Another thing, that I notice is, that many tma that fall prey to when they get taken down by a grappler is they end up on top, in guard then get pulled down, into the bottom guys armpits and then guillotined.  They need to learn to avoid that, and learn basic submission defense from each position.   Grapplers are more vulnerable when they are going for a submission.  I think that, if they focus on those basic things,  and actually put in a lot of time practicing it, more then a few minutes a week they would be ok.
> 
> I don't want to submit anybody. If someone has provided me the reason to fight, and I consider that reasonably unlikely, then they won't be submitting.
> 
> They don't need 600+ techniques, but they do need to put in quality time on a the things I outlined above and they will do just fine. I just feel they don't do enough time dedicated to it.  Heck bring in a BJJ guy and let your guys go to town on him. They will learn a lot.
> 
> This thread is about 'Sport and TMA'. You understand sport but have obviously no idea of TMA.


So you are saying that the 'illegal for sport' techniques are low percentage. Let's check it out;



> Butting with the head .. Go to technique in Krav Maga and present in Goju kata as a head butt to the rear.
> 
> 
> Biting or spitting at an opponent ... Valid technique to escape some chokes, taught in Krav
> 
> 
> Hair pulling .. Once again in both Krav instruction and Goju kata
> 
> 
> Fish-hooking ... in both Krav instruction and Goju kata
> 
> 
> Intentionally placing a finger into any orifice, or into any cut or laceration of your opponent .. Fair game in SD
> 
> 
> Eye gouging of any kind ... Very much a go to technique in Krav and Goju. (and a great entry for an elbow strike)
> 
> 
> Groin attacks of any kind ... Always a target in RBSD and also in Goju kata
> 
> 
> Downward pointing of elbow strikes (see Elbow strike) ... One of my top techniques. Once again taught in both Krav and Goju.
> 
> 
> Small joint manipulation ... Always an option. Taught in Krav to escape chokes and big part of our Tegumi in Goju.
> 
> 
> Strikes to the spine or back of the head (see Rabbit punch)    Huge part of both Krav and Goju especially with the pointed elbow. Also GB 20 on the back go the head a primary target in Goju
> 
> 
> Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea ... Absolutely number one target for both Krav and Goju.
> 
> 
> Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh or grabbing the clavicle ... Always an option.
> 
> 
> Kicking the head of a grounded opponent ... Legitimate target in both and finishing technique regularly taught in Goju.
> 
> 
> Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent ... Absolutely a target if I'm being pulled down.
> 
> 
> Stomping of a grounded fighter ... Every time, not even an option not too.
> 
> 
> Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his or her head or neck (see Piledriver) .. Given the option, not a worry


I would say most of these are not only high percentage but a major part of TMAs and RBSD.
:asian:


----------



## Kframe

K-man said:


> So you are saying that the 'illegal for sport' techniques are low percentage. Let's check it out;
> 
> I would say most of these are not only high percentage but a major part of TMAs and RBSD.
> :asian:



All of which were legal in UFC 1-6 and none of which worked..  Case in point. The HKD guy in the challenge videos, he kept trying to sack grab, and guess what, didn't work..  Plenty of hair pulling, fish hooking and other crap on the list in UFC 1-6 NONE OF THEM WORKED.  

I don't know how you think I said you needed to submit someone on the ground. I was mainly talking about learning and being comfortable in those main positions as if you get taken down in a real fight, your going to end up in one or more of those. Learning how to stop a submission attempt(Which can be a joint break, I don't have to sub you. I can break you.)  is easy.  Being able to get out of that situation, in those common places to get trapped in is paramount.  As to the spazzing out part. Unless your comfortable actually fighting on the ground, most people spaz the first few times.  I know I did coming from boxing, as did the TKD black belt that I pwnt in mma rules sparring..(Which felt so good when it happened. I was so proud)  Again there are plenty of videos of people spazzing. 

Now defining spazzing is important. First few times I did roll,  I spent great quantities of energy trying anything, to get out of bottom. I ended up spent in less then a minute thanks to doing nothing effective.  One guy said I looked like Squidward. (some guy from spongebob).  Part of my comment on not spazzing is realizing the need to stay calm and as Rener is fond of saying, don't resist what is.  If the guy on top is in full mount control mode(as opposed to attacking) just chill and rest. He is most vulnerable when he is attacking. Problem is, newbs to ground wont realize that if they have little to no exposure to it.  That is my definition of spazzing. 

My only 2 fights that I have ever had, I lost, because of my lack of ground grappling skills and spazzing..  You don't need the entire GJJ black belt syllabus, but you should be comfortable and have actual useable techniques to escape mount(bottom and top)/sidemount(bottom and top) and half guard and guard while knowing how to stop the basic submissions.  Being comfortable on the ground is usefull.  Spazzing is not, which is what will happen if you have no experience there.


----------



## Kframe

Kman at no point am I advocating you stay on the ground. If you want to escape to your feet, you need to beable to escape those positions and defend any subs that may happen from them..  If you cant, then you wont get back to your feet.   Its as simple as that.  My experience rolling tells me this..  

Just to add . BY you I mean a generic you. not you k man.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> All of which were legal in UFC 1-6 and none of which worked..  Case in point. The HKD guy in the challenge videos, he kept trying to sack grab, and guess what, didn't work..  Plenty of hair pulling, fish hooking and other crap on the list in UFC 1-6 NONE OF THEM WORKED.


you do realize the Gracies were not undefeated right?  you seem to have put them on some pedestal.  They were good fighters and even better salesmen



> My only 2 fights that I have ever had, I lost, because of my lack of ground grappling skills and spazzing..  You don't need the entire GJJ black belt syllabus, but you should be comfortable and have actual useable techniques to escape mount(bottom and top)/sidemount(bottom and top) and half guard and guard while knowing how to stop the basic submissions.  Being comfortable on the ground is usefull.  Spazzing is not, which is what will happen if you have no experience there.


You dont need any GJJ for that there are plenty of other systems that have defenses and techniqes in them that dont involve Gjj.  Gjj is good but its not the only game in town


----------



## Kframe

Alright. Im respectfully bowing out of this one.  I have tapped out all my knowledge trying to convince people that having some basic skills on the ground that regularly practice is nothing but helpful. Im done being talked to like a dang fool.    I just pray to god no one here has to find out the hard way how hard it is to escape from bottom with punch's raining in. 

IMHO being comfortable on the ground benefits the standup part of your skillset. It gives you the courage to close the gap and actually try some techs that  you may be hesitant to try. Knowing that if get taken down, you have defineable skills you can use to get back up. 

So. Im done with this. I don't want to keep arguing with people I respect and like and consider online friends.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> You seriously don't believe that people's limbs get broken in Bjj competitions?



My wife refused to tape out in ground game. She had to visit the EM afterward.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> you do realize the Gracies were not undefeated right?  you seem to have put them on some pedestal.  They were good fighters and even better salesmen



That really wasn't Kframe's point. His point was that all those dirty tricks proved ineffective even in a sport environment. Vale Tudo for example allowed a lot of dirty fighting, and Gjj still did very well.



> You dont need any GJJ for that there are plenty of other systems that have defenses and techniqes in them that dont involve Gjj.  Gjj is good but its not the only game in town



In terms of ground fighting, it's the most comprehensive system around. I'd definitely recommend it for women's self defense because not only do they learn how to fight out of compromising positions, but they will more than likely spend the majority of their training sparring with larger guys on top of them trying to control them. Bjj is also one of the few arts that truly don't require a great deal of strength to be effective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Is there a reason you're making this personal? There's no need for that.



Agree! There is no need to link any general discussion to whether any individual can or cannot do. When people ask, "Can you do it?" if you say yes, people may say that you are bragging about yourself. If you say no, people may look down on you. It's a lose-lose situation when discussion has to involve "individual". The most honest answer may be, "It depends on who I'm dealing with."

One day my teacher said, "Everything that I have taught you, it won't work on me." I then asked, "If any technique that won't work on you then why did you teach me for?" He said, "Besides technique, there is ability. Since everybody's ability are on different levels, technique will work differently between different individuals".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Kframe said:


> Alright. Im respectfully bowing out of this one.  I have tapped out all my knowledge trying to convince people that having some basic skills on the ground that regularly practice is nothing but helpful. Im done being talked to like a dang fool.    I just pray to god no one here has to find out the hard way how hard it is to escape from bottom with punch's raining in.
> 
> IMHO being comfortable on the ground benefits the standup part of your skillset. It gives you the courage to close the gap and actually try some techs that  you may be hesitant to try. Knowing that if get taken down, you have defineable skills you can use to get back up.
> 
> So. Im done with this. I don't want to keep arguing with people I respect and like and consider online friends.



I don't believe that you should convince those who has already made up their mind. For those who still has "open mind", what you had said "having some basic skills on the ground that regularly practice is nothing but helpful." can be helpful to them in the long run. If your information can just help one person in the forum, your effort will not be wasted. So don't feel discourage when someone doesn't agree with you. There are others who agree with you but may not say anything.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> That really wasn't Kframe's point. His point was that all those dirty tricks proved ineffective even in a sport environment. Vale Tudo for example allowed a lot of dirty fighting, and Gjj still did very well.


in the sports world they might not work as well.  In the criminal world I know they work Ive seen them work.  This summer where I work a college girl prevented her own rape with fingernails to the groin of the attacker, she had NO martial arts training she just had natural instinct to attack the groin.  
When people keep using this Gracie challenge as proof they seem to forget they did loose I mean Sakuraba got the nickname "the gracie hunter"  for beating four of them.  Like I said before all the challenge proved was on that day that guy beat the other guy.  



> In terms of ground fighting, it's the most comprehensive system around. I'd definitely recommend it for women's self defense because not only do they learn how to fight out of compromising positions, but they will more than likely spend the majority of their training sparring with larger guys on top of them trying to control them. Bjj is also one of the few arts that truly don't require a great deal of strength to be effective.


You cant use comprehensive and then quantify it with only ground fighting.  That in itself means its not a comprehensive system.  And a woman in any art with spend most of her time going up against bigger men thats pretty standard for all Arts.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> IMHO being comfortable on the ground benefits the standup part of your skillset. It gives you the courage to close the gap and actually try some techs that  you may be hesitant to try. Knowing that if get taken down, you have defineable skills you can use to get back up.


I dont disagree with you in theroy, I do disagree with you that only GJJ can do that for you.  There are plenty of arts that work on that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> My idea of grappling is to control your opponent without your opponent controlling you.



That's my definition as well. We totally agree on this 100%.

I'll only attack when I have 

- 1 control over my opponent while my opponent has no control over me.
- 2 controls over my opponent while my opponent only has 1 control over me.

I'll never attack my opponent when he has 2 controls over me. When that happen, I'll give up my controls and tear apart my opponent's controls. Since the window can be very small, the attack has to happen soon without waiting.

Here is an example that you try to control your opponent but don't allow your opponent to control you in "jacket wrestling environment".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L52xVMl_ZQM&feature=youtu.be

This "arm wrapping" in no-jacket environment also fit into that definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuu84PJK80&feature=youtu.be


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a question. When your opponent tries to punch you, will you
> 
> 1. block his punch?
> 2. dodge his punch?
> 3. wrap his punching arms to obtain "clinch"?
> 
> If you apply the 1st and the 2nd strategies, your opponent will punch you again.



Not if you dispatch him first.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> in the sports world they might not work as well.  In the criminal world I know they work Ive seen them work.  This summer where I work a college girl prevented her own rape with fingernails to the groin of the attacker, she had NO martial arts training she just had natural instinct to attack the groin.
> When people keep using this Gracie challenge as proof they seem to forget they did loose I mean Sakuraba got the nickname "the gracie hunter"  for beating four of them.  Like I said before all the challenge proved was on that day that guy beat the other guy.



So you're of the opinion that what doesn't work in sport works well in the street, and works great in sport doesn't work well in the street? I'm just trying to clarify your viewpoint here.

Yes, we know the Gracies were defeated. The point was that people were actively using Bjj in situations where dirty tricks were employed, and Bjj did just fine.



> You cant use comprehensive and then quantify it with only ground fighting.  That in itself means its not a comprehensive system.  And a woman in any art with spend most of her time going up against bigger men thats pretty standard for all Arts.



I'm pretty sure I said "In terms of ground fighting".


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So you're of the opinion that what doesn't work in sport works well in the street, and works great in sport doesn't work well in the street? I'm just trying to clarify your viewpoint here.


No Im saying any trained fighter like someone that trains or someone enters comps is going to train to protect his vulnerable areas like the groin.  I know we do in my Dojo.  Making it harder to get to because of said training.  However most folks dont have training, and in a real world setting the criminals are also more worried about outside factors like the cops or witnesses so its easier because they have other things to think about besides winning the match.  


> Yes, we know the Gracies were defeated. The point was that people were actively using Bjj in situations where dirty tricks were employed, and Bjj did just fine.


Are you saying "dirty tricks"(which dont exist in the real world nothing is a dirty trick)  like biting and scratching cant work?



> I'm pretty sure I said "In terms of ground fighting".


right which means BJJ is not comprehensive


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Are you saying "dirty tricks"(which dont exist in the real world nothing is a dirty trick)  like biting and scratching cant work?



Can they work? Sure. Would I depend on scratching, spitting or biting to stop an attack? No. They're low percentage attacks that are more likely to piss off your attacker more (and get you a blood-borne disease) instead of stopping them. Additionally, if I'm close enough to bite or scratch someone, I'd prefer to choke them, or dislocate one of their body parts.



> right which means BJJ is not comprehensive



Um, Bjj is comprehensive in terms or ground fighting and in general.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Can they work? Sure. Would I depend on scratching, spitting or biting to stop an attack? No. They're low percentage attacks that are more likely to piss off your attacker more (and get you a blood-borne disease) instead of stopping them. Additionally, if I'm close enough to bite or scratch someone, I'd prefer to choke them, or dislocate one of their body parts.


Scratching and biting were defensive. You choking or dislocating things is offensive. Two different things.  The groin shot was being used as an example of an escape not an attack.  The girl I was talking about used it to fend off her attacker after he pulled her into an ally.  At the risk of being raped blood borne pathogens are the least of her worries.





> Um, Bjj is comprehensive in terms or ground fighting and *in general*.


Ok if you say so.  I disagree


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> Why RTKDCMB? A nice cross section of martial arts, including TKD was shown and they got defeated.



Because it is like using Wikipedia for research. Any idiot can post a video, it may be a nice cross section but its not an accurate one. As I have said before, judging an art based on a few scattered videos is like judging a movie based only on the previews.



Kframe said:


> IF there are so many Great TMA out there, why are they not being represented?
> 
> I keep hearing about all these fantastic TMA that wouldn't fall prey, yet they never appear.



Several reasons;

1) Some arts are only for self defence, challenging someone to a fight or accepting a challenge is not self defence.
2) Not everybody feels they need to "prove" anything and many of those that do only prove they are d!#ks.
3) Not everyone wants to hurt people for no good reason.
4) Not all arts want to display that side of their art.
5) Not everyone has access to a Gracie.
6) Not everyone feels the need to video everything.
7) Etc.



Kframe said:


> Why haven't they accepted the challenge and proven them selves and there art legit?



Ask yourself this. Why do the Gracies not test their art by attacking someone on the street? That's the only true test of a martial artist's fighting skills. 

Have you accepted the challenge and proven yourself and your art legit?

Self defence arts are proven legit when their students are attacked in the street and they defend themselves effectively, not from accepting a challenge match by someone who thinks they need to prove themselves. That has been done on many occasions, usually off camera.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Um, Bjj is comprehensive in terms or ground fighting and in general.



I would like to know what your definition of "general" is.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> I have tapped out all my knowledge trying to convince people that having some basic skills on the ground that regularly practice is nothing but helpful.



No one is actually suggesting that it isn't helpful, it is just not absolutely necessary for it to be the largest part of every art. 




Kframe said:


> I just pray to god no one here has to find out the hard way how hard it is to escape from bottom with punch's raining in.



MMA prides it self on ground and pound yet I have seen many fighter who are getting punched from the top and end up just frantically waving their arms around like they don't know what to do, so its not just TMA's who may have that problem. Most arts have methods of getting up in that situation, despite what some may think most arts do not have any allusions as to how hard it is.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's my definition as well. We totally agree on this 100%.
> 
> I'll only attack when I have
> 
> - 1 control over my opponent while my opponent has no control over me.
> - 2 controls over my opponent while my opponent only has 1 control over me.
> 
> I'll never attack my opponent when he has 2 controls over me. When that happen, I'll give up my controls and tear apart my opponent's controls. Since the window can be very small, the attack has to happen soon without waiting.
> 
> Here is an example that you try to control your opponent but don't allow your opponent to control you in "jacket wrestling environment".
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L52xVMl_ZQM&feature=youtu.be
> 
> This "arm wrapping" in no-jacket environment also fit into that definition.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuu84PJK80&feature=youtu.be


You quoting Bas to me? How can you be anything but a friend?   In fact I learnt a couple of new techniques from Bas when he was here earlier this year, including an escape from the mount.
:asian:


----------



## SENC-33

I posted this in the other thread as well......

All my years working doors, bouncing, event security (over a decade and hundreds of altercations) I have NEVER seen the first arm bar, ankle lock or even a choke out when fights went to the ground. The fact is there is a different level of adrenaline when the fight is real, there is little time to actually pull off these controlling techniques and there is no such thing as a "love tap". If you are alone and you are attacked maybe I could see the point of ground fighting but that is rarely the case in society. Bad things happen on the ground period......Training to strike on the ground, escape and get up and stay up (the smart thing to do) doesn't require years of BJJ devotion and can be properly covered within the confines of any TMA. If BJJ is your passion and you fully believe in it as an effective means of street protection then I say go for it. It's your life and well being at stake not mine. I have myself and my own family to keep safe.

I am far more concerned with knives, multiple attackers and a blind sided sucker punch than I am a ground fighter


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> Alright. Im respectfully bowing out of this one.  I have tapped out all my knowledge trying to convince people that having some basic skills on the ground that regularly practice is nothing but helpful. Im done being talked to like a dang fool.    I just pray to god no one here has to find out the hard way how hard it is to escape from bottom with punch's raining in.
> 
> IMHO being comfortable on the ground benefits the standup part of your skillset. It gives you the courage to close the gap and actually try some techs that  you may be hesitant to try. Knowing that if get taken down, you have defineable skills you can use to get back up.
> 
> So. Im done with this. I don't want to keep arguing with people I respect and like and consider online friends.


Having basic skills on the ground is not only helpful, it is essential. All I have been saying is I don't have to learn BJJ to achieve those basic skills.

As to being comfortable on the ground, that is a big part of Systema training. 
:asian:


----------



## SENC-33

K-man said:


> Having basic skills on the ground is not only helpful, it is essential. All I have been saying is I don't have to learn BJJ to achieve those basic skills.
> 
> As to being comfortable on the ground, that is a big part of Systema training.
> :asian:



+1 on the Systema ground training.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I would like to know what your definition of "general" is.



Grappling and throws while standing, grappling while on the ground,  and striking while standing and while on the ground.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> +1 on the Systema ground training.




Wait, this stuff?

http://youtu.be/UU8Aex-7HV0
http://youtu.be/uRj1DgiitN8

Some of that is....strange.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Grappling and throws while standing, grappling while on the ground,  and striking while standing and while on the ground.



So basically everything Okinawan Styles have been doing for a long time


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Grappling and throws while standing, grappling while on the ground,  and striking while standing and while on the ground.



I have seen a large number of BJJ fights on videos but I have never seen any evidence of striking that I would consider to be comprehensive.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Wait, this stuff?
> 
> http://youtu.be/UU8Aex-7HV0
> http://youtu.be/uRj1DgiitN8
> 
> Some of that is....strange.



The first one seems to be just practice at grabbing and breaking someones fingers. Only a little strange.
The second one is just practicing slowly how to defend against getting kicked on the ground. Not strange at all.


----------



## SENC-33

I tend to stay away from posting Systema videos for the most part. Many are good, many are bad as it is a very difficult concept to grasp outside of actual training or attending a seminar hosted by reputable instructors. The ground training is even harder to convey than the stand up.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> Getting stood up after 5 seconds isn't penalizing newaza?


5 seconds of NOT DOING ANYTHING.  Progress and the match continues.



> You win the match if your opponent gets thrown on their back. The back is a highly defensive position in newaza, and not being able to land on your back into a defensive position on the ground does penalize newaza.


Being thrown flat on your back is not the same thing as being on your back.  If a non-ipon throw occurs and, in the process of grappling, one person gets to his back, the match is not won or lost.


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> All of which were legal in UFC 1-6 and none of which worked..  Case in point. The HKD guy in the challenge videos, he kept trying to sack grab, and guess what, didn't work..  Plenty of hair pulling, fish hooking and other crap on the list in UFC 1-6 NONE OF THEM WORKED.


OK. We must be watching different versions of the UFC. I just watched the first half hour or so. In that time Royce Gracie was the only one to win by an arm lock submission after belting the crap out of Kimo while pulling his hair. A lot of these fights were finished by point of the elbow strikes, two by kicks to the head while the opponent was on the floor, another by a forearm strike to the back of the head, one by a choke that was more a neck crank, another the point of the elbow to the back of the neck. 

But out the classic, Jo Sun vs Hackney, where first of all Hackney belts him in the nuts then grabs his trachea and chokes him out.

What is interesting is that almost all the techniques used to finish these fights are now banned. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzdbyJnN_w

As I said, the stuff we practise regularly in TMA seems to work just fine when there are virtually no rules.


----------



## SENC-33

K-man said:


> OK. We must be watching different versions of the UFC. I just watched the first half hour or so. In that time Royce Gracie was the only one to win by an arm lock submission after belting the crap out of Kimo while pulling his hair. A lot of these fights were finished by point of the elbow strikes, two by kicks to the head while the opponent was on the floor, another by a forearm strike to the back of the head, one by a choke that was more a neck crank, another the point of the elbow to the back of the neck.
> 
> But out the classic, Jo Sun vs Hackney, where first of all Hackney belts him in the nuts then grabs his trachea and chokes him out.
> 
> What is interesting is that almost all the techniques used to finish these fights are now banned.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzdbyJnN_w
> 
> As I said, the stuff we practise regularly in TMA seems to work just fine when there are virtually no rules.



If you can manage to create just enough space to strike on the ground (and you know how and where to strike) you wont be on the ground for long. If your opponent manages to get on top of you he had best not make a mistake or fall victim to assumptions that he can't be severely injured within a fraction of a second. Real life ground fighting brings forth a different adrenaline rush......Most TM artist aren't going to panic in these situations


----------



## RTKDCMB

K-man said:


> But out the classic, Jo Sun vs Hackney, where first of all Hackney belts him in the nuts then grabs his trachea and chokes him out.



Everyone knows that Joe Son has no balls.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuu84PJK80&feature=youtu.be



That arm wrap technique is taught in my art as well among others - interesting.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I have seen a large number of BJJ fights on videos but I have never seen any evidence of striking that I would consider to be comprehensive.



Of course you wouldnt. Most of the striking is taught via entering a takedown, or soften up a target for a submission on the ground. You see a lot of this with the Gracies in Pride, Vale Tudo, and the UFC. With dominant positioning, striking someone is far easier to accomplish.


----------



## MJS

Spinedoc said:


> Yes would be my answer, because you need to build muscle memory. Let's think of another sport. Pick one. Golf, Tennis, Basketball, any skill sport. All work on the fundamentals. I played tennis at a high level as a junior. I remember hitting balls off of a brick wall for so long that I would almost fall asleep. Golf.....do you think Tiger Woods is thinking about everything as he swings? No. This stuff has to be ingrained into you, because the moment is just that....a moment. It's the same in a fight. You can't think. You try to anticipate and react. IMO, preset techs help to establish those fundamentals. That base from which to work from. And you have to do them 100,000 times. They have to be ingrained into the subconcious realm of your brain.
> 
> There's a great book on tennis, called "Inner Tennis", and it talks about how most tennis matches are won before they are even played. It's the mental things. Thinking about everything....well, that kills you. You need to let go, and play instinctively but with good form through hundreds of hours of practice. You need to think about strategy, not "how should I hit this forehand"....
> 
> The same concepts apply to the MA, with a more serious outcome. YMMV.
> 
> Mike



Nice post!   That's pretty much my take.  IMO, I feel that the fighting skill will come from the practice of set drills, techniques, etc.  They all go hand in hand.  Boxing for example...they work numerous drills on the pads, yet when it's time to step into the ring, they're using the part of the drill that best fits their need at the moment.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> The fighting skills stem from technique, MJS.  I don't know that I quite understand what you're getting at.  At some point, the golfer, tennis player, banjo player or whatever, will take the skills and apply them outside of the pre-arranged drills.  Whether you're talking about the transition from the driving range to the links, or from scales and arpeggios to playing songs to riffing with an improvisational jazz band, at some point, in order to effectively transition past basic skills you have to apply the skills outside context of training.



Hey Steve,

The purpose of this thread and subsequent question, stemmed from that other thread, "Can BJJ work in a real fight?".  It seemed to me anyways, that the notion that sport fighting was superior to the TMAs, because of their training methods.  I simply asked if the TMAs would be better if less time was spent on working kata and empty hand SD techs, and more time on the fighting aspect, such as we see with sport fighting.  I mean, we don't see MMA fighters doing kata or working on knife defense, we see them working striking, hitting the pads, sparring, grappling, etc.  Since at least one person in that other thread gives the impression (despite what he claims) that the sporting methods are superior, I simply wanted to hear from the members, and what they thought.   I hope that made sense. 



> I don't think sports are equivalent to self defense.  I simply believe that, in a world in which most of us DON'T get into fights routinely, sports get us closer to combat than simulations and drills.



I agree.  So, in your opinion, do you feel its a waste of time, for the TMA student to spend time learning defenses to various attacks, ie: grabs, kicks, weapons, etc.?


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Nice post!   That's pretty much my take.  IMO, I feel that the fighting skill will come from the practice of set drills, techniques, etc.  They all go hand in hand.  Boxing for example...they work numerous drills on the pads, yet when it's time to step into the ring, they're using the part of the drill that best fits their need at the moment.


People also need to work on the fighting skills part on their own.  If all you do is go to class once or twice a week and never experiment and try things in your own you will never get past the basics.  Like when I practice Kata.  I break down every movement in the kata and say OK what's the reason for this.  What else could be done to react to this situation other then what's in the kata.  For example of the Kata calls for step off line up block then step and punch.  Could I step off line the other way and throw a knee or side kick.  Usually the kata makes the most sense for the situation but its still fun and makes me think outside the box


----------



## ballen0351

That may be why I also jump around and train in all kinds of other stuff.  Goju is my main art but I've dabbled in Aikido, Judo, BJJ, isshin Ryu, Chin-na.  Not because Goju is lacking but because I just want to know everything.  Like I'm always looking for new schools and saying man I'd like to try that.  Truth is I don't use any of it for self defense I carry a gun a cell phone and use common senseto avoid bad situations so iI train mainly because I like it.


----------



## MJS

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume "sport" may mean "cross training" and TMA may mean to "keep system pure" (it may not mean "cross training").



Sure, for the sake of discussion.



> I also assume that we are not talking about sport such as boxing, wrestling, Judo, ... here. So the discussion of "sport" vs. "TMA" is really to discuss whether or not the "cross training" is necessary, or whether or not TMA is against "cross training".



Actually, anything that falls into the sport category can be used, so sure, boxing can be used as an example.  As we know, cross training is a big part of sport fighting.  My question was whether or not one method is superior to the other.



> Here is a question. When your opponent tries to punch you, will you
> 
> 1. block his punch?
> 2. dodge his punch?
> 3. wrap his punching arms to obtain "clinch"?
> 
> If you apply the 1st and the 2nd strategies, your opponent will punch you again. If you apply the 3rd strategy, what will you do after you have obtained a "clinch"? In order to continue after "clinch", you have to be good in grappling. If "cross training" is a must then "sport testing" is also a must. When you take this approach, I truly don't see any difference between "sport" and "TMA".
> 
> We all know that it's better to use
> 
> - striking to against a grappler.
> - grappling to against a striker.
> 
> If you want to have both abilities, your will need to "cross train" and you will need to test your integration of striking and grappling in "sport".



Hmm...but if we apply boxing to 1 and 2, what do we see?  A block/evasion, and then counter punching.  If you clinch in boxing, you get seperated.


----------



## SENC-33

Something to think about....

Unless your line of work depends on you having the ability to protect yourself and/or others you are unlikely to encounter trouble of serious magnitude in your life unless you choose to seek trouble. While I don't train TMA I see no reason why the typical training regiment wouldn't properly prepare you should the need arise. You can gain a LOT from kata in my opinion. Balance and structure, precision, focus, power and confidence to name a few. Do I think a kata will just pop out of you in a real life situation? NO.......but kata does harden the warrior spirit.


----------



## MJS

Kframe said:


> Why RTKDCMB? A nice cross section of martial arts, including TKD was shown and they got defeated.  It seams every time this type of video is posted, the same comment gets thrown out. "Oh he was not a good xxxx practitioner."  The comments are always vague saying they lacked basic fundamentals. These comments crop up every single time.  IF there are so many Great TMA out there, why are they not being represented? Why haven't they accepted the challenge and proven them selves and there art legit?
> 
> I keep hearing about all these fantastic TMA that wouldn't fall prey, yet they never appear.
> 
> I honestly don't care what anyone learns, they need to do more then a few minutes of ground grappling every week so they don't spaz out when they inevitably get taken down.



Well, pretty much what ballen said, in addition to the guy from xxxx art not having any desire to take part in the challenge.  Now for myself, while I don't do challenge matches, I do like to test myself.  For example...I'd take some of the takedown defenses in Kenpo and test them against a grappler.  If they worked, great.  If they ddin't, then I'd make adjustments as needed.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> You don't need to sucker punch someone to get a lucky punch.  They happen all the time in the UFC the crazy knock out that shouldn't have happened but did.  Does that mean that guy was better or does it mean he got lucky.  Was Matt Serra a better fighter then GSP or on that night at that time did he win?  That's the point of these videos all it proved was one guy beat the other at that time.  Were the Gracie's better?  Yes I'm sure they are because they were the top of their field hell they practically invented their field.



I agree with you here!!!  This is why I'm not a big buyer into youtube, for the reason you said.


----------



## MJS

Takai said:


> The thread seems to be drifting again.



Yup.  I'm not surprised.


----------



## MJS

Kframe said:


> All of which were legal in UFC 1-6 and none of which worked..  Case in point. The HKD guy in the challenge videos, he kept trying to sack grab, and guess what, didn't work..  Plenty of hair pulling, fish hooking and other crap on the list in UFC 1-6 NONE OF THEM WORKED.



FWIW, check out the fight at 35:11.  That downward elbow at 35:29 seemed to be pretty effective, just sayin'. 

*edit* guess it would've been nice to link the fight. 







> I don't know how you think I said you needed to submit someone on the ground. I was mainly talking about learning and being comfortable in those main positions as if you get taken down in a real fight, your going to end up in one or more of those. Learning how to stop a submission attempt(Which can be a joint break, I don't have to sub you. I can break you.)  is easy.  Being able to get out of that situation, in those common places to get trapped in is paramount.  As to the spazzing out part. Unless your comfortable actually fighting on the ground, most people spaz the first few times.  I know I did coming from boxing, as did the TKD black belt that I pwnt in mma rules sparring..(Which felt so good when it happened. I was so proud)  Again there are plenty of videos of people spazzing.
> 
> Now defining spazzing is important. First few times I did roll,  I spent great quantities of energy trying anything, to get out of bottom. I ended up spent in less then a minute thanks to doing nothing effective.  One guy said I looked like Squidward. (some guy from spongebob).  Part of my comment on not spazzing is realizing the need to stay calm and as Rener is fond of saying, don't resist what is.  If the guy on top is in full mount control mode(as opposed to attacking) just chill and rest. He is most vulnerable when he is attacking. Problem is, newbs to ground wont realize that if they have little to no exposure to it.  That is my definition of spazzing.
> 
> My only 2 fights that I have ever had, I lost, because of my lack of ground grappling skills and spazzing..  You don't need the entire GJJ black belt syllabus, but you should be comfortable and have actual useable techniques to escape mount(bottom and top)/sidemount(bottom and top) and half guard and guard while knowing how to stop the basic submissions.  Being comfortable on the ground is usefull.  Spazzing is not, which is what will happen if you have no experience there.



As for the rest of this...I'm in agreement.  All things that I've advocated for a long time.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> The first one seems to be just practice at grabbing and breaking someones fingers. Only a little strange.



Yeah, that makes no sense. How in the world do you control the fingers of a standing opponent while sitting on the ground? Further, in both those videos, why don't you just stand up instead of trying to manipulate someone's fingers?



> The second one is just practicing slowly how to defend against getting kicked on the ground. Not strange at all.



Honestly it's better to stand up than trying that nonsense I saw in the video.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> *So you're of the opinion that what doesn't work in sport works well in the street, and works great in sport doesn't work well in the street? I'm just trying to clarify your viewpoint here.*
> 
> Yes, we know the Gracies were defeated. The point was that people were actively using Bjj in situations where dirty tricks were employed, and Bjj did just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I said "In terms of ground fighting".



The bold part is really the only thing that I was looking to discuss.  I wanted to compare sport to TMA.  As for BJJ or the Gracie being superior, that's been beat like a dead horse in the other threads.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Can they work? Sure. Would I depend on scratching, spitting or biting to stop an attack? No. They're low percentage attacks that are more likely to piss off your attacker more (and get you a blood-borne disease) instead of stopping them. Additionally, if I'm close enough to bite or scratch someone, I'd prefer to choke them, or dislocate one of their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bjj is comprehensive in terms or ground fighting and in general.



You are correct...those things are low percentage moves.  However, be that as it may, that doesnt mean that one or more couldn't be used to set up a higher percentage move.  Things like that can provide a momentary distraction to set up something else.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that makes no sense. How in the world do you control the fingers of a standing opponent while sitting on the ground? Further, in both those videos, why don't you just stand up instead of trying to manipulate someone's fingers?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's better to stand up than trying that nonsense I saw in the video.


It makes no sense to you because you don't study that art.  If someone doesn't study judo and watch people doing fitting drills they would think that looks silly they are just chest bumping.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> The bold part is really the only thing that I was looking to discuss.  I wanted to compare sport to TMA.  As for BJJ or the Gracie being superior, that's been beat like a dead horse in the other threads.



I'm willing to bet that if a boxer can knock out someone in the ring, they can knock someone out on the street.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> Because it is like using Wikipedia for research. Any idiot can post a video, it may be a nice cross section but its not an accurate one. As I have said before, judging an art based on a few scattered videos is like judging a movie based only on the previews.



Agreed!





> Several reasons;
> 
> 1) Some arts are only for self defence, challenging someone to a fight or accepting a challenge is not self defence.
> 2) Not everybody feels they need to "prove" anything and many of those that do only prove they are d!#ks.
> 3) Not everyone wants to hurt people for no good reason.
> 4) Not all arts want to display that side of their art.
> 5) Not everyone has access to a Gracie.
> 6) Not everyone feels the need to video everything.
> 7) Etc.



Agreed again!




> Ask yourself this. Why do the Gracies not test their art by attacking someone on the street? That's the only true test of a martial artist's fighting skills.



Ohh...careful.  Someone will mention the fights in Brazil.   Seriously though, I know what you're talking about and I agree.  




> Self defence arts are proven legit when their students are attacked in the street and they defend themselves effectively, not from accepting a challenge match by someone who thinks they need to prove themselves. That has been done on many occasions, usually off camera.



Another damn good point!  Interestinly enough, many of my close friends and training partners have survived using the skills they've trained in, and not all of them are grapplers.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> I'm willing to bet that if a boxer can knock out someone in the ring, they can knock someone out on the street.


[insert "boxer breaks own hand" arguments and videos HERE]

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I'm willing to bet that if a boxer can knock out someone in the ring, they can knock someone out on the street.



Sure unless that person throws a kick to the knee of the boxer first and since a boxer doesn't train for that he buckles.  No more knock out power.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:
			
		

> Ohh...careful.  Someone will mention the fights in Brazil.   Seriously though, I know what you're talking about and I agree.



Which Gracie tweeted his attack on a drunk guy in NY that asked him for a smoke?   I can't remember which one it was.  But yeah they have tested it he bragged that he choked the guy out like 3 times in a row.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> It makes no sense to you because you don't study that art.  If someone doesn't study judo and watch people doing fitting drills they would think that looks silly they are just chest bumping.



I disagree. That systema video wasn't a drill, it was a demonstration of technique. Additionally, in fitting drills it's pretty clear that they're drilling to make throws more fluid. You can tell this even without being familiar with Judo.

Pulling a standing opponent down to the ground via a finger grab from sitting position is absolute nonsense, and shouldn't be taught as a viable self defense technique.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> People also need to work on the fighting skills part on their own.  If all you do is go to class once or twice a week and never experiment and try things in your own you will never get past the basics.  Like when I practice Kata.  I break down every movement in the kata and say OK what's the reason for this.  What else could be done to react to this situation other then what's in the kata.  For example of the Kata calls for step off line up block then step and punch.  Could I step off line the other way and throw a knee or side kick.  Usually the kata makes the most sense for the situation but its still fun and makes me think outside the box



Agreed.  Last night in class, we were working some of the bunkai.  As for the 'on your own' practice time, that is absolutely necessary if you want to improve.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Which Gracie tweeted his attack on a drunk guy in NY that asked him for a smoke?   I can't remember which one it was.  But yeah they have tested it he bragged that he choked the guy out like 3 times in a row.



I believe it was Renzo Gracie.


----------



## MJS

lklawson said:


> [insert "boxer breaks own hand" arguments and videos HERE]
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Happened to Tyson:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/15004/TYSON-BREAKS-RIGHT-HAND-IN-STREET-FIGHT.html?pg=all

"Tyson said he punched Green above the eye but damaged his own right hand in the process, causing a hairline fracture to the third metacarpal."


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that makes no sense. How in the world do you control the fingers of a standing opponent while sitting on the ground? Further, in both those videos, why don't you just stand up instead of trying to manipulate someone's fingers?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's better to stand up than trying that nonsense I saw in the video.



YOU picked the video and a bad choice at that......You could probably find one worse if you look hard enough


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Which Gracie tweeted his attack on a drunk guy in NY that asked him for a smoke?   I can't remember which one it was.  But yeah they have tested it he bragged that he choked the guy out like 3 times in a row.



It was Renzo and it was rather disgraceful how he did it.


http://www.mmamania.com/2012/9/7/3300137/renzo-gracie-muggers-twitter-ufc


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that makes no sense. How in the world do you control the fingers of a standing opponent while sitting on the ground? Further, in both those videos, why don't you just stand up instead of trying to manipulate someone's fingers?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's better to stand up than trying that nonsense I saw in the video.



Because you do not always have the time or the position to stand up before getting kicked and that's why it is important to be able defend against kicks when you are on the ground.


----------



## RTKDCMB

MJS said:


> I simply asked if the TMAs would be better if less time was spent on working kata and empty hand SD techs, and more time on the fighting aspect, such as we see with sport fighting.  I mean, we don't see MMA fighters doing kata or working on knife defense, we see them working striking, hitting the pads, sparring, grappling, etc.  I simply wanted to hear from the members, and what they thought.



They are just different methods and philosophies of training. I have seen an MMA video or two showing knife defences on the great and powerful YouTube. Since most MMA, as far as I am aware of, is geared towards competition in the ring or cage there is not as much need for weapons training or multiple attackers, unless they want to do it for the self defence aspects. As for Kata TMA's tend to think a little more long term so doing Kata allows them to refine their technique over time and learn how to move and work on their stances. I think the essential difference is that a self defence oriented TMA tend to operate on the principle that someone attacks, you defend, eliminate the threat quickly and move on. MMA and other sport oriented martial arts tend to operate on the principle that the fights are more continuous and drawn out, 5x5 minute rounds, wear down your opponent, go the distance, slowly improve your position and the like therefore Kata is not as useful to them.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Because you do not always have the time or the position to stand up before getting kicked and that's why it is important to be able defend against kicks when you are on the ground.



Except in that vid he wasn't defending, he was dodging the kicks while in seated posotion and sweeping the standing leg. He even did this with someone behind him. 

You think that's realistic self defense?


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> Happened to Tyson:
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/15004/TYSON-BREAKS-RIGHT-HAND-IN-STREET-FIGHT.html?pg=all
> 
> "Tyson said he punched Green above the eye but damaged his own right hand in the process, causing a hairline fracture to the third metacarpal."


It was a prediction, not a dismissal of the argument.  I just knew what was coming next.  When you've seen the "TMA vs MMA/Sport-fighter" argument played out so many times, you start to know how it's going to unfold.  Same with the "Grappling vs. Striking" thread over in the General MA Talk section.  You know that eventually someone is going to claim the EMFG's are sovereign against chokes and arm-bars, that a striker will simply one-shot KO a grappler on a shoot, that "going to the ground" is suicidal because of all the rocks, broken glass, HIV infected needles and lava, and that if a grappler takes his opponent down the other guy's friends will start kicking him.

These arguments follow utterly predictable patterns. In this thread "boxers break their hands" was next on the road-map.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> If you can manage to create just enough space to strike on the ground (and you know how and where to strike) you wont be on the ground for long. If your opponent manages to get on top of you he had best not make a mistake or fall victim to assumptions that he can't be severely injured within a fraction of a second. Real life ground fighting brings forth a different adrenaline rush......Most TM artist aren't going to panic in these situations


This is so vague and circular that I got completely lost.  If you know how to create enough space to disengage and stand, then it stands to reason that you would be able to stand.  The real question is efficacy.  You go back and forth, saying you never train ground fighting because you don't need it, and then you imply expertise at ground fighting.   Regardless of how you train ground fighting, or what specific tactics you use, or how little regard you have for BJJ or whatever else, you either train ground fighting or you do not.  If you do not, you are, I believe, ignoring a hole which could be exploited.

Regarding 'Most TM artists aren't going to panic," how did you come up with this?  Is it just a gut feeling you have, or do you have some kind of objective support?  

If we're speaking anecdotally, I can tell you... anecdotally... that nearly every single person who comes into a jiu jitsu school freaks out a little when they understand how much pressure and discomfort can be exerted from mount, side control or even half guard.  Anecdotally, this reaction is nearly universal, regardless of one's background, in my experience. 

I know that there are many martial artists from a diverse background who have trained at least somewhat in legitimate BJJ or Judo schools.  Am I off base?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Wait, this stuff?
> 
> http://youtu.be/UU8Aex-7HV0
> http://youtu.be/uRj1DgiitN8
> 
> Some of that is....strange.



Only strange to those that have no knowledge of it. 



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that makes no sense. How in the world do you control the fingers of a standing opponent while sitting on the ground? Further, in both those videos, why don't you just stand up instead of trying to manipulate someone's fingers?
> 
> Have you ever trained Chi Na? Controlling with fingers is quite possible but of course illegal in MMA. As to why you don't just stand up, playing on the ground and experimenting with how bodies move is part of the training.
> 
> Honestly it's better to stand up than trying that nonsense I saw in the video.
> 
> That's right. Bash another style! It's only nonsense if you are ignorant as to what it is teaching.





Hanzou said:


> I disagree. That systema video wasn't a drill, it was a demonstration of technique. Additionally, in fitting drills it's pretty clear that they're drilling to make throws more fluid. You can tell this even without being familiar with Judo.
> 
> It was actually neither a drill nor a technique. A drill is prearranged. A technique is something that can be drilled.
> 
> Pulling a standing opponent down to the ground via a finger grab from sitting position is absolute nonsense, and shouldn't be taught as a viable self defense technique.
> 
> Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the training methods of Systema. It is not nonsense to experiment with the way the body reacts. Training finger grabs is quite interesting, but of course you would have no experience with that type of training.


Give it a break. Systema is neither TMA or Sport. Perhaps stick to something you can comprehend rather than getting out of your depth again.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> YOU picked the video and a bad choice at that......You could probably find one worse if you look hard enough



I'd be interested on your opinion of this vid;






Do you think the ground fighting portion could be classified as realistic self defense?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Only strange to those that have no knowledge of it.




I've been in Bjj for a number of years, and in various martial arts for many more years than that. I find it hard to believe that there will ever be a SD scenario where a person will be dangling their fingers in front of your face for you to grab while sitting down. Additionally, I seriously doubt you can get the leverage necessary to cause a person to fall flat on the ground from your pulling on said fingers.

Then there's the dodging feet while sitting down. Why not simply block the foot, grab it and then go for the sweep? The dodging aspect is ridiculously unrealistic because it implies that you're fast enough to dodge a kick while sitting on your butt, and that the person is going to throw a certain type of kick at you while you're rolling around on the ground.

I'm pointing this out because these videos are from a system that is supposed to be self-defense based. The standard "you don't understand (insert MA here)" excuse simply doesn't work. I understand completely what they're doing in this vid. My question is why would you waste class time doing this when there's a very high chance that its just not going to work?

Frankly, this stuff isn't something I would be comfortable in recommending to someone who is looking to defend themselves.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Wait, this stuff?
> 
> http://youtu.be/UU8Aex-7HV0
> http://youtu.be/uRj1DgiitN8
> 
> Some of that is....strange.





Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that makes no sense. How in the world do you control the fingers of a standing opponent while sitting on the ground? Further, in both those videos, why don't you just stand up instead of trying to manipulate someone's fingers?
> 
> The object of the exercise isn't to say "try to grab someone's fingers and do this". It is demonstrating practically technique from Chi Na that you don't understand. It is excusable not to know something and question but it is not excusable to post crap as fact to bag another style.
> 
> Honestly it's better to stand up than trying that nonsense I saw in the video.





Hanzou said:


> I've been in Bjj for a number of years, and in various martial arts for many more years than that. I find it hard to believe that there will ever be a SD scenario where a person will be dangling their fingers in front of your face for you to grab while sitting down. Additionally, I seriously doubt you can get the leverage necessary to cause a person to fall flat on the ground from your pulling on said fingers.
> 
> You admitted earlier you had bugger all knowledge of other MA.
> 
> Then there's the dodging feet while sitting down. Why not simply block the foot, grab it and then go for the sweep? The dodging aspect is ridiculously unrealistic because it implies that you're fast enough to dodge a kick while sitting on your butt, and that the person is going to throw a certain type of kick at you while you're rolling around on the ground.
> 
> Because that wasn't the object of that exercise.
> 
> I'm pointing this out because these videos are from a system that is supposed to be self-defense based. The standard "you don't understand (insert MA here)" excuse simply doesn't work. I understand completely what they're doing in this vid. My question is why would you waste class time doing this when there's a very high chance that its just not going to work?
> 
> It's not a waste of time. It is an exercise that helps develop the principles on which Systema is based.
> 
> Frankly, this stuff isn't something I would be comfortable in recommending to someone who is looking to defend themselves.


Exactly, because you are only interested in one art an cannot see the benefit of any other. I'd call it a closed mind.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> I'd be interested on your opinion of this vid;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the ground fighting portion could be classified as realistic self defense?



It's a 2 minute video clip.....nothing really to comment on


----------



## Hanzou

This exchange is a good example of why competition is important. I have no way to guage the effectiveness of that finger grab or kick dodge from sitting position unless that person is in a SD situation.

However, we know that crazy stuff like the Tornado Clock choke, Scorpion crunch, and the Crucifix works against resisting opponents because of competition.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> This exchange is a good example of why competition is important. I have no way to guage the effectiveness of that finger grab or kick dodge from sitting position unless that person is in a SD situation.
> 
> However, we know that crazy stuff like the Tornado Clock choke, Scorpion crunch, and the Crucifix works against resisting opponents because of competition.


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


>



Are you equating pro wrestling with competition?  Pro wrestling is much more like wushu.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> 1) Some arts are only for self defence, challenging someone to a fight or accepting a challenge is not self defence.



Sometime you just don't have any choice. When you run a commercial school, different people may walk into your school and challenge you. Some may challenge you in boxing rules (punch only), some may challenge you in MT rules (kick + punch), some may challenge you in Judo rules (wrestling only). If you take those challenges as opportunities to test your own skill against other styles, you will be happy to accept those challenges. 

Is that "self defense"? To defend you commercial school from closing down is "self defense" by my definition.


----------



## jks9199

RTKDCMB said:


> That arm wrap technique is taught in my art as well among others - interesting.



It's very common...  Not really surprising at all, when you consider that the various arts are all answering similar questions involving the same body.  What they do after the wrap may change (maybe an elbow, maybe a throw, maybe a knee, maybe all of the above) depending on their principles and tactics... and exactly how they get there may vary, but the root idea is similiar.


----------



## lklawson

jks9199 said:


> It's very common...  Not really surprising at all, when you consider that the various arts are all answering similar questions involving the same body.  What they do after the wrap may change (maybe an elbow, maybe a throw, maybe a knee, maybe all of the above) depending on their principles and tactics... and exactly how they get there may vary, but the root idea is similiar.


German medieval sword fighting of Hans Talhoffer. One of the Messer sequences (tafel 113):






Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> That arm wrap technique is taught in my art as well among others - interesting.



I like to use my hand to control my opponent's elbow joint in "arm wrapping". 

http://imageshack.com/a/img38/4088/armwrap1.png






In the following clip, Keanu Reeves had to wrap his opponent's left arm twice because his opponent's left arm was spinning with his arm wrapping. It is a good counter for the arm wrapping. The action direction did know some grappling art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttYy1rPcqTc&feature=youtu.be 

IMO, the "arm wrapping" is the 1st step to move from jacket wrestling to no-jacket wrestling. It replaces the jacket environment "sleeve hold" when "sleeve" is no longer available. It also reduce the distance between you and your opponent. That will also reduce the amount of your opponent's freedom.


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you just don't have any choice. When you run a commercial school, different people may walk into your school and challenge you. Some may challenge you in boxing rules (punch only), some may challenge you in MT rules (kick + punch), some may challenge you in Judo rules (wrestling only). If you take those challenges as opportunities to test your own skill against other styles, you will be happy to accept those challenges.
> 
> Is that "self defense"? To defend you commercial school from closing down is "self defense" by my definition.



Huh?  When does this happen? I've been in martial arts schools my whole life I've never seen anyone come in and challenge anyone.  You come in my school to challange me to a fight you can wait outside for the cops.  I don't need to prove anything to some dude off the street.


----------



## CNida

Why do I get the feeling this thread is going to end up just like that other thread that got closed by staff a few weeks ago?

Oh wait. It already is.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> Happened to Tyson:
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/15004/TYSON-BREAKS-RIGHT-HAND-IN-STREET-FIGHT.html?pg=all
> 
> "Tyson said he punched Green above the eye but damaged his own right hand in the process, causing a hairline fracture to the third metacarpal."



So who's more likely to break their hand? A karateka, or a boxer? 

My money's on the Karateka. The boxer gets constant hand conditioning either through the heavy bag, or sparring. They get added points since their art forces/teaches them to take punches.

Yet another benefit of competition and sport fighting.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> karate. The boxer gets constant hand conditioning either through the heavy bag, or sparring. They get added points since their art forces/teaches them to take punches.
> 
> Yet another benefit of competition and sport fighting.



So do Karateka.  I train my hands everyday.  Body conditioning is a huge part of Traditional Goju Ryu training.


----------



## ballen0351




----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


>



Yeah, if you noticed, he never directly punched the rock. Impressive conditioning though. 

I seriously doubt many karate schools in the US are making their students slam their hands into rocks though.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, if you noticed, he never directly punched the rock. Impressive conditioning though.
> 
> I seriously doubt many karate schools in the US are making their students slam their hands into rocks though.


Thats just one short demo man he does so much more.
  I cant speak for most schools I can speak for my schools and we use Rocks and Makiwara all the time.  I also train at home.  Again it comes down to personal responsibility you cant just rely on what you do at your school you need to train at home as well.  I have all the same tools at my home as I do in the Dojo,


----------



## ballen0351

This better for you?


----------



## Aiki Lee

Kframe said:


> Himura. My point is, that you need to train the high percentage maneuvers more often because they are the ones that set up the Illegal for competition low percentage maneuvers.



I think I'm going to need you to define High percentage vs low percentage as the only techniques I would consider low percentage are those not practiced enough or geared towards very rare and specific situations.
In general I think it is more important to train principles than to train techniques. That way you think strategically and can be ahead of your opponent rather than always react to what they are doing.



Kframe said:


> It is easier to perform that face rake(I assume that's what your talking about) if you can deal with this strikes and distract him with your own.   One thing I don't understand about my new art of budo taijutsu is the lack of separating the striking and striking defense and getting lots of reps on them. So far I have seen no use of strike shields and focus mits.  The striking and striking defense aspect is IMHO so very important to setting up everything else.



The kata found in Budo Taijutsu and like minded systems are not always meant to accurately reflect what an actual fight would look like. Some do, but not all of them. They are meant to teach lessons. I think this kind of training can be difficult for people to grasp as opposed to more competition oriented systems that are more straight forward. It's not that TMA don't deal with what you are concerned with it's just that most people in my opinion can't apply the lesson to the real world application. Kind of like solving a word problem in a math class, all the principles are there but it can be hard to see how it is applied in actuality. In my opinion this kind of straightforwardness would be more beneficial in TMA classes, but for many arts they purposefully keep things vague and they have their reasons.



Kframe said:


> I whole heartedly agree with you regarding TMA and ground. I would expand what your saying with this. There needs to be a focus on the main positions. Guard/mount both bottom and top/ half guard and side guard.    I think that tma that want to do something on the ground besides spaz out need to put in many repititons on escaping each of those situations. I would also put attention in to the escape bottom of mount with punch defense.  Another thing, that I notice is, that many tma that fall prey to when they get taken down by a grappler is they end up on top, in guard then get pulled down, into the bottom guys armpits and then guillotined.  They need to learn to avoid that, and learn basic submission defense from each position.   Grapplers are more vulnerable when they are going for a submission.  I think that, if they focus on those basic things,  and actually put in a lot of time practicing it, more then a few minutes a week they would be ok.
> 
> They don't need 600+ techniques, but they do need to put in quality time on a the things I outlined above and they will do just fine. I just feel they don't do enough time dedicated to it.  Heck bring in a BJJ guy and let your guys go to town on him. They will learn a lot.



I agree that some attention to common grappling seen in competitions should be addressed in SD. I think because it is in the public eye enough people will mimic it to the point where someone could find themselves in some of the situations or positions you mentioned. I think it is important for each art to find the answer to dealing with it according to their own principles and do not necessarily need to adopt another arts curriculum or principles. I think some arts have better answers to these problems than others, but each art has an answer and I do think it is time that TMA look at what their answer to the problem should be without trying to copy what everyone else is doing. Each art must look to its own principles and tactics and adapt those to each new situation or else I would agree that they would not be relevant for SD anymore.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> This better for you?



Yes, but the problem still remains; We have no way to test the effectiveness of these hand techs because Goju doesn't compete. We know how effective boxing techniques are, because boxers are utilizing punches in a competitive environment. We know that Bjj holds and locks work against resisting opponents because of competition. We know Judo can throw people because Judokas throw resisting opponents in competition. We know that high kicks in TKD and MT have knockout power because people have been knocked out with high kicks to the face in those sports.

All we have to show the effectiveness of Goju-Ryu is punching makiwara or rocks. If we got a Goju guy stepping into an NHB tournament and punching holes through people's chests and shrug off body blows because of their insane conditioning, I'd be a believer. Unfortunately we don't have that because Goju practitioners refuse to test their skills in an arena.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but the problem still remains; We have no way to test the effectiveness of these hand techs because Goju doesn't compete. We know how effective boxing techniques are, because boxers are utilizing punches in a competitive environment. We know that Bjj holds and locks work against resisting opponents because of competition. We know Judo can throw people because Judokas throw resisting opponents in competition. We know that high kicks in TKD and MT have knockout power because people have been knocked out with high kicks to the face in those sports.
> 
> All we have to show the effectiveness of Goju-Ryu is punching makiwara or rocks. If we got a Goju guy stepping into an NHB tournament and punching holes through people's chests and shrug off body blows because of their insane conditioning, I'd be a believer. Unfortunately we don't have that because Goju practitioners refuse to test their skills in an arena.


There are plenty of Goju Guys that compete first of all  I know several Goju guys that fight in MMA.  2nd hand condition isnt about punching holes through people.  Your claim was Karate doesn't condition hands so boxers hands are stronger.  Thats just not true.  I dont care if you think Goju works or not


----------



## Aiki Lee

Kframe said:


> Himura,  you mentioned that the defeated opponents tried to fight gracies way. My question is, what if a art is a close range standing grappling heavy art like Hapkido or budo taijutsu(at least from what I have done so far it seams that way)? Arts like that, in their strongest area are in the gracies as well.  It could be argued though that the hapkidoan could just stay at range and kick him and keep back peddling but, then that wouldn't be Hapkido that would be TKD.  Edit to add. I mentioned Hapkido because in one Gracie challenge video the poor guy tries 3 times and it just gets worse and worse. He even tries to grab Roylers jewels during one exchange and still didn't work.



Like I've mentioned before, techniques are not what make a martial art what it is. What makes a martial art unique or effective is how it ties certain principles, tactics, and strategies together. In each of those fights, Gracie controlled what was happening. He took control of distance, timing, and was taking the initiative. Many TMA practitioners are to cautious or defense oriented to the point of always trying to react to what is happening instead of seeking their own advantages. This is not a problem with the TMA itself but with how it is taught and trained. If my art teaches someone to approach an opponent a specific way to set up particular takedown or strike but I don't explain why someone is supposed to do it and what will happen when the principle is ignored then it will never be addressed and people will not develop the skills necessary to win in an actual confrontation.



Kframe said:


> So what is your opinion on that. What if your art, is at its strongest, up close and that is exactly were the gracies wanted it??



Ok so let's say we have two grapplers then who both prefer close range. The superior martial artist is the one who is able to implement his strategy first. In the videos, Gracie has an idea of what he wants, but his opponents do not. They are reacting to him instead of trying to take control of the situation. They can tell he is good and are too cautious to try anything. They lost before they ever even got to the ground.
But anyway, if you have two people who excel at similar things then who ever takes the initiative and is committed to their movement will likely succeed. It all has to do with who has a superior set up.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> There are plenty of Goju Guys that compete first of all  I know several Goju guys that fight in MMA.  2nd hand condition isnt about punching holes through people.  Your claim was Karate doesn't condition hands so boxers hands are stronger.  Thats just not true.  I dont care if you think Goju works or not



I was saying that a Karateka is more likely to break their hands punching someone than a boxer would because a boxer focuses on punching.

Believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for traditional Goju Ryu. I think some of your training tactics are admirable, if not somewhat crazy;






I think you'll enjoy that.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Kframe said:


> All of which were legal in UFC 1-6 and none of which worked..  Case in point. The HKD guy in the challenge videos, he kept trying to sack grab, and guess what, didn't work..  Plenty of hair pulling, fish hooking and other crap on the list in UFC 1-6 NONE OF THEM WORKED.




I'll admit, it's been a while since I've seen the first few UFCs but from what I remember a good majority of the fighters were really, REALLY amateur. Remember you didn't need a whole lot of credentials to get involved at first. As far as the "cheating" move not working, people incorrectly assume that those types of tactics such as eye gouging, fish hooking, and striking the groin are fight enders. They are not. You target those areas as a set up. You transition from them to something else immediately after performing an action like that. You use them to distract the mind of a brief moment so you can do the "real" escape or attack you were setting up. The fighters that just yanked on something or hit something over and over again were employing no skill at all. They were just terrible amateurs. 



Kframe said:


> I don't know how you think I said you needed to submit someone on the ground. I was mainly talking about learning and being comfortable in those main positions as if you get taken down in a real fight, your going to end up in one or more of those. Learning how to stop a submission attempt(Which can be a joint break, I don't have to sub you. I can break you.)  is easy.  Being able to get out of that situation, in those common places to get trapped in is paramount.



I personally like the idea that one should be comfortable in common positions people use in fighting and learn how to properly escape or apply a skill. I do not think it has to match what every other ground fighter is doing, but it should be something you can test for reliability. 




Kframe said:


> As to the spazzing out part. Unless your comfortable actually fighting on the ground, most people spaz the first few times.  I know I did coming from boxing, as did the TKD black belt that I pwnt in mma rules sparring..(Which felt so good when it happened. I was so proud)  Again there are plenty of videos of people spazzing.



People panic when they are in an unknown situation. For most people, they are not familiar enough with fighting from the ground and do freak out when faced with someone who knows what they are doing. But that's because they are in the ground fighters comfort zone. Many MMA practitioners train to be well rounded so they don't have freak out moments but if they are confronted with something new and dangerous they are not accustomed to then they will likely freak out, or freeze as well.


----------



## Aiki Lee

MJS said:


> The purpose of this thread and subsequent question, stemmed from that other thread, "Can BJJ work in a real fight?".  It seemed to me anyways, that the notion that sport fighting was superior to the TMAs, because of their training methods.  I simply asked if the TMAs would be better if less time was spent on working kata and empty hand SD techs, and more time on the fighting aspect, such as we see with sport fighting.  I mean, we don't see MMA fighters doing kata or working on knife defense, we see them working striking, hitting the pads, sparring, grappling, etc.  Since at least one person in that other thread gives the impression (despite what he claims) that the sporting methods are superior, I simply wanted to hear from the members, and what they thought.   I hope that made sense.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, in your opinion, do you feel its a waste of time, for the TMA student to spend time learning defenses to various attacks, ie: grabs, kicks, weapons, etc.?



I know you addressed his to Steve but I'd like to answer too. 
I think MMA fighters progress faster than most TMAs do and learn useable skills quicker on average. However, I think that TMA tend to have much more depth and have greater skills in the long run after many years of training. I think the sporting approach makes you very good at basic skills, which honestly is all most people need to defend themselves, but if you don't expand on it and go deeper through the proper use of things like kata or exploring those principles in other setting then at some point you stop growing and you can only work to maintain what you already have; and as one ages I think that would be a losing battle.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Hanzou said:


> I was saying that a Karateka is more likely to break their hands punching someone than a boxer would because a boxer focuses on punching.



Why do boxers wrap their wrists? Why do they wear gloves?


----------



## Hanzou

Himura Kenshin said:


> Why do boxers wrap their wrists? Why do they wear gloves?



To protect their hands and wrists from injury. Also to prevent the spread of disease. Considering the sport, that makes sense.


----------



## Cyriacus

Ill just throw in that there are more broken hands in MMA than you might expect with their wraps and gloves. Sorta makes me think, anyway.


----------



## ballen0351

Cyriacus said:


> Ill just throw in that there are more broken hands in MMA than you might expect with their wraps and gloves. Sorta makes me think, anyway.


Right it's not called a Boxers Fracture for nothing


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> To protect their hands and wrists from injury. Also to prevent the spread of disease. Considering the sport, that makes sense.


They didn't know what a disease was before around the 1860s. There certainly nothing anywhere to suggest that preventing the spread of disease has anything to do with the wearing of gloves. If disease prevention was even a consideration there would be rules governing the sterilisation of equipment before fights. Boxing gloves have been around for a thousand years and for modern boxing compulsory since 1867.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_glove


----------



## Takai

MJS said:


> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?



After 18 pages...any chance of getting back to the OP?


----------



## ballen0351

Takai said:


> After 18 pages...any chance of getting back to the OP?



OK whats your opinion


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Regardless, all of that is irrelevant. The *point* is that Bjj revolutionized MA via competition.



Yes it has, but maybe for a reason different to what you might think.



Hanzou said:


> That really wasn't Kframe's point. His point was that all those dirty tricks proved ineffective even in a sport environment. Vale Tudo for example allowed a lot of dirty fighting, and Gjj still did very well.
> 
> In terms of ground fighting, it's the most comprehensive system around. I'd definitely recommend it for women's self defense because not only do they learn how to fight out of compromising positions, but they will more than likely spend the majority of their training sparring with larger guys on top of them trying to control them. Bjj is also one of the few arts that truly don't require a great deal of strength to be effective.



'Dirty tricks' were not only effective. They were too brutal for an emerging sport to allow.



Hanzou said:


> Yes, we know the Gracies were defeated. The point was that people were actively using Bjj in situations where dirty tricks were employed, and Bjj did just fine.



No, when 'dirty tricks' were allowed, the Gracies used them.



Hanzou said:


> Can they work? Sure. Would I depend on scratching, spitting or biting to stop an attack? No. They're low percentage attacks that are more likely to piss off your attacker more (and get you a blood-borne disease) instead of stopping them. Additionally, if I'm close enough to bite or scratch someone, I'd prefer to choke them, or dislocate one of their body parts.


Yeah right. The reason you use them is because you are not in a position to do the other things. Nobody has suggested that scratching or biting were primary techniques. 

But, back to the OP!

I'm going to throw up a proposition from a different angle. To be honest I haven't watched a lot of UFC etc as it really doesn't grab me. However I had heard about the early matches being quite brutal, with almost no rules. So I have been doing some reading and I did find this video of some of those early bouts. They are certainly brutal but the thing that jumps out is how few BJJ guys and how many guys from other styles are competing. Why was this the case then but not now?

Why is it now that now nearly everyone ends up on the floor grappling?  I'll put it to you that the rule changes that took away the major techniques of all the reality based systems left only the sport based systems in the competition. It has been stated that the techniques banned are low percenters but in fact this is not true. They are the techniques used to win in almost all those early brutal fights. Number one technique is the elbow strike using the point of the elbow.

Now, I know the video is a long one but I just ask people to watch a few of the bouts. In particular the fight won by Royce Gracie, from the 15:00 mark and the very next one of Son vs Hackney which starts at about 20:00. In particular notice Royce Gracie using head butts and knees to the groin. When he is getting pounded and looking like losing he grabs his opponent's hair and hangs on for dear life. In the next round you will see Son getting his groin pounded as Hackney grabs his trachea with the other hand and threatens to choke him out or damage the larynx.

So here it is again ... please take a few minutes to watch a bit of it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzdbyJnN_w

I contend that what was in the early UFC was closer to RBSD than what you see now that is a sanitised version and far more suited to BJJ practitioners. So, if what I think is correct, why would any RBSD guys want to fight in the UFC with the equivalent of their hands tied behind their backs?

WRT the OP, sport has always been an option for TMA practitioners but for the past 60 years their have been a lot of rules regulating the competition that has changed the face of that art. In particular, Judo was actually jujutsu but in the main no longer includes the kicks and strikes, Japanese based karate that has lost a lot of the hands on combat in favour of points sparring, Kyokushin different again because its competition bans punches to the head, and TKD which in competition has in the main excluded punching.

Maybe some of the watering down of the Japanese martial arts stems from the ban on teaching martial arts imposed by the Americans after the War or maybe a lot of people were just sick of violence.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I'm going to throw up a proposition from a different angle. To be honest I haven't watched a lot of UFC etc as it really doesn't grab me. However I had heard about the early matches being quite brutal, with almost no rules. So I have been doing some reading and I did find this video of some of those early bouts. They are certainly brutal but the thing that jumps out is how few BJJ guys and how many guys from other styles are competing. Why was this the case then but not now?
> 
> Why is it now that now nearly everyone ends up on the floor grappling?  I'll put it to you that the rule changes that took away the major techniques of all the reality based systems left only the sport based systems in the competition. It has been stated that the techniques banned are low percenters but in fact this is not true. They are the techniques used to win in almost all those early brutal fights. Number one technique is the elbow strike using the point of the elbow.




After Royce dominated the first few UFCs, fighters realized that in order to have a chance they needed to learn ground fighting. That's why everyone ends up on the floor grappling, because if you don't at least have a working knowledge of Bjj, you're going to get subbed or choked.

Why weren't there a lot of Bjj fighters in early UFC? Because no one in the states was really learning Bjj, and it took many years for the art to get dispersed to the point it has now. Relson Gracie for example was training people out of a garage in Honolulu around the time of the first UFC, and working a job in construction to help sustain himself and his family. Today, he has hundreds of schools throughout the United States. After Bjj took off, other Brazilian masters came up from Brazil to teach in the U.S. Now there's a Bjj school in just about every state.



> Now, I know the video is a long one but I just ask people to watch a few of the bouts. In particular the fight won by Royce Gracie, from the 15:00 mark and the very next one of Son vs Hackney which starts at about 20:00. In particular notice Royce Gracie using head butts and knees to the groin. When he is getting pounded and looking like losing he grabs his opponent's hair and hangs on for dear life. In the next round you will see Son getting his groin pounded as Hackney grabs his trachea with the other hand and threatens to choke him out or damage the larynx.
> 
> So here it is again ... please take a few minutes to watch a bit of it.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzdbyJnN_w
> 
> I contend that what was in the early UFC was closer to RBSD than what you see now that is a sanitised version and far more suited to BJJ practitioners. So, if what I think is correct, why would any RBSD guys want to fight in the UFC with the equivalent of their hands tied behind their backs?



Er... The Gracies won those early UFC tournaments, and they usually won them within a matter of minutes, so how were the rules unfavorable to Bjj? The Gracies actually left the UFC when new stricter rules were put into place.

Also how exactly do the rules tie RBSD guys up, but not MT, Boxing, Bjj, and other arts? Are RBSD folks incapable of adapting their tools?

The most interesting thing about the Royce vs Kimo fight is that Kimo was a hell of a lot bigger than Gracie at the time, and had studied grappling in order to counter Bjj. 

Royce still subbed him.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> The most interesting thing about the Royce vs Kimo fight is that Kimo was a hell of a lot bigger than Gracie at the time, and had studied grappling in order to counter Bjj.
> 
> Royce still subbed him.



Actually Kimo had no martial arts training at all other than a bit of back yard brawling.


----------



## RTKDCMB

hanzou said:


> you think that's realistic self defense?



They were PRACTICING SLOWLY.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> After Royce dominated the first few UFCs, fighters realized that in order to have a chance they needed to learn ground fighting. That's why everyone ends up on the floor grappling, because if you don't at least have a working knowledge of Bjj, you're going to get subbed or choked.
> 
> Why weren't there a lot of Bjj fighters in early UFC? Because no one in the states was really learning Bjj, and it took many years for the art to get dispersed to the point it has now. Relson Gracie for example was training people out of a garage in Honolulu around the time of the first UFC, and working a job in construction to help sustain himself and his family. Today, he has hundreds of schools throughout the United States. After Bjj took off, other Brazilian masters came up from Brazil to teach in the U.S. Now there's a Bjj school in just about every state.
> 
> 
> 
> Er... The Gracies won those early UFC tournaments, and they usually won them within a matter of minutes, so how were the rules unfavorable to Bjj? The Gracies actually left the UFC when new stricter rules were put into place.
> 
> Also how exactly do the rules tie RBSD guys up, but not MT, Boxing, Bjj, and other arts? Are RBSD folks incapable of adapting their tools?
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Royce vs Kimo fight is that Kimo was a hell of a lot bigger than Gracie at the time, and had studied grappling in order to counter Bjj.
> 
> Royce still subbed him.


Did you watch the fights that I asked you to watch? If you didn't why not? If you did, why no comment on what those fights showed? They directly relate to the OP.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Are you equating pro wrestling with competition?  Pro wrestling is much more like wushu.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



I think its more like live theater.


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually Kimo had no martial arts training at all other than a bit of back yard brawling.


I find that amazing! To be fair he did have a college wrestling background but to come so close to beating Royce Gracie without any training is hard to comprehend. Interesting stuff!


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you just don't have any choice. When you run a commercial school, different people may walk into your school and challenge you. Some may challenge you in boxing rules (punch only), some may challenge you in MT rules (kick + punch), some may challenge you in Judo rules (wrestling only). If you take those challenges as opportunities to test your own skill against other styles, you will be happy to accept those challenges.



There is *always *a choice. It doesn't matter what the rules they say they will challenge me with, the answer will be the same. We are not a competition style, we teach self defence we don't take challenges (for the very reasons I stated before) then I would send him on his way. Depending upon his demeanor I may suggest that he is welcome to come back sometime and try a regular class.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is that "self defense"?



No.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> To defend you commercial school from closing down is "self defense" by my definition.



A school is not going to close down as the result of a challenge, especially if the challenge is not accepted. If there was some reason that the instructor could no longer teach there we would just bring in another instructor. In the past people have said things like "if someone charged at you, you would not be able to do anything" but none of them has ever tried it because they are all talk. If someone really wants to fight you they will just attack you therefore in a challenge you always have the option to say no, in self defence you do not. In the 26 years I have been training I have never seen someone come into a class and challenge the instructor.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for traditional Goju Ryu. I think some of your training tactics are admirable, if not somewhat crazy;



That is not what has been reflected in your posts-so not.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> After Royce dominated the first few UFCs, fighters realized that in order to have a chance they needed to learn ground fighting. That's why everyone ends up on the floor grappling, because if you don't at least have a working knowledge of Bjj, you're going to get subbed or choked.
> 
> No! With the new rules, to have a chance you need to have *very good* grappling skills. In the early days an elbow spike to the grappler's head or spine ended a lot of those fights.
> 
> Er... The Gracies won those early UFC tournaments, and they usually won them within a matter of minutes, so how were the rules unfavorable to Bjj? The Gracies actually left the UFC when new stricter rules were put into place.
> 
> No one is saying the Gracies weren't / aren't good. And almost all those early fights only lasted a matter of minutes. You will see that if you watch the video.  The early rules were favourable to all martial artists, the new rules favoured the grapplers.
> 
> Also how exactly do the rules tie RBSD guys up, but not MT, Boxing, Bjj, and other arts? Are RBSD folks incapable of adapting their tools?
> 
> Why should they if they have no interest in competing in a competition?
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Royce vs Kimo fight is that Kimo was a hell of a lot bigger than Gracie at the time, and had studied grappling in order to counter Bjj.
> 
> Can you imagine how good he would have been if he studied grappling for two days?
> 
> Royce still subbed him.


Yes, he did. 



> On September 9, 1994, the audience for UFC III would recognize Kimo as a black belt in tae kwon do-a total fallacy devised by Joe Son. Carrying a cross on his back...something he actually did during his days with a Christian extremist group called Holy Dome...Kimo would represent his faith. "I was calm, and whatever happened in that octagon just happened," he said. "I was very proud at being able to carry the cross like that." In reality, Kimo says he only actually trained one day with Joe Son, who had a very minimal martial arts background.* "To be honest with you, we really didn't even train; we read bible scriptures instead." *Kimo also wanted to show that Christians could be strong and look strong, far removed from the stereotypical figures that most envision.
> 
> http://poptop.hypermart.net/testkl.html





> Son drove back to his house and ordered the full series of Gracie jiu-jitsu instructional tapes. In a garage not too different from the one-time home of the Gracie jiu-jitsu academy, Kimo and Son reviewed the lesson plan. A basic tenet of Gracie jiu-jitsu was that size doesnt matter.  But Kimo and Son put together the more accurate forecast, which Jim Brown would articulate at UFC 5: Size doesnt matter, but once the big guy knows as much as the small guy, it does.
> 
> 
> http://www.asianmma.com/?p=6086


----------



## TFP

Maybe because the next generation of martial artists are and will be grapplers?   Sure your generation were strikers, but times change.


----------



## TFP

In a vacuum, yes.  in an isolated instance, yes.  But not when for the past 20yrs grapplers have been beating strikers at an alarming rate and rarely vice-a-versa.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> In a vacuum, yes.  in an isolated instance, yes.  But not when for the past 20yrs grapplers have been beating strikers at an alarming rate and rarely vice-a-versa.


Any evidence of this?  if that were true why are people still learning striking arts?  Even the top grapplers bring in striking experts.  There is no perfect system which is why people cross train and learn both.


----------



## SENC-33

What is this thread "really about"? It's title centers around TMA and sport competition but it's in the general "self defense" forum

:burp:


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually Kimo had no martial arts training at all other than a bit of back yard brawling.



Um, he had a background in wrestling,

He also had a significant weight advantage over Gracie.



RTKDCMB said:


> They were PRACTICING SLOWLY.



So? It had nothing to do with speed. The principles shown in those vids wouldn't work even if they were going full speed.

Example:






Slow movement, but sound principles.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> No! With the new rules, to have a chance you need to have very good grappling skills. In the early days an elbow spike to the grappler's head or spine ended a lot of those fights.



Um, you needed good grappling skills in the early UFCs as well. Again, Gracie was subbing people in a matter of seconds in those early bouts.

Also I don't know if you watch a lot of UFC, but elbows still end a lot of fights. See a highlight film of the current UFC champ Jon Jones. The guy does nothing but elbows.



> No one is saying the Gracies weren't / aren't good. And almost all those early fights only lasted a matter of minutes. You will see that if you watch the video.  The early rules were favourable to all martial artists, the new rules favoured the grapplers.



The evidence doesn't support that. Plenty of strikers in modern UFC win, but they do so because they know what to do if they get taken to the ground. Before the majority of fighters learned Gjj, it was dominated by Gjj. After the Gracies left the UFC, wrestlers dominated it. Strikers started winning UFC championships when they supplemented their striking skills with grappling.




> Why should they if they have no interest in competing in a competition?



That isn't what I asked you. You stated that RSBD guys are unfairly restricted by MMA rules. I want to know how exactly that is the case when numerous other MAs adapt to MMA rules just fine.



> Can you imagine how good he would have been if he studied grappling for two days?



The fight may have lasted more than 4 minutes?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> In a vacuum, yes.  in an isolated instance, yes.  But not when for the past 20yrs grapplers have been beating strikers at an alarming rate and rarely vice-a-versa.



Mostly in MMA competitions.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> He also had a significant weight advantage over Gracie.



And Teila Tuli had a significant weight advantage over Gerard Gordeau (a striker) who was beaten by him with kicks and punches so not really much of a point there.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Any evidence of this?  if that were true why are people still learning striking arts?  Even the top grapplers bring in striking experts.  There is no perfect system which is why people cross train and learn both.



Striking arts are more popular among the masses. I'm willing to bet that most people doing grappling arts now probably started out doing a striking art.

Why? Comfort and Ego. In a lot of karate, TKD, kung fu, and even kickboxing schools, you can get by with minimal contact. Yeah, you can do sparring, but often its not heavy sparring. You also get to establish a comfort zone, because no one is going to significantly destroy your comfort zone in a class.

In a grappling dojo/school, its a completely different ballgame. Your comfort zone is instantly destroyed as someone grabs you forcibly and attempts to throw you, submit you, or pin you. You have big sweaty guys on top of you constantly. You get slammed to the mat constantly. You get choked constantly. For some people, its completely ego shattering, especially when you first start and think you're the baddest guy on the block. In my time, I've seen plenty of brawny guys enter my gym and leave and never return after they get schooled by a white belt.

For others its extremely uncomfortable. This is especially true of women, who may not be fond of laying on their backs while sweaty men put them in holds and body locks. In my time, I've seen plenty of young women join our gym, and leave after 1 class because they don't like the closeness of the art. This happens even if we pair them up with more experienced female students. Unfortunately, women need that closeness and contact training for self defense.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> So who's more likely to break their hand? A karateka, or a boxer?
> 
> My money's on the Karateka. The boxer gets constant hand conditioning either through the heavy bag, or sparring. They get added points since their art forces/teaches them to take punches.
> 
> Yet another benefit of competition and sport fighting.


Anyone *can* break their hand.  It comes from punching wrong or just getting unlucky.  Happened to Faber (my favorite MMA fighter) in one of his matches.  He fought on, though eventually lost, ims.

Karateka will, obviously, object that they condition using makiwara and they also spar.  Seems like fair points to me.  They also will object that modern boxers use of wraps and gloves mitigates the hand breaks they would, otherwise, be more likely to endure.  Personally, from what I've seen, it's the wraps more than the gloves.

In any case, learning how to punch sans wraps/gloves is a key element and, also from what I've seen, few modern boxers have learned how to do so and, equally, neither have the majority of modern Karateka.

As much as I hate to say it, Wing Chun teaches the closest to the "ideal" method to avoid hand injury in punching (I hate to say it because most of their body mechanics are wrong for strong punching, despite having the right fist orientation, I also have a serious issue with "chain punching").

Anyhow, *both *modern boxers *and *karateka are vulnerable to breaking their hand.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> And Teila Tuli had a significant weight advantage over Gerard Gordeau (a striker) who was beaten by him with kicks and punches so not really much of a point there.



You mean when that fat tub of lard tripped on himself and Gerard kicked him in the face and they stopped the match because he had a cut under his eye and a lost tooth?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10005201/teila_tuli_vs_gerard_gordeau/

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


>


Because no one really needs to use their hands a few decades from now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You mean when that fat tub of lard tripped on himself and Gerard kicked him in the face and they stopped the match because he had a cut under his eye and a lost tooth?
> 
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10005201/teila_tuli_vs_gerard_gordeau/
> 
> Yeah, that's totally the same thing.



No I mean Teila Tuli amateur Sumo wrestler with a record of 57-27-14, So not really the same thing - Teila Tuli was a moderately successful grappler who got beaten by a striker who suffered nothing more than a broken hand and a couple of teeth in his foot and still fought 2 more times and Kimo was an largely untrained fighter who beat Royce Gracie up so much he could not fight again that night.


----------



## lklawson

K-man said:


> Boxing gloves have been around for a thousand years and for modern boxing compulsory since 1867.


That is a misconception.  "Mufflers" or "Mittens" were *not *"compulsory" by any stretch.  They were merely a requirement under one specific rule set published by the Marquis of Queensberry, which was, initially, targeted at amateur boxers.  There were other competing rule sets outside of the good Marquis' rules and the London Prize Ring rules were still the norm for professional matches for many decades past the Marquis' first rendition.  Pro-boxer Billy Edwards in his 1888 boxing manual The Art of Boxing and Manual of Training, makes a clear distinction between amateur matches, which use gloves, and professional matches, which will be bare knuckle.  He further suggests that if a student of boxing is interested in street self defense then he should make a study of the London Prize Ring rules bare-knuckle boxing (which at the time included trips, throws, and grapples).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

RTKDCMB said:


> And Teila Tuli had a significant weight advantage over Gerard Gordeau (a striker) who was beaten by him with kicks and punches so not really much of a point there.


No.  He was forced to stop the fight because of a cut over his eye.  Tuli was *PISSED* and wanted to keep fighting, believing that he was just bleeding a little (after all, it's a fight!) but in no way significantly degraded, never mind beat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RTKDCMB

lklawson said:


> No.  He was forced to stop the fight because of a cut over his eye.



That's how a lot of L's go in fighter's win-loss records. It would have been interesting if the fight was allowed to continue.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> No I mean Teila Tuli amateur Sumo wrestler with a record of 57-27-14, So not really the same thing - Teila Tuli was a moderately successful grappler who got beaten by a striker who suffered nothing more than a broken hand and a couple of teeth in his foot and still fought 2 more times and Kimo was an largely untrained fighter who beat Royce Gracie up so much he could not fight again that night.



What exactly is your point here? Teila pretty much beat himself by falling on his belly and then getting kicked in the face. That isn't the same thing as what occurred in the Gracie/Kimo fight. In the latter, Kimo had numerous advantages over Royce and still lost. He had a size advantage (that Gracie actually had to work through), and he had the advantage of Gracie wearing a gi, so he had more handles to grip onto. Gracie still won via submission (a damn good one at that). It wasn't so much that Royce was beaten up, it was that Royce was tired as hell because he spent 4 minutes controlling and then fighting off a guy with wrestling experience, strength advantage, weight advantage, and grip advantage. 

Royce proved that Bjj still works even if you're fighting a big sweaty guy you can't get a hold of. The Teila fight proved that if you're a fat person you shouldn't miss a takedown against a kickboxer.

When Gracie fought Gordeau, he beat him in a little over 30 seconds.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Because no one really needs to use their hands a few decades from now.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Huh?  He's been doing it for decades and his hands work fine.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Striking arts are more popular among the masses. I'm willing to bet that most people doing grappling arts now probably started out doing a striking art.
> 
> Why? Comfort and Ego. In a lot of karate, TKD, kung fu, and even kickboxing schools, you can get by with minimal contact. Yeah, you can do sparring, but often its not heavy sparring. You also get to establish a comfort zone, because no one is going to significantly destroy your comfort zone in a class.
> 
> In a grappling dojo/school, its a completely different ballgame. Your comfort zone is instantly destroyed as someone grabs you forcibly and attempts to throw you, submit you, or pin you. You have big sweaty guys on top of you constantly. You get slammed to the mat constantly. You get choked constantly. For some people, its completely ego shattering, especially when you first start and think you're the baddest guy on the block. In my time, I've seen plenty of brawny guys enter my gym and leave and never return after they get schooled by a white belt.
> 
> For others its extremely uncomfortable. This is especially true of women, who may not be fond of laying on their backs while sweaty men put them in holds and body locks. In my time, I've seen plenty of young women join our gym, and leave after 1 class because they don't like the closeness of the art. This happens even if we pair them up with more experienced female students. Unfortunately, women need that closeness and contact training for self defense.



So no.   You have no evidence just opinion.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So no.   You have no evidence just opinion.



You mean other than most women being in striking arts, while signifantly less women being in grappling arts?

The ego thing is a bit harder to prove, but Ive met considerably less jerks in Bjj than other styles. Mainly because getting your butt kicked on a daily basis tends to humble you quite a bit.


----------



## ballen0351

There are jerks everywhere man.  No less in BJJ no more in TMAs.  I do both I've always been treated great everywhere I've been.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> There are jerks everywhere man.  No less in BJJ no more in TMAs.  I do both I've always been treated great everywhere I've been.



I agree. I was just talking about my personal experience.

Do you agree that there is lack of women in the grappling arts?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I agree. I was just talking about my personal experience.
> 
> Do you agree that there is lack of women in the grappling arts?


There is a lack of woman in all arts.  But honestly around me there about the same.  There are several woman in my Judo classes and several in the BJJ classes I take.  There a lot more in the Goju dojo but there are almost 250 students in the dojo so actual % wise between the three its close.  
I think there are more kids in striking arts and the moms take the kids and get exposed to it and sign up.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So no.   You have no evidence just opinion.



There are tons of blogs and support sites for women in grappling arts like Bjj and these issues are discussed.

I don't think that anyone has commissioned a study, and I suspect that if they did you would dismiss the study as biased.  

I don't agree with everything hanzou says, but in my opinion, he's spot on with this.  The ego takes a beating in Bjj and there's no hiding from your skill or lack of it.  And I've seen tough guys panic from shoulder pressure and claustrophobia.

One of the real advantages of grappling over striking is the ability to spar at close to 100% without getting dangerous.  But it can be hard to get past the space and pressure, and not everyone is able to do it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## TFP

Oh of course, im not anti striking arts at all!  But there is overwhelming proof that if you don't know how to grapple and you come across a guy with a grappling martial background, then you are in big trouble...... There is not overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## TFP

Not really.  Unless you consider Vale Tudo and dojo/challenge matches as "MMA".  It's a common defense and fallacy that if someone isn't attacked without warning that a fight really isn't a "true self defense" moment.  I think this is silly,  there are plenty of challenge matches set up that are infect true moments of defending ones self.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> But there is overwhelming proof that if you don't know how to grapple and you come across a guy with a grappling martial background, then you are in big trouble...... There is not overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



Provide sources, preferably credible ones.


----------



## TFP

Oh and as far as the original question goes, IMO it's a double edged sword.

one hand, sport martial arts at least have a go with live resistance which IMO makes them better.  But as you turn it into a "sport"'people look for ways to "win" the game and this May take away from what really works in a real life fight.

sport BJJ is going to be the watering g down of Jiu-Jitsu as a self defense martial art. IMO.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> There are tons of blogs and support sites for women in grappling arts like Bjj and these issues are discussed.
> 
> I don't think that anyone has commissioned a study, and I suspect that if they did you would dismiss the study as biased.
> 
> I don't agree with everything hanzou says, but in my opinion, he's spot on with this.  The ego takes a beating in Bjj and there's no hiding from your skill or lack of it.  And I've seen tough guys panic from shoulder pressure and claustrophobia.
> 
> One of the real advantages of grappling over striking is the ability to spar at close to 100% without getting dangerous.  But it can be hard to get past the space and pressure, and not everyone is able to do it.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I wasn't really talking about the Woman part I was more talking the "TMAs are full of guys with egos". I don't see that in my experience.  Especially when I see a Gracie tweeting as he assaults a man on a street corner.  And all that crap that came out of the Lloyd Irving camp.  Higaonna a 10th Dan in Goju is very humble he refuses to be called master he says he's still a student like everyone else he's just been in class a little longer then most.  But its always been my personal experience that I've been treated with kindness and respect everywhere I've gone.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Provide sources, preferably credible ones.


UFC's 1-10.  Gracie tapes and Gracie Challenge for another.   Now of course highly marketed, but still very solid evidence to this fact.

Hell Gene Lebell was proving Judo/Catch over striking arts also.

people like to discredit the UFC and the Gracie's for what ever reason, but honestly, before this there was little to no proof of art vs art, style vs style.

no one stepped up and successfully  defended there art vs Gracie JJ when the gauntlet was put down.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> I wasn't really talking about the Woman part I was more talking the "TMAs are full of guys with egos". I don't see that in my experience.  Especially when I see a Gracie tweeting as he assaults a man on a street corner.  And all that crap that came out of the Lloyd Irving camp.  Higaonna a 10th Dan in Goju is very humble he refuses to be called master he says he's still a student like everyone else he's just been in class a little longer then most.  But its always been my personal experience that I've been treated with kindness and respect everywhere I've gone.



A lot of BJJ guys do not realize the rise of there art came from a family of thugs who were not respectful one bit.   They were hell bent on attacking all other arts like it or not.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> UFC's 1-10.  Gracie tapes and Gracie Challenge for another.   Now of course highly marketed, but still very solid evidence to this fact.
> 
> Hell Gene Lebell was proving Judo/Catch over striking arts also.
> 
> people like to discredit the UFC and the Gracie's for what ever reason, but honestly, before this there was little to no proof of art vs art, style vs style.
> 
> no one stepped up and su chess fully defended there art vs Gracie JJ when the gauntlet was put down.


You do realize there have been art vs art and style vs style fights for hundreds if not thousands of years.  We just didn't have TVs and internet to broadcast it.  This wasn't a new thing it was just a new way to get it to the masses.  Also the Gracie's were not undefeated either in these challenges helio was loosing matches as far back as the 30s


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Provide sources, preferably credible ones.



The Gracie challenges. The first UFCs. Gene Lebelle beating boxers with ground subs. Fusen Ryu defeating the Kodakan.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> A lot of BJJ guys do not realize the rise of there art came from a family of thugs who were not respectful one bit.   They were hell bent on attacking all other arts like it or not.



Unlike most people, Bjj guys actually hang out and conversate with the Gracies and other Brazilian masters of the art. Again this is personal experience, but Royce, Relson, Renzo, and Rickson were complete gentleman to me and my family. Marcelo Garcia was awesome, and I regret not getting the chance to roll with him.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Unlike most people, Bjj guys actually hang out and conversate with the Gracies and other Brazilian masters of the art. Again this is personal experience, but Royce, Relson, Renzo, and Rickson were complete gentleman to me and my family. Marcelo Garcia was awesome, and I regret not getting the chance to roll with him.



Just don't ask them for a cigarette.  He will give you racoon eyes


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> You do realize there have been art vs art and style vs style fights for hundreds if not thousands of years.  We just didn't have TVs and internet to broadcast it.  This wasn't a new thing it was just a new way to get it to the masses.  Also the Gracie's were not undefeated either in these challenges helio was loosing matches as far back as the 30s



This is so disingenuous IMO.   Can you sit a major "all martial arts welcome" contest that pitted all styles vs all styles?  And no the Gracie's we're not undefeated, can you site a fighter from a predominantly striking art that beat the Gracie's?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> UFC's 1-10.  Gracie tapes and Gracie Challenge for another.   Now of course highly marketed, but still very solid evidence to this fact.
> 
> Hell Gene Lebell was proving Judo/Catch over striking arts also.
> 
> people like to discredit the UFC and the Gracie's for what ever reason, but honestly, before this there was little to no proof of art vs art, style vs style.
> 
> no one stepped up and successfully  defended there art vs Gracie JJ when the gauntlet was put down.



I said credible sources, if I took the time to research I could probably find 100's of arts and 1000's of martial artists that were not included in any of those.


----------



## ballen0351

By the way I did meet the young Gracie can't remember his name at a police expo he was selling his Gracie for police program.  He was very nice but he was also trying to see me something so that could play a roll.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> Unlike most people, Bjj guys actually hang out and conversate with the Gracies and other Brazilian masters of the art. Again this is personal experience, but Royce, Relson, Renzo, and Rickson were complete gentleman to me and my family. Marcelo Garcia was awesome, and I regret not getting the chance to roll with him.



Of course they are polite and nice to those in BJJ or to be more specific to those in there lineage who they do not have a family beef with at the moment.   And yes more so since BJJ as been brought to North America.  But you just have to take a quick look at the short history of GJJ/BJJ to if that art is rooted/founded or built on respect and honor.   

The fact that it wasn't is one of the sole reasons it's become so successful.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> I said credible sources, if I took the time to research I could probably find 100's of arts and 1000's of martial artists that were not included in any of those.


well to me there is nothing more "credible" than facing off and proving it.   I'm not even sure what you mean by 100's of arts and 1000's of Martial artists who didn't step up.

The point is the ones that did step up didn't produce.  I mean these are fighting arts we are talking about right?

this was the decade for martial artists to prove there style.  One rose to the top........and thus changed gave birth to another that has changed the face of martial arts for ever.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> By the way I did meet the young Gracie can't remember his name at a police expo he was selling his Gracie for police program.  He was very nice but he was also trying to see me something so that could play a roll.



I'm 99% sure that was rener Gracie.  The Gracie family is large and they also don't all get along.  Rener is very charismatic and seems like a genuinely nice young man.

And a good salesman, too.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'm 99% sure that was rener Gracie.  The Gracie family is large and they also don't all get along.  Rener is very charismatic and seems like a genuinely nice young man.
> 
> And a good salesman, too.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


YES that was him.  I knew it started with an R.......oh wait.
Yeah he was a cool guy.  Very smart as well.  I really liked his use of grappling.  It wasn't to take people down it was to create distance so you can grab a taser or gun or OC spray or whatever tool you needed.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> This is so disingenuous IMO.   Can you sit a major "all martial arts welcome" contest that pitted all styles vs all styles?  And no the Gracie's we're not undefeated, can you site a fighter from a predominantly striking art that beat the Gracie's?


It's not disingenuous fighting was Huge in the late 1800s early 1900s.  People would travel the world to fight.  They were big time back then.  Like traveling circus but with fighters.  Use some Google fu man.  Its out there.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> well to me there is nothing more "credible" than facing off and proving it.   I'm not even sure what you mean by 100's of arts and 1000's of Martial artists who didn't step up.
> 
> The point is the ones that did step up didn't produce.  I mean these are fighting arts we are talking about right?
> 
> this was the decade for martial artists to prove there style.  One rose to the top........and thus changed gave birth to another that has changed the face of martial arts for ever.



Did you "step up" as you put it?


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> It's not disingenuous fighting was Huge in the late 1800s early 1900s.  People would travel the world to fight.  They were big time back then.  Like traveling circus but with fighters.  Use some Google fu man.  Its out there.


Interesting, who were some of the big winners from the traditional striking arts?  Weren't you the guy asking me for "credible sources"?  And now you are telling me to "google it"!?!?:duh:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Interesting, who were some of the big winners from the traditional striking arts?  Weren't you the guy asking me for "credible sources"?  And now you are telling me to "google it"!?!?:duh:



No I didn't ask you for anything.

  There were hundreds of these matches going back to the 30s.  I don't care enough to review them all and answer your question.  If BJJ was the end all to be all top UFC fighters wouldn't need to train in anything else.  The fact they bring in boxing, MT, karate,  trainers to supplement means exactly what I said before.  There is not now and never has been a perfect art.  Every art has its weakness.  The Gracie's are the top BJJ guys in the world they were fighting average to normal fighters in other arts not the top guys in the fields they better have won most matches.


----------



## SENC-33

TFP said:


> well to me there is nothing more "credible" than facing off and proving it.   I'm not even sure what you mean by 100's of arts and 1000's of Martial artists who didn't step up.
> 
> The point is the ones that did step up didn't produce.  I mean these are fighting arts we are talking about right?
> 
> this was the decade for martial artists to prove there style.  One rose to the top........and thus changed gave birth to another that has changed the face of martial arts for ever.



What exactly does "stepping up" prove? A ring or octagon isn't for everybody......you could tear a guy a new tailhole in a ring and then walk outside and have yours ripped wide open in a split second. I have run across some TMA's I know could kill somebody instantly who have never been in a real world fight in their life and probably never will because they aren't wired for violence. I probably wouldn't last very long in a ring (I'm sure at 43 I wouldn't) but let somebody threaten me or my family. I have an internal switch I have learned to turn on when "I need to" that doesn't translate into points, belts around my waste or trophies but it serves its purpose when I need to "step up".


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> No I didn't ask you for anything.
> 
> There were hundreds of these matches going back to the 30s.  I don't care enough to review them all and answer your question.  If BJJ was the end all to be all top UFC fighters wouldn't need to train in anything else.  The fact they bring in boxing, MT, karate,  trainers to supplement means exactly what I said before.  There is not now and never has been a perfect art.  Every art has its weakness.  The Gracie's are the top BJJ guys in the world they were fighting average to normal fighters in other arts not the top guys in the fields they better have won most matches.



I never said BJJ was the end all be all. but it was the best as far as style vs style goes.  There is really no debating that.  Wrestling/Catch was a close second.


----------



## TFP

SENC-33 said:


> What exactly does "stepping up" prove? A ring or octagon isn't for everybody......you could tear a guy a new tailhole in a ring and then walk outside and have yours ripped wide open in a split second. I have run across some TMA's I know could kill somebody instantly who have never been in a real world fight in their life and probably never will because they aren't wired for violence. I probably wouldn't last very long in a ring (I'm sure at 43 I wouldn't) but let somebody threaten me or my family. I have an internal switch I have learned to turn on when "I need to" that doesn't translate into points, belts around my waste or trophies but it serves its purpose when I need to "step up".



Stepping up was in reference to a "credible source".  So in this context it's a great credible source in regards to actual proof something works.

speaking if "proof", no disrespect but you I fact do NOT "know" anyone who could "kill someone instantly",  especially if they never, ever, ever have.  Honestly man, especially if they have never been in one single fight.   I just don't get that kind of blind faith or belief in something so silly.

now people keep bringing up the location of these early UFC's as some kind of point that what happened in these fights wasn't real.  Why because it was in an "Octagon" it wasn't real, but if it was on your front porch it would of been?  Or a street corner?  The fact it was in an octagon instead of an ally or a field or a parking lot doesn't for a second make it any less "real".

all of this is my opinion of course....


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Did you "step up" as you put it?


Yes.  Many times.   I've been involved in the martial arts fight business for many years in about every single compacity imaginable.   Plus many, many fights, bouncing, matches, etc.

but honestly, turning this about me personally instead of the topic which is martial arts as a whole is a lame defensive mechanism.

im not sure why the resistance to the idea that GJJ/BJJ proved to be a dominant art in style vs style match ups.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Yes.  Many times.   I've been involved in the martial arts fight business for many years in about every single compacity imaginable.   Plus many, many fights, bouncing, matches, etc.
> 
> but honestly, turning this about me personally instead of the topic which is martial arts as a whole is a lame defensive mechanism.
> 
> im not sure why the resistance to the idea that GJJ/BJJ proved to be a dominant art in style vs style match ups.



Which of the early UFC's were you in?


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Which of the early UFC's were you in?


My name is Keith Hackney....


----------



## SENC-33

TFP said:


> Stepping up was in reference to a "credible source".  So in this context it's a great credible source in regards to actual proof something works.
> 
> speaking if "proof", no disrespect but you I fact do NOT "know" anyone who could "kill someone instantly",  especially if they never, ever, ever have.  Honestly man, especially if they have never been in one single fight.   I just don't get that kind of blind faith or belief in something so silly.
> 
> now people keep bringing up the location of these early UFC's as some kind of point that what happened in these fights wasn't real.  Why because it was in an "Octagon" it wasn't real, but if it was on your front porch it would of been?  Or a street corner?  The fact it was in an octagon instead of an ally or a field or a parking lot doesn't for a second make it any less "real".
> 
> all of this is my opinion of course....



If I hit you in the temple it would work. If I hit you in the throat it would work. There are several places if hit hard enough could kill you or severely injure you. If I was in a competitive ring and throat striking was legal would I do it? Absolutely not. Somebody made mention of the rules allowing more when the Gracies were winning in the early UFC days so why didn't people utilize throat strikes or groin strikes (as an example)? Ethics perhaps?

If Gracie knocked a man out with a Thai elbow shot in a ring does that say anything about his BJJ skills? If a striker knocks a guy down, hops on him and puts him in an arm-bar is he a ground fighting super hero?


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> now people keep bringing up the location of these early UFC's as some kind of point that what happened in these fights wasn't real. Why because it was in an "Octagon" it wasn't real, but if it was on your front porch it would of been? Or a street corner? The fact it was in an octagon instead of an ally or a field or a parking lot doesn't for a second make it any less "real".



It is quite a bit different when the chance that you or your family could actually die than when the worst outcome is injury or loss. To actually try and equate the two is not only a logical fallacy, it is an inductive generalization. 

The only way to know if your style or approach works in an "actual" life threatening street encounter is to actually use it in a real life threatening encounter. Go into a combat situation where someone is trying their hardest to actually kill you. Only then will you ever know. 

The UFC and MMA in general are interesting, just like the NFL is interesting......as a game. Nothing more. Of course, that's my opinion.....YMMV.

Respectfully, 

Mike


----------



## Steve

SENC-33 said:


> If I hit you in the temple it would work. If I hit you in the throat it would work. There are several places if hit hard enough could kill you or severely injure you. If I was in a competitive ring and throat striking was legal would I do it? Absolutely not. Somebody made mention of the rules allowing more when the Gracies were winning in the early UFC days so why didn't people utilize throat strikes or groin strikes (as an example)? Ethics perhaps?
> 
> If Gracie knocked a man out with a Thai elbow shot in a ring does that say anything about his BJJ skills? If a striker knocks a guy down, hops on him and puts him in an arm-bar is he a ground fighting super hero?



Aren't blows to the temple and throat legal in the UFC?  If I get a minute, I'll look up the actual rules.  I'm pretty sure there is no prohibition on them, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> If I hit you in the temple it would work. If I hit you in the throat it would work. There are several places if hit hard enough could kill you or severely injure you. If I was in a competitive ring and throat striking was legal would I do it? Absolutely not. Somebody made mention of the rules allowing more when the Gracies were winning in the early UFC days so why didn't people utilize throat strikes or groin strikes (as an example)? Ethics perhaps?
> 
> If Gracie knocked a man out with a Thai elbow shot in a ring does that say anything about his BJJ skills? If a striker knocks a guy down, hops on him and puts him in an arm-bar is he a ground fighting super hero?




Throat strikes are very hard to pull off. The throat is a very small target, and its difficult to hit. This is especially true if someone is tagging you in the face. Conversely if you're on top of someone and is dropping elbows on your face, and then happen to drop an elbow on your throat, it could very likely kill you. The downward momentum, and your head on the canvas or ground can easily cause lethal damage, and that's why it's probably  banned.

However, I'm curious; Do you feel that a lot of MAs can't compete because they don't allow throat strikes, biting, hair pulls and groin taps in competition?


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> My name is Keith Hackney....


This Keith Hackney?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hackney
http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/1/Keith-Hackney-Where-Is-He-Now-30163

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Hell Gene Lebell was proving Judo/Catch over striking arts also.


I was wondering if someone would bring up Judo Gene.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Spinedoc said:


> It is quite a bit different when the chance that you or your family could actually die than when the worst outcome is injury or loss. To actually try and equate the two is not only a logical fallacy, it is an inductive generalization.
> 
> The only way to know if your style or approach works in an "actual" life threatening street encounter is to actually use it in a real life threatening encounter. Go into a combat situation where someone is trying their hardest to actually kill you. Only then will you ever know.
> 
> The UFC and MMA in general are interesting, just like the NFL is interesting......as a game. Nothing more. Of course, that's my opinion.....YMMV.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Mike


I've known more than a few BJJ guys who have had "real, in the street" fights.  One of my friends in Australia, famous for being one of the guys to answer the Yellow Bamboo challenge, has on two separate occasions, been assaulted "on the street."  One instance this is a literal statement.  Exited cars.  He choked the attacker out and threw his car keys into the bushes.

If your criteria is "works in an 'actual' life threatening street encounter" then BJJ has already delivered.  End of story.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

:jaw-dropping:





Spinedoc said:


> The UFC and MMA in general are interesting, just like the NFL is interesting......as a game. Nothing more. Of course, that's my opinion.....YMMV.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Mike




Mike this line of B.S. Has been used since the invention of the UFC by people not willing to step in and actually fight.  "Oh it's fake or oh it isn't real fighting", etc.

infact most notably by legendary WingTsun master Emin Boztepe's!  Did you know that the original UFC Super Fight" was not supposed to be Gracie vs Shamrock but actually Gracie vs Boztpese?  But of course when push came to shove, after excuse after excuse he never stepped up .

he was offered a spot in the second UFC after bad mouthing the Gracie's, then offered a challenge match at a dojo, then offered a Super Fight vs Royce at UFC even though all over fighters had to fight in the brackets like the rest.

Emin found a way to back out each and every time .:lol2:


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> This Keith Hackney?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hackney
> http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/1/Keith-Hackney-Where-Is-He-Now-30163
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Ha, no.  I was just being Snarky because that poster was being silly questioning my personnel fighting experience in the UFC instead of intelligent back and forth on topic type talk.

Hackney is an early favorite of mine and actually gave Royce one of his toughest early fight employing an early version of Sprawl and Brawl.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Ha, no.  I was just being Snarky because that poster was being silly questioning my personnel fighting experience in the UFC instead of intelligent back and forth on topic type talk.
> 
> Hackney is an early favorite of mine and actually gave Royce one of his toughest early fight employing an early version of Sprawl and Brawl.


Fair enough.

It's the Internet so you never know who might actually drop in.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So? It had nothing to do with speed. The principles shown in those vids wouldn't work even if they were going full speed.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slow movement, but sound principles.


From memory you picked the video and it was not a great example of Systema training. The fact that you don't understand the principle they were training doesn't there is no principle and it isn't valid it isn't valid. And it doesn't have anything to do with speed. It is designed for a couple of things. Firstly Systema training is designed to make the practitioner comfortable if he goes to the ground and in that clip they are starting to experiment with angles and points that control body movement. How dare you say principles of another martial art don't work when you haven't the first bit of understanding of that system.

One of the principles of a Systema is that it is designed to work in chaos. It is designed to be effective against multiple attackers and the training in the first video and this one leads up to being on the ground with a number of attackers on their feet. For me to start posting Systema ground fighting videos would totally hijack the thread as Systema is neither sport nor TMA. A sport is conducted in a controlled environment with controlled conditions.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eyQny5Amv0E&desktop_uri=/watch?v=eyQny5Amv0E


----------



## Steve

Spinedoc said:


> It is quite a bit different when the chance that you or your family could actually die than when the worst outcome is injury or loss. To actually try and equate the two is not only a logical fallacy, it is an inductive generalization.
> 
> The only way to know if your style or approach works in an "actual" life threatening street encounter is to actually use it in a real life threatening encounter. Go into a combat situation where someone is trying their hardest to actually kill you. Only then will you ever know.
> 
> The UFC and MMA in general are interesting, just like the NFL is interesting......as a game. Nothing more. Of course, that's my opinion.....YMMV.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Mike



Most people will never use their art in an actual life or death situation.  

Sport allows one to raise the stakes without risking their lives.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Um, you needed good grappling skills in the early UFCs as well. Again, Gracie was subbing people in a matter of seconds in those early bouts.
> 
> I'm not sure about 'seconds' but most of the bouts were over quickly.
> 
> Also I don't know if you watch a lot of UFC, but elbows still end a lot of fights. See a highlight film of the current UFC champ Jon Jones. The guy does nothing but elbows.
> 
> If you look at the video I posted they are using the point of the elbow. It is one of the strongest points of the body and why is has a special place in TMA.
> 
> The evidence doesn't support that. Plenty of strikers in modern UFC win, but they do so because they know what to do if they get taken to the ground. Before the majority of fighters learned Gjj, it was dominated by Gjj. After the Gracies left the UFC, wrestlers dominated it. Strikers started winning UFC championships when they supplemented their striking skills with grappling.
> 
> You obviously didn't watch the video I posted!
> 
> That isn't what I asked you. You stated that RSBD guys are unfairly restricted by MMA rules. I want to know how exactly that is the case when numerous other MAs adapt to MMA rules just fine.
> 
> The new rules from the MMA ban the use of many of the most effective techniques we train. Other martial arts may well adopt their training so that they can take part in the competition. How many times do I have to state that many people don't want to do that.
> 
> You have this fixation that everyone one wants to play in your sandpit. Sorry, that just isn't reality.
> 
> The fight may have lasted more than 4 minutes?
> 
> And Royce may have lost.


I'm still waiting for you to comment on the two bouts I asked you to watch!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TFP said:


> Oh of course, im not anti striking arts at all!  But there is overwhelming proof that if you don't know how to grapple and you come across a guy with a grappling martial background, then you are in big trouble...... There is not overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



I have not yet met any "anti striking" guys (I'm sure there may have some over the Judo forum), but I have met a lot of "anti grappling" guys in person. Why? Should we say that grapplers may have more open mind than the strikers?


----------



## K-man

lklawson said:


> That is a misconception.  "Mufflers" or "Mittens" were *not *"compulsory" by any stretch.  They were merely a requirement under one specific rule set published by the Marquis of Queensberry, which was, initially, targeted at amateur boxers.  There were other competing rule sets outside of the good Marquis' rules and the London Prize Ring rules were still the norm for professional matches for many decades past the Marquis' first rendition.  Pro-boxer Billy Edwards in his 1888 boxing manual The Art of Boxing and Manual of Training, makes a clear distinction between amateur matches, which use gloves, and professional matches, which will be bare knuckle.  He further suggests that if a student of boxing is interested in street self defense then he should make a study of the London Prize Ring rules bare-knuckle boxing (which at the time included trips, throws, and grapples).
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


True. What I should have said was that it was from that time that gloves became more the norm and bare knuckle fighting really began its decline.
: asian:


----------



## SENC-33

Steve said:


> Aren't blows to the temple and throat legal in the UFC?  If I get a minute, I'll look up the actual rules.  I'm pretty sure there is no prohibition on them, though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I'm sure a blow to the temple isn't illegal not sure about throat. I was simply providing the other poster with examples of areas that "could" potentially kill somebody if struck hard enough. You have to be mindful of a strike to the throat in any instance


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> Throat strikes are very hard to pull off. The throat is a very small target, and its difficult to hit. This is especially true if someone is tagging you in the face. Conversely if you're on top of someone and is dropping elbows on your face, and then happen to drop an elbow on your throat, it could very likely kill you. The downward momentum, and your head on the canvas or ground can easily cause lethal damage, and that's why it's probably  banned.
> 
> However, I'm curious; Do you feel that a lot of MAs can't compete because they don't allow throat strikes, biting, hair pulls and groin taps in competition?



The throat is one of the easiest targets to hit when at close range......I don't quite understand your comment about MA's not competing. The large majority of guys who compete in the UFC have multiple backgrounds in several martial arts.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Without getting involved in the debate...

UFC Rules

Section 15 defines fouls and includes:



> Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> well to me there is nothing more "credible" than facing off and proving it.   I'm not even sure what you mean by 100's of arts and 1000's of Martial artists who didn't step up.
> 
> The point is the ones that did step up didn't produce.  I mean these are fighting arts we are talking about right?
> 
> this was the decade for martial artists to prove there style.  One rose to the top........and thus changed gave birth to another that has changed the face of martial arts for ever.


No! It has changed the face of 'Sport' martial arts and it is a little presumptive to say 'for ever'.


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> It's the Internet so you never know who might actually drop in.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



True, I used to frequent a forum that Jason Delucia would always post on.  Now there is a guy who put his art to the test!


----------



## SENC-33

lklawson said:


> I've known more than a few BJJ guys who have had "real, in the street" fights.  One of my friends in Australia, famous for being one of the guys to answer the Yellow Bamboo challenge, has on two separate occasions, been assaulted "on the street."  One instance this is a literal statement.  Exited cars.  He choked the attacker out and threw his car keys into the bushes.
> 
> If your criteria is "works in an 'actual' life threatening street encounter" then BJJ has already delivered.  End of story.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Pepper spray and GUN fu work in the street too but that isn't the point. BJJ will work in the street I'm sure but does it's effectiveness hold up under most circumstances? You can get hurt badly by multiple attackers standing OR on the ground but you stand a better chance against 2, 3 or maybe more if your first inclination is to stay on your feet to begin with. In a one on one situation I could see a person choking somebody out then getting up and leaving but joint locks and arm bars in the street are a mythical joke unless you actually break the arm, elbow or what have you (most don't have the stomach) to do that. If somebody got me in an arm bar, I yell uncle and they let me go I would politely kick the person in the face.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> I'm still waiting for you to comment on the two bouts I asked you to watch!


What post #?  I would like to watch the videos if you don't mind.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Speaking if "proof", no disrespect but you I fact do NOT "know" anyone who could "kill someone instantly",  especially if they never, ever, ever have.  Honestly man, especially if they have never been in one single fight.   I just don't get that kind of blind faith or belief in something so silly.


When I was a lot younger I knew guys who were Commandos in WWII, later Special Forces Guys from Vietnam and the Middle East. They did a bit of that sort of stuff. From memory I can't recall any of them talking about 'submitting' their enemies.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> No! It has changed the face of 'Sport' martial arts and it is a little presumptive to say 'for ever'.


Ha, ok maybe not forever........  What is this "sport martial arts" you speak of?   Did the Gracie's not fight on the streets and beaches of Brazil and in any and all dojo's they could before bringing the challenge to PPV?

there were literally NO RULES in the early UFC's.    "Sport" my ***!!!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TFP said:


> "Sport" my ***!!!!



Agree with you 100% on this. In just 3 words, you have said everything that I have tried to say all these years. When "your fist meets your opponent's face", the word combat, self-defense, or sport will have no difference at all. 

There is no difference between "help someone to go to heaven" and "killing".


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> When I was a lot younger I knew guys who were Commandos in WWII, later Special Forces Guys from Vietnam and the Middle East. They did a bit of that sort of stuff. From memory I can't recall any of them talking about 'submitting' their enemies.


Yeah the first guy I learned how to fight from was a Vietnam Vet who was a "smoker" for a bar on the West Coast before joining..... And no, there are absolutely no magic "death" punches, sorry.

lol, didn't tap anyone out during a war huh!?  We'll that settles it then.......  Jeez you people are silly.   You don't think anyone in those wars took prisoners using hand to hand combat ?


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have not yet met any "anti striking" guys (I'm sure there may have some over the Judo forum), but I have met a lot of "anti grappling" guys in person. Why? Should we say that grapplers may have more open mind than the strikers?


Why would there be any 'anti grappling' guys at all. I certainly have never come across anyone of that view.


----------



## SENC-33

TFP said:


> Yeah the first guy I learned how to fight from was a Vietnam Vet who was a "smoker" for a bar on the West Coast before joining..... And no, there are absolutely no magic "death" punches, sorry.
> 
> lol, didn't tap anyone out during a war huh!?  We'll that settles it then.......  Jeez you people are silly.   You don't think anyone in those wars took prisoners using hand to hand combat ?



Nothing magical about an extreme strike to the throat. It CAN kill you period.....


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> The throat is one of the easiest targets to hit when at close range......I don't quite understand your comment about MA's not competing. The large majority of guys who compete in the UFC have multiple backgrounds in several martial arts.



Well yes, but I'd like to see individuals from more diverse disciplines enter the MMA arena. For example, one of those 15th dan Ninjutsu exponents from the Bujinkan, or an Aikido stylist. Someone from those arts doing well in the UFC would go a long towards legitimizing their art among a lot of people.


----------



## K-man

SENC-33 said:


> I'm sure a blow to the temple isn't illegal not sure about throat. I was simply providing the other poster with examples of areas that "could" potentially kill somebody if struck hard enough. You have to be mindful of a strike to the throat in any instance


Rules for the neck area;

Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
Strikes to the spine or back of the head 

Temple area is ok.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> Why would there be any 'anti grappling' guys at all. I certainly have never come across anyone of that view.



I have many striker friends. They don't mind to spar with me. When I asked them to wrestle with me, or include throwing in sparring by using Sanda/Sanshou rules, they all shied away. I believe that they might not like their body to hit to the ground. May be they don't have confidence in their "break fall". I assume if you can catch your opponent's kicking leg and sweep/hook his standing leg, the fall can be very uncomfortable.

http://imageshack.com/a/img15/2355/innerblock.jpg


----------



## K-man

Dirty Dog said:


> Without getting involved in the debate...
> 
> UFC Rules
> 
> Section 15 defines fouls and includes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I posted before I read your response.
Click to expand...


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> Well yes, but I'd like to see individuals from more diverse disciplines enter the MMA arena. For example, one of those 15th dan Ninjutsu exponents from the Bujinkan, or an Aikido stylist. Someone from those arts doing well in the UFC would go a long towards legitimizing their art among a lot of people.



For some reason you can't seem to grasp that most people don't need their martial art, self defense system or whatever legitimized at all........If you study kung fu your entire life and never lay a finger on another human being are you somehow less of a martial artist? I don't think so......I don't work the door or bounce anymore but I do still work large events and personal security. I hope I never have to lay a hand on another person the rest of my life. I respect UFC guys for the athletes they are and I enjoy watching them compete for pennies while Dana White gets rich but it's nothing more to me than entertainment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

SENC-33 said:


> If you study kung fu your entire life and never lay a finger on another human being ...



I assume when you say "another human being", you don't include your "training partners" because no MA can be trained "solo".

You have to "enjoy" fighting to be serious in MA training. Sometime I even feel like to pay someone $100 if that person is willing to spar/wrestle with me for 15 rounds. There is a very important element in MA training and that is "fun". When your opponent tried very hard to knock/take you down and failed, you will smile in your dreams for many nights. Even money won't be able to buy this kind of fun for you.


----------



## TFP

SENC-33 said:


> Nothing magical about an extreme strike to the throat. It CAN kill you period.....


Lol, the same with a punch to the back of the head or the side of the head, etc.   it sure could kill you, but that's different than the  " I know a guy who could kill you with one shot" B.S.

yes there are plenty of "dirty tactics" out there, and a lot work.   But anyone can utilize them, they arnt magical moves only known to certain martial arts that are to dangerous to use.


hell, I've used a fish book to counter a ball grab while in the clinch up against a car.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> What post #?  I would like to watch the videos if you don't mind.



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzdbyJnN_w



TFP said:


> Ha, ok maybe not forever........  What is this "sport martial arts" you speak of?   Did the Gracie's not fight on the streets and beaches of Brazil and in any and all dojo's they could before bringing the challenge to PPV?
> 
> there were literally NO RULES in the early UFC's.    "Sport" my ***!!!!



That's exactly my point! Thank you for reinforcing it. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% on this. In just 3 words, you have said everything that I have tried to say all these years. When "your fist meets your opponent's face", the word combat, self-defense, or sport will have no difference at all.
> 
> True, and the same when the point of the elbow strikes the spine ...  just that that is not going to happen in sport.
> 
> There is no difference between "help someone to go to heaven" and "killing".





TFP said:


> Yeah the first guy I learned how to fight from was a Vietnam Vet who was a "smoker" for a bar on the West Coast before joining..... And no, there are absolutely no magic "death" punches, sorry.
> 
> Actually there are, ( not magic) but let's not even bother with them at this time. Why the fixation on punches? The punches in karate and aikido are to me just a means of setting up your opponent for the more damaging techniques. I dispute the assumption that karate is a 'striking' art. It includes all aspects of fighting.
> 
> lol, didn't tap anyone out during a war huh!?  We'll that settles it then.......  Jeez you people are silly.   You don't think anyone in those wars took prisoners using hand to hand combat ?
> 
> Yep, that makes sense ... I think.


----------



## K-man

lklawson said:


> I've known more than a few BJJ guys who have had "real, in the street" fights.  One of my friends in Australia, famous for being one of the guys to answer the Yellow Bamboo challenge, has on two separate occasions, been assaulted "on the street."  One instance this is a literal statement.  Exited cars.  He choked the attacker out and threw his car keys into the bushes.
> 
> If your criteria is "works in an 'actual' life threatening street encounter" then BJJ has already delivered.  End of story.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


The truth is most martial arts will work in street fights. No one is questioning that. What gets me is the assertion that if you don't test your art in the sporting arena it is not as good as those who do.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> For some reason you can't seem to grasp that most people don't need their martial art, self defense system or whatever legitimized at all........If you study kung fu your entire life and never lay a finger on another human being are you somehow less of a martial artist? I don't think so......I don't work the door or bounce anymore but I do still work large events and personal security. I hope I never have to lay a hand on another person the rest of my life. I respect UFC guys for the athletes they are and I enjoy watching them compete for pennies while Dana White gets rich but it's nothing more to me than entertainment.



Well its a bit more complex than that. See, there's people out there studying Bjj just for the art, and nothing more. The difference is that there are also people who are purposely seeking to fight in MMA who go to Bjj gyms, or seek out prominent Bjj instructors to train them for bouts. Those individuals also avoid arts like Aikido, Ninjutsu, etc.

I can definitely believe that there are Ninjutsu, Systema, and Aikido stylists that have no desire to ever enter an arena and test their skills. However, there has to be some other people from those same styles who think differently. I think the fact that the entire population who do these styles refuse to ever fight in a NHB arena speaks volumes.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> The truth is most martial arts will work in street fights. No one is questioning that. What gets me is the assertion that if you don't test your art in the sporting arena it is not as good as those who do.


Hmm, that seems like 100% common sense to me.  Testing your art is a way of knowing better if it truly works than say, not testing it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> True, and the same when the point of the elbow strikes the spine ...  just that that is not going to happen in sport.



Even "sport guys" train "dirty tricks" too. It's used to deal with unfriendly challengers. 

In the following clip, a teacher tried to teach his student how to hurt his opponent's wrist in a pure "sport" environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtctDUks-W4&feature=youtu.be

In the following clip, a teacher tried to teach his student how to smash his elbow on his opponent's face when striking is not allowed in a pure "sport wrestling" environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiPXWQfnfjE&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have many striker friends. They don't mind to spar with me. When I asked them to wrestle with me, or include throwing in sparring by using Sanda/Sanshou rules, they all shied away. I believe that they might not like their body to hit to the ground. May be they don't have confidence in their "break fall". I assume if you can catch your opponent's kicking leg and sweep/hook his standing leg, the fall can be very uncomfortable.
> 
> http://imageshack.com/a/img15/2355/innerblock.jpg



That would be that comfort zone I discussed earlier. When I spar with friends who train in karate and other stand up styles, they dislike grappling and ground fighting. In more extreme examples, I've actually seen them freeze up, making for an easy take down or submission. Alternately, I can stall out and simply pin them, and they will flop around for several seconds tiring themselves out, making a choke or a submission easier to accomplish.

Pretty unsettling if you're depending on that to protect you in an altercation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> That would be that comfort zone I discussed earlier. When I spar with friends who train in karate and other stand up styles, they dislike grappling and ground fighting. In more extreme examples, I've actually seen them freeze up, making for an easy take down or submission. Alternately, I can stall out and simply pin them, and they will flop around for several seconds tiring themselves out, making a choke or a submission easier to accomplish.
> 
> Pretty unsettling if you're depending on that to protect you in an altercation.


When I had my commercial school, I had people walked into my school and challenged me with boxing rules or kickboxing rules. Before they challenged me, they even stated clearly that no throwing were allowed (there were no MMA back then so the term "grappling" was not used). It was funny that the challenger set up his challenge rules.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> The Gracie challenges. The first UFCs. Gene Lebelle beating boxers with ground subs. Fusen Ryu defeating the Kodakan.



Fusen ryu defeating the Kodokan. That would be one man in Fusen ryu who figured out butt scooting would negate the throwing tehcniques of judo. Ever wonder why there are no grappling techniques at all in the existing lines of Fusen ryu? Maybe because the story aint what you think it is.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> From memory you picked the video and it was not a great example of Systema training. The fact that you don't understand the principle they were training doesn't there is no principle and it isn't valid it isn't valid. And it doesn't have anything to do with speed. It is designed for a couple of things. Firstly Systema training is designed to make the practitioner comfortable if he goes to the ground and in that clip they are starting to experiment with angles and points that control body movement. How dare you say principles of another martial art don't work when you haven't the first bit of understanding of that system.
> 
> One of the principles of a Systema is that it is designed to work in chaos. It is designed to be effective against multiple attackers and the training in the first video and this one leads up to being on the ground with a number of attackers on their feet. For me to start posting Systema ground fighting videos would totally hijack the thread as Systema is neither sport nor TMA. A sport is conducted in a controlled environment with controlled conditions.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eyQny5Amv0E&desktop_uri=/watch?v=eyQny5Amv0E




I'm sorry K-man, but that video was actually worse than the videos I posted.

If you buy that as legit, more power to you. I simply don't see how you can consider that training when people aren't even making contact with each other to see if they have the necessary power and leverage to make that technique work. 

How would you even be able to train those techniques at 100% or even 75% power without hurting your partner? You would have to actually hit your partner as hard as you can to generate the necessary force to knock a standing target flat on their back while you're on your knees.


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume when you say "another human being", you don't include your "training partners" because no MA can be trained "solo".
> 
> You have to "enjoy" fighting to be serious in MA training. Sometime I even feel like to pay someone $100 if that person is willing to spar/wrestle with me for 15 rounds. There is a very important element in MA training and that is "fun". When your opponent tried very hard to knock/take you down and failed, you will smile in your dreams for many nights. Even money won't be able to buy this kind of fun for you.


1st sign me up $100 for 15 min Im in.


As to your "fun" and dreaming about it at night nonsense. Yeah well that's the language of a guy that's never been in a real life or death fight.  Thsy are not fun its frighting as hell.  And something you don't want to do again if you can help it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I'm sorry K-man, but that video was actually worse than the videos I posted.
> 
> If you buy that as legit, more power to you. I simply don't see how you can consider that training when people aren't even making contact with each other to see if they have the necessary power and leverage to make that technique work.
> 
> How would you even be able to train those techniques at 100% or even 75% power without hurting your partner? You would have to actually hit your partner as hard as you can to generate the necessary force to knock a standing target flat on their back while you're on your knees.


Why do you need to go 100%?  There are plenty of "UFC Evidence". Since that's all you guys seem to think is valid that a punch to the liver will drop you.  I don't need to test it my self to know it works.  I carry a gun with me at all times I don't need to shoot someone to know it works.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Why do you need to go 100%?  There are plenty of "UFC Evidence". Since that's all you guys seem to think is valid that a punch to the liver will drop you.  I don't need to test it my self to know it works.  I carry a gun with me at all times I don't need to shoot someone to know it works.



Whether or not you can successfully mad reliably execute a technique has little to do with my ability to execute a technique.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I had my commercial school, I had people walked into my school and challenged me with boxing rules or kickboxing rules. Before they challenged me, they even stated clearly that no throwing were allowed (there were no MMA back then so the term "grappling" was not used). It was funny that the challenger set up his challenge rules.


Where do you live?  I've never seen that happen to anyone I know around here.  Closest I've ever seen was a mutual fight between two guys that ran dojo's in same town.  Thatbwasnt a challenge they just hates each other and got into a fight.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Whether or not you can successfully mad reliably execute a technique has little to do with my ability to execute a technique.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



If I can hit you at 50% I can hit you at 75% or 100%,  I don't need to hit my training partners at 100% to know it works.    Last night I had to arrest a friend and coworker.  He became combative and I needed to strike him.  I held back and hit him about 50% to give him a message.  I could have hit him at 100% and hurt him but I didn't need to.  Not every encounter requires full on destruction


----------



## K-man

SENC-33 said:


> In a one on one situation I could see a person choking somebody out then getting up and leaving but joint locks and arm bars in the street are a mythical joke unless you actually break the arm, elbow or what have you (most don't have the stomach) to do that. If somebody got me in an arm bar, I yell uncle and they let me go I would politely kick the person in the face.


Depends on the lock or hold you have in place. Most can transition into a takedown if you need to, then you have the normal options of stomping on the ankle etc.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well its a bit more complex than that. See, there's people out there studying Bjj just for the art, and nothing more. The difference is that there are also people who are purposely seeking to fight in MMA who go to Bjj gyms, or seek out prominent Bjj instructors to train them for bouts. Those individuals also avoid arts like Aikido, Ninjutsu, etc.
> 
> I can definitely believe that there are Ninjutsu, Systema, and Aikido stylists that have no desire to ever enter an arena and test their skills. However, there has to be some other people from those same styles who think differently. I think the fact that the entire population who do these styles refuse to ever fight in a NHB arena speaks volumes.


What part of your brain is missing? If people want to compete they train a style that enables them to compete. If they have no desire to compete they can train what ever takes their interest. So of course people who are "purposely seeking to fight in MMA" go to Bjj gyms, or seek out prominent Bjj instructors to train them for bouts. That is a no brainer.

Now that there are very few legal NHB arenas doesn't mean anything. Those early bouts were really disasters waiting to happen. Had there been a fatality or crippling injury the curtain would have come down. The truth is the organisers changed to rules to allow MMA to flourish and expand.

So I call you again for art bashing!


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Hmm, that seems like 100% common sense to me.  Testing your art is a way of knowing better if it truly works than say, not testing it.


OK! The main offensive technique I train and teach would be the elbow strike. That is the point of the elbow. The targets are normally the ribs under the arm, the side of the head and the spinal cord. Please tell me where I can test the effectiveness of that strike in competition. Probably the second most important strike I teach is the forearm strike to the back of the neck or side of the neck and jaw. We now start coming into the more legal techniques such as knees, knife hand and hammer fist. Punching is not a great part of what we do but in competition I would have to rely on it. I can believe those first techniques are effective, I don't have to test them on people. I can test them against pads or bags.

So you talk of testing your art. I would be only testing part of my art and I don't feel the need to do that.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even "sport guys" train "dirty tricks" too. It's used to deal with unfriendly challengers.
> 
> In the following clip, a teacher tried to teach his student how to hurt his opponent's wrist in a pure "sport" environment.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtctDUks-W4&feature=youtu.be
> 
> In the following clip, a teacher tried to teach his student how to smash his elbow on his opponent's face when striking is not allowed in a pure "sport wrestling" environment.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiPXWQfnfjE&feature=youtu.be


Sorry? What are you trying to show here? The first video shows a valid technique and the second one no one could see or understand unless it is being explained in the Chinese.

However, I'm not talking about 'dirty tricks'. In my training we don't use any dirty tricks. If you need to put fingers in the eyes to escape a choke, that is what you train, carefully. It is a valid technique, not a trick. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I had my commercial school, I had people walked into my school and challenged me with boxing rules or kickboxing rules. Before they challenged me, they even stated clearly that no throwing were allowed (there were no MMA back then so the term "grappling" was not used). It was funny that the challenger set up his challenge rules.


And of course, you obliged them?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Why do you need to go 100%?  There are plenty of "UFC Evidence". Since that's all you guys seem to think is valid that a punch to the liver will drop you.  I don't need to test it my self to know it works.  I carry a gun with me at all times I don't need to shoot someone to know it works.



You need to go 100% to see if what your doing actually works. I see a lot of crazy stuff in Bjj, and if I didn't see people pull off that crazy stuff in MMA and in competition, I wouldn't believe it works either. I believe it because I know that in MMA and tournaments, people are going all out to win.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm sorry K-man, but that video was actually worse than the videos I posted.
> 
> If you buy that as legit, more power to you. I simply don't see how you can consider that training when people aren't even making contact with each other to see if they have the necessary power and leverage to make that technique work.
> 
> As I said, you don't have the first idea of what you are talking about and you can't understand even when it is explained to you.
> 
> How would you even be able to train those techniques at 100% or even 75% power without hurting your partner?
> 
> Exactly, you can't. Which is why we do it slowly.
> 
> You would have to actually hit your partner as hard as you can to generate the necessary force to knock a standing target flat on their back while you're on your knees.
> 
> Not true at all but I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand.


Let's just say the principles are similar to BJJ. Depending on your level of understanding of course.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have many striker friends. They don't mind to spar with me. When I asked them to wrestle with me, or include throwing in sparring by using Sanda/Sanshou rules, they all shied away. I believe that they might not like their body to hit to the ground. May be they don't have confidence in their "break fall". I assume if you can catch your opponent's kicking leg and sweep/hook his standing leg, the fall can be very uncomfortable.
> 
> http://imageshack.com/a/img15/2355/innerblock.jpg


I can understand where they are coming from if they are from boxing and you have asked them to spar and then grapple according to rules. I wouldn't be too keen on that either as I wouldn't have the first clue as to what 'Sanda/Sanshou rules' are.  If we were lightly sparring and you said "ok, let's add some grappling into this", I wouldn't have a problem. I would be trusting you to demonstrate your art in a way that was appropriate to my level of understanding, not just choke me out.
 :asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> _Exactly, you can't. Which is why we do it slowly._


Are there any vids where you aren't doing it slowly?



> _Not true at all but I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand._



So you're saying that you can knock someone flat on their back at half their power from your knees with a slap or a punch? Okay.



> Let's just say the principles are similar to BJJ. Depending on your level of understanding of course.



That may be Systema's goals, but its coming up quite bit short in that video. Interestingly, the most effective looking Systema ground fighting that I've seen was the stuff that was clearly lifted straight from Bjj.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Are there any vids where you aren't doing it slowly?
> 
> What are you saying? First you say "how would you even be able to train those techniques at 100% or even 75% power without hurting your partner?", then you ask for a video of someone doing that. How logical is that?
> 
> So you're saying that you can knock someone flat on their back at half their power from your knees with a slap or a punch? Okay.
> 
> No, I'm saying that. There are points on the body you can use to move your opponent. It is a basic concept in RBSD and you train it in karate and aikido also. At your level of understanding you probably haven't come across that principle, although I am sure it would be in BJJ.
> 
> That may be Systema's goals, but its coming up quite bit short in that video.
> 
> Of course it is. I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way.
> 
> Interestingly, the most effective looking Systema ground fighting that I've seen was the stuff that was clearly lifted straight from Bjj.


It is more than possible some of the Systema moves come from BJJ although I suspect you may be taking a little too much credit. Systema is a recent martial art built around traditional Russian boxing but modified to include the best of the rest. Things like Muay Thai, Aikido and Karate figure far more than BJJ but certainly the escapes from the ground include BJJ techniques.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You need to go 100% to see if what your doing actually works. I see a lot of crazy stuff in Bjj, and if I didn't see people pull off that crazy stuff in MMA and in competition, I wouldn't believe it works either. I believe it because I know that in MMA and tournaments, people are going all out to win.



I need to go 100% to see if my fist against his head works?  Its been proven effective for 10000 years I'm not sure what's left to prove?  Look bjj is the new kid on the block they had to prove it worked because it was new and unknown.  People have been striking since the dawn of man.  Not much left to prove.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ballen0351 said:


> Where do you live?  I've never seen that happen to anyone I know around here.  Closest I've ever seen was a mutual fight between two guys that ran dojo's in same town.  Thatbwasnt a challenge they just hates each other and got into a fight.



Austin, Texas. That was in the 70th. I even had a guy who knocked on my front door and challenged me in my living room of my own house.


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Austin, Texas. That was in the 70th. I even had a guy who knocked on my front door and challenged me in my living room of my own house.


That's nuts he would of been looking down the barrel of a gun and told to get off my property.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> Sorry? What are you trying to show here? The first video shows a valid technique and the second one no one could see or understand unless it is being explained in the Chinese.
> 
> However, I'm not talking about 'dirty tricks'. In my training we don't use any dirty tricks. If you need to put fingers in the eyes to escape a choke, that is what you train, carefully. It is a valid technique, not a trick.
> :asian:


What you may call "self-defense", to a "sport" guy, he may call it "black hands (dirty trick)". I just used those 2 clips to show that "sport" guys also train for street situation as well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ballen0351 said:


> That's nuts he would of been looking down the barrel of a gun and told to get off my property.



Yes! In Texas, you are allow to shot someone when he is "inside of your house". Not sure that also apply to "inside of your MA school".


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yes! In Texas, you are allow to shot someone when he is "inside of your house". Not sure that also apply to "inside of your MA school".



Yeah I ment at my door.  The guy at my school would be invited to train with us.  If he insisted on fighting he would be told to leave and cops would be called


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> I can understand where they are coming from if they are from boxing and you have asked them to spar and then grapple according to rules. I wouldn't be too keen on that either as I wouldn't have the first clue as to what 'Sanda/Sanshou rules' are.  If we were lightly sparring and you said "ok, let's add some grappling into this", I wouldn't have a problem. I would be trusting you to demonstrate your art in a way that was appropriate to my level of understanding, not just choke me out.
> :asian:



Agree! We all have to trust our sparring/wrestling partners that they won't try to hurt us intentionally.

The 'Sanda/Sanshou rules' is kicking + punching + stand up throwing (knee is allowed but elbow is not, no ground game). Here is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh6KXEZyCDY&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> I need to go 100% to see if my fist against his head works?  Its been proven effective for 10000 years I'm not sure what's left to prove?  Look bjj is the new kid on the block they had to prove it worked because it was new and unknown.  People have been striking since the dawn of man.  Not much left to prove.



Im not talking about a fist to the head, I'm talking about being able to knock a guy down with a slap from kneeling position.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Im not talking about a fist to the head, I'm talking about being able to knock a guy down with a slap from kneeling position.



I don't know that's not my style.  I would assume if it were my style and I have faith in my style then it works.  Why do I need to prove to you anything about my style and why do you care what or how I train?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Im not talking about a fist to the head, I'm talking about being able to knock a guy down with a slap from kneeling position.


Ah! What you are discussing here is the reaction to the push which is a further part of the training which is learning to receive and not brace, very much like Aikido. To people like you with no knowledge, no understanding and no intention of understanding it probably just looks like a room full of drunks staggering about the place.  

And I bet you don't subscribe to Drunken Monkey Kung fu either.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I need to go 100% to see if my fist against his head works?  Its been proven effective for 10000 years I'm not sure what's left to prove?  Look bjj is the new kid on the block they had to prove it worked because it was new and unknown.  People have been striking since the dawn of man.  Not much left to prove.


BJJ is as old as any traditional martial art with roots as long and as deep.  Older than Aikido, Systema, TKD, Sambo, and Krav Maga, for what it's worth.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> BJJ is as old as any traditional martial art with roots as long and as deep.  Older than Aikido, Systema, TKD, Sambo, and Krav Maga, for what it's worth.



I'm speaking more of the Gracie's brand. When they went on this challange tour or more appropriate marketing campaign.  They were trying to sell the style.  It was brilliant job and made them rich.   But at the time BJJ was relatively unknown in the US.


----------



## Spinedoc

lklawson said:


> I've known more than a few BJJ guys who have had "real, in the street" fights.  One of my friends in Australia, famous for being one of the guys to answer the Yellow Bamboo challenge, has on two separate occasions, been assaulted "on the street."  One instance this is a literal statement.  Exited cars.  He choked the attacker out and threw his car keys into the bushes.
> 
> If your criteria is "works in an 'actual' life threatening street encounter" then BJJ has already delivered.  End of story.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Kirk, I never disparaged any specific art, I merely contemplated decision theory, and how it is illogical to conclude that because your art (x) is good in a sporting contest, that it is therefore good in a life or death conflict. By way of extension, it is also illogical to conclude that because your art (y) is NOT good in a sporting contest, that it is therefore not good in a real life or death conflict.

You can't make those conclusions. The situations are not the same, and therefore this sort of reasoning simply doesn't hold water. REGARDLESS of specific martial style or type of art....

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> :jaw-dropping:
> 
> 
> Mike this line of B.S. Has been used since the invention of the UFC by people not willing to step in and actually fight.  "Oh it's fake or oh it isn't real fighting", etc.
> 
> infact most notably by legendary WingTsun master Emin Boztepe's!  Did you know that the original UFC Super Fight" was not supposed to be Gracie vs Shamrock but actually Gracie vs Boztpese?  But of course when push came to shove, after excuse after excuse he never stepped up .
> 
> he was offered a spot in the second UFC after bad mouthing the Gracie's, then offered a challenge match at a dojo, then offered a Super Fight vs Royce at UFC even though all over fighters had to fight in the brackets like the rest.
> 
> Emin found a way to back out each and every time .:lol2:




Well, I'm sorry that you were unable to see what I read, for that I apologize. Please point to where I said that the UFC or MMA are "fake" or aren't "really fighting". What I said was that they are sporting contests, contested in a venue with a referee and with a specific set of rules in an attempt to win. 

This is similar to boxing, wrestling, etc. These are all contact sports, and they are all "real", however, they operate within a specific situation and context. To conclude that your fighting style, regardless of what it is, is therefore ideal for all situations. This is a textbook "argument from analogy" that falls apart. 

I have no knowledge of Boztepe's involvement. Personally, I was in a lot of fights when I was younger....

I learned one important lesson. Fighting is for people without peace, without control. No one, ever, ever wins a fight. 

YMMV.

Kindest Regards,

Mike


----------



## Spinedoc

K-man said:


> The truth is most martial arts will work in street fights. No one is questioning that. What gets me is the assertion that if you don't test your art in the sporting arena it is not as good as those who do.



Exactly. The logic simply does not hold up under scrutiny. If you want to use your martial art to compete in sporting events, by all means do so, enjoy it, take it for what it is and be proud of your accomplishments within that construct. 

But don't make the conclusions that A). Your techniques and skill within the martial arts sporting events will translate into real combat situations B). that competing in a martial art sporting event is equivalent to a real life combat situation or that C). any martial artist who does not participate in a sporting event is somehow a lesser combatant, or is not equipped for real life combat. 

Those are simply not valid conclusions. 

If you want to embrace the sporting side....by all means do so, live it, love it, walk it.

Personally, I have absolutely NO desire to do that. 

Kindest Regards,

Mike


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I'm speaking more of the Gracie's brand. When they went on this challange tour or more appropriate marketing campaign.  They were trying to sell the style.  It was brilliant job and made them rich.   But at the time BJJ was relatively unknown in the US.


Oswaldo Fadda and Luiz Franca guys do exist, but when you talk about Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, it's pretty much all Gracie brand and always has been.  While it was relatively unknown in the USA, it was still a thriving, fully developed art in Brazil.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Oswaldo Fadda and Luiz Franca guys do exist, but when you talk about Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, it's pretty much all Gracie brand and always has been.  While it was relatively unknown in the USA, it was still a thriving, fully developed art in Brazil.



Yeah that's what I'm saying.  That to me was the purpose of these challenges.  To get it in the US where it can turn a profit.  What better marketing then challenge matches.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Hmm, that seems like 100% common sense to me.  Testing your art is a way of knowing better if it truly works than say, not testing it.



The problem is that for something to be tested properly the test must be both valid and applicable to the situation you are testing it for. In some cases testing something improperly can be worse than not testing it at all.


----------



## Steve

Spinedoc said:


> Kirk, I never disparaged any specific art, I merely contemplated decision theory, and how it is illogical to conclude that because your art (x) is good in a sporting contest, that it is therefore good in a life or death conflict. By way of extension, it is also illogical to conclude that because your art (y) is NOT good in a sporting contest, that it is therefore not good in a real life or death conflict.
> 
> You can't make those conclusions. The situations are not the same, and therefore this sort of reasoning simply doesn't hold water. REGARDLESS of specific martial style or type of art....
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike



It is equally illogical to conclude that your art is good in a real life or death encounter because it is ill suited for sport.  Being bad for sport does not equal good otherwise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Yes.  Many times.   I've been involved in the martial arts fight business for many years in about every single compacity imaginable.   Plus many, many fights, bouncing, matches, etc.
> 
> but honestly, turning this about me personally instead of the topic which is martial arts as a whole is a lame defensive mechanism.
> 
> im not sure why the resistance to the idea that GJJ/BJJ proved to be a dominant art in style vs style match ups.



I was not trying to get personal, I was merely pointing out that the style vs style argument is invalid because it only represents a very small percentage of all the arts and martial artists out there and only those who chose to compete at that time. The step up comment you made appeared to be nothing more than macho posturing. Not wanting to compete does not equate to a lack of courage just a realization that not everything has to be a contest and not everyone needs to be validated by someone else.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah that's what I'm saying.  That to me was the purpose of these challenges.  To get it in the US where it can turn a profit.  What better marketing then challenge matches.



Movies are better.  Kung fu, karate, even aikido are well known in the USA largely due to Hollywood.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I think the fact that the entire population who do these styles refuse to ever fight in a NHB arena speaks volumes.



It may speak volumes but you are reading from the wrong book.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah that's what I'm saying.  That to me was the purpose of these challenges.  To get it in the US where it can turn a profit.  What better marketing then challenge matches.



It was the UFC, not the Gracie challenges that popularized Bjj. People were amazed that a small guy in a karate gi could take down wrestlers and strikers a lot larger than himself. 

That was all by design of course. The Gracies picked the smallest of their brothers to fight in the UFC to prove a point.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have to "enjoy" fighting to be serious in MA training.



No you don't, you have to enjoy training to be serious in MA training, fighting is another matter entirely. There is nothing fun about being forced to defend yourself. It should be the last thing you want to do, but you do it because because the alternative is less than pleasant. If you get into a fight you will either get hurt and/or you will have to hurt someone else and neither of those is fun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> No you don't, you have to enjoy training to be serious in MA training, fighting is another matter entirely. There is nothing fun about being forced to defend yourself. It should be the last thing you want to do, but you do it because because the alternative is less than pleasant. If you get into a fight you will either get hurt and/or you will have to hurt someone else and neither of those is fun.



There are many different levels of "fighting".

1. partner testing,
2. sport tournament,
3. friendly challenge,
4. unfriendly challenge,
5. street fight.

Nobody will get hurt in 1, 2, and 3. Some injury may occur in 4. Not all fights have to be "street fight" that you need to see blood.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Why? Comfort and Ego. In a lot of karate, TKD, kung fu, and even kickboxing schools, you can get by with minimal contact. Yeah, you can do sparring, but often its not heavy sparring. You also get to establish a comfort zone, because no one is going to significantly destroy your comfort zone in a class.
> 
> In a grappling dojo/school, its a completely different ballgame. Your comfort zone is instantly destroyed as someone grabs you forcibly and attempts to throw you, submit you, or pin you. You have big sweaty guys on top of you constantly. You get slammed to the mat constantly. You get choked constantly. For some people, its completely ego shattering, especially when you first start and think you're the baddest guy on the block. In my time, I've seen plenty of brawny guys enter my gym and leave and never return after they get schooled by a white belt.



On the other side of the coin I would be willing to bet that many people do grappling arts such as BJJ because they don't want to risk getting hit so it is more comfortable for them do do something they feel is safer instead of having people constantly punching and kicking at them. Royce Gracie himself stated during the early UFC's that he did not want to get hit. I too have seen ego get in the way of training, there was once a kickboxer that joined a class that I was in, we were practicing side kicks and I mentioned that he should have his rear hand up in a guarding position to defend against a counter strike, he stated that he did not need to because no one could get him there and then I showed him they could and he did not come back for another class.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> On the other side of the coin I would be willing to bet that many people do grappling arts such as BJJ because they don't want to risk getting hit so it is more comfortable for them do do something they feel is safer instead of having people constantly punching and kicking at them. Royce Gracie himself stated during the early UFC's that he did not want to get hit. I too have seen ego get in the way of training, there was once a kickboxer that joined a class that I was in, we were practicing side kicks and I mentioned that he should have his rear hand up in a guarding position to defend against a counter strike, he stated that he did not need to because no one could get him there and then I showed him they could and he did not come back for another class.



I don't like getting hit, but I've had more black eyes than I ever got studying a striking art.  Broke my nose once too, on an errant knee when I was a blue belt.

My point is that fear of contact isn't a real consideration.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Movies are better.  Kung fu, karate, even aikido are well known in the USA largely due to Hollywood.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


That and all the military personnel were stationed in Japan not Brazil


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> I don't like getting hit, but I've had more black eyes than I ever got studying a striking art.  Broke my nose once too, on an errant knee when I was a blue belt.
> 
> My point is that fear of contact isn't a real consideration.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



When I was a yellow belt I kneed myself in the face after getting thrown.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are many different levels of "fighting".
> 
> 1. partner testing,
> 2. sport tournament,
> 3. friendly challenge,
> 4. unfriendly challenge,
> 5. street fight.
> 
> Nobody will get hurt in 1, 2, and 3. Some injury may occur in 4. Not all fights have to be "street fight" that you need to see blood.



The main difference between fighting and self defence is one of choice, in 1-5 you fight because you want to (if by 5 you mean like, "lets take this outside") in self defence you fight because you have to because there was no other way at the time. 1, 2 and 3 can be fun, 3 and 4 not so much.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> OK! The main offensive technique I train and teach would be the elbow strike. That is the point of the elbow. The targets are normally the ribs under the arm, the side of the head and the spinal cord. Please tell me where I can test the effectiveness of that strike in competition. Probably the second most important strike I teach is the forearm strike to the back of the neck or side of the neck and jaw. We now start coming into the more legal techniques such as knees, knife hand and hammer fist. Punching is not a great part of what we do but in competition I would have to rely on it. I can believe those first techniques are effective, I don't have to test them on people. I can test them against pads or bags.
> 
> So you talk of testing your art. I would be only testing part of my art and I don't feel the need to do that.
> :asian:



this is a very fair question and a tough one to answer, but I have on. Umerous occasions went live with elbow strikes using elbow pads.  Of course you can take out some of the more damaging strikes while practicing your art.  (What is your art?). But I disagrees that you don't need to test the rest.   How do you plan on getting into position for these strikes?  And what are you going to do when these strikes don't finish your opponent/attacker?

I would question an art that is ineffective if one or two moves are taken out then it becomes ineffective.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> If I can hit you at 50% I can hit you at 75% or 100%,  I don't need to hit my training partners at 100% to know it works.    Last night I had to arrest a friend and coworker.  He became combative and I needed to strike him.  I held back and hit him about 50% to give him a message.  I could have hit him at 100% and hurt him but I didn't need to.  Not every encounter requires full on destruction



This makes sense  as long as those moves or strikes are effective.   Great post.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> I would assume if it were my style and I have faith in my style then it works.



man this is a dangerous philosophy.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> I would question an art that is ineffective if one or two moves are taken out then it becomes ineffective.



Its not that the art becomes ineffective by removing thing.  It is that by removing things its no longer that art.  Its something different.  If the core principles of your art are to get in close and do massive damage to sensitive body parts like the throat, eyes, groin, spine,  back of head,  and small joints and you say OK test your art but no groin and throat strikes and no small joint damage.  Well it's no longer my art I'm testing


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> man this is a dangerous philosophy.



Why if your style has a known history and lineage why wouldn't it work.  For example I train Goju I can trace it back to where it started I can trace its founders teachers.  I can see the history.  I can look at and try out different things and through my experience tell yeah that's good or no that wouldn't work.  I get real life feedback from other Goju guys that have used it in real life against real attackers.  Its not blind faith but its faith none the less.


----------



## TFP

Here are my thoughts on why you should train 100% or live a lot if you are doing a martial art for self defense.......

im im not convinced that Gracie JJ as a fighting art was all that superior at first.  My thoughts are that GJJ was a great art, but that the Gracie's just trained to actually fight!!!  They fought each other over and over since birth and then went out and challenged  a bunch of Martial Arts that hadn't been based in actual fighting for along time.   They trained in the philosophy of fighting and there art was about attrition which was totally foreign to self defense and martial arts at the time.


Thats the rub, actual fighting is different than role playing.  I feel like that is why Kieth Hackney gave Royce so much trouble in there fight.  Hackney was a fighter who tested himself by actually fighting!!!

imo, if you take the average Blue belt in BJJ who has never been in an actual fight and put him in a fight with a tough street fighter and I think the average BJJ blue belt is in a lot of trouble.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> I'm speaking more of the Gracie's brand. When they went on this challange tour or more appropriate marketing campaign.  They were trying to sell the style.  It was brilliant job and made them rich.   But at the time BJJ was relatively unknown in the US.



You forgot about the part where it blew the doors off the martial arts world and literally picked it up and dumped it on its head!


----------



## Spinedoc

Steve said:


> It is equally illogical to conclude that your art is good in a real life or death encounter because it is ill suited for sport.  Being bad for sport does not equal good otherwise.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Never said that it did! The point is that the situations are different and it's a false equivalency. The only way to ever know is to be in a real life or death encounter!

Mike


----------



## TFP

Spinedoc said:


> Well, I'm sorry that you were unable to see what I read, for that I apologize. Please point to where I said that the UFC or MMA are "fake" or aren't "really fighting". What I said was that they are sporting contests, contested in a venue with a referee and with a specific set of rules in an attempt to win.
> 
> This is similar to boxing, wrestling, etc. These are all contact sports, and they are all "real", however, they operate within a specific situation and context. To conclude that your fighting style, regardless of what it is, is therefore ideal for all situations. This is a textbook "argument from analogy" that falls apart.
> 
> I have no knowledge of Boztepe's involvement. Personally, I was in a lot of fights when I was younger....
> 
> I learned one important lesson. Fighting is for people without peace, without control. No one, ever, ever wins a fight.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> 
> Mike




You keep bringing up this "rules and sporting contest" as your argument....... And you keep ignoring the fact that the Gracie Challenges, early Vale Tudo and early UFC's HAD NO RULES!!!!!!!!!!

GJJ was proven in a ruleless combat situation.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Here are my thoughts on why you should train 100% or live a lot if you are doing a martial art for self defense.......
> 
> im im not convinced that Gracie JJ as a fighting art was all that superior at first.  My thoughts are that GJJ was a great art, but that the Gracie's just trained to actually fight!!!  They fought each other over and over since birth and then went out and challenged  a bunch of Martial Arts that hadn't been based in actual fighting for along time.   They trained in the philosophy of fighting and there art was about attrition which was totally foreign to self defense and martial arts at the time.
> 
> 
> Thats the rub, actual fighting is different than role playing.  I feel like that is why Kieth Hackney gave Royce so much trouble in there fight.  Hackney was a fighter who tested himself by actually fighting!!!
> 
> imo, if you take the average Blue belt in BJJ who has never been in an actual fight and put him in a fight with a tough street fighter and I think the average BJJ blue belt is in a lot of trouble.


Your not giving enough credit to just natural ability as well.  Maybe Gracie won because he's just that good.  Look at the guys in the UFC that are good but never become champs.  Do they not train to fight hard?  They just don't have the natural god given ability as others like GSP.  Sometimes guys are just better then everyone else.  That's why there are only 3 or 4 elite QBs in the NFL I'm sure all 32 teams QBs train hard to be good but in the end natural ablilty wins out.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah that's what I'm saying.  That to me was the purpose of these challenges.  To get it in the US where it can turn a profit.  What better marketing then challenge matches.



That marketing doesn't work unless you're winning.:hmm:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> You forgot about the part where it blew the doors off the martial arts world and literally picked it up and dumped it on its head!



That's your opinion my friend.  They sure did a great job selling DVDs and Gracie brand Gis though I'll give them that.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> That marketing doesn't work unless you're winning.:hmm:



Of course.  Goes back to natural ability and some times some guys are just better no matter what.  But to try to say well that proves BJJ is the best and "blew the doors off". Well that's your opinion.  Its hardly dominating by itself anymore.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> I was not trying to get personal, I was merely pointing out that the style vs style argument is invalid because it only represents a very small percentage of all the arts and martial artists out there and only those who chose to compete at that time. The step up comment you made appeared to be nothing more than macho posturing. Not wanting to compete does not equate to a lack of courage just a realization that not everything has to be a contest and not everyone needs to be validated by someone else.




Yes I understand your point and agree 100% that the martial arts are and should be about more than just fighting.  But in this context, when people say or said "Gracie JJ" doesn't work or say "oh I can't fight you because I would just kill you with one of my four lethal death strikes", then it indeed becomes "Macho".  The Gracie's put the challenge out and some people stepped up and fought, some people said there art was better but didn't step up and fight and some said we arn't really about fighting..... It's the middle guys that are the problem.

of course the Gracie's were bullies who often times forcefully challenged dojo's and arts that didn't want to compete, but overall Gracie JJ challenged the martial arts world to see who's fighting style was better and they won.   Remember the martial arts first and foremost is about combat!


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> It was the UFC, not the Gracie challenges that popularized Bjj. People were amazed that a small guy in a karate gi could take down wrestlers and strikers a lot larger than himself.
> 
> That was all by design of course. The Gracies picked the smallest of their brothers to fight in the UFC to prove a point.


Ha!  The Gracie's picked the smallest brother because he was who was left after the biggest, baddest brother had a falling out with Rorion over teaching private lessons outside the academy for money.:wink:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Yes I understand your point and agree 100% that the martial arts are and should be about more than just fighting.  But in this context, when people say or said "Gracie JJ" doesn't work or say "oh I can't fight you because I would just kill you with one of my four lethal death strikes", then it indeed becomes "Macho".  The Gracie's put the challenge out and some people stepped up and fought, some people said there art was better but didn't step up and fight and some said we arn't really about fighting..... It's the middle guys that are the problem.
> 
> of course the Gracie's were bullies who often times forcefully challenged dojo's and arts that didn't want to compete, but overall Gracie JJ challenged the martial arts world to see who's fighting style was better and they won.   Remember the martial arts first and foremost is about combat!


No the Gracie's didn't challenge the martial arts world.  That challenged individual fighters.  I train Goju if I lost dose that mean Goju lost or I lost?  Maybe I'm just not that good at Goju.  Maybe I had a bad day.  

Nobody has said GJJ wasn't effective but this attitude of GJJ is king all else is sub par is just nonsense.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> That's your opinion my friend.  They sure did a great job selling DVDs and Gracie brand Gis though I'll give them that.


And your opinion is what?  They didn't shake up the traditional martial arts world by putting out a challenge to the whole martial arts world and then backing it up?   Can you give an example of the Gracie's turning down a challenge?

yes they marketed well and sold a lot of DVD's, but there marketing was rooted in proof and truth!!!  They couldn't of marketed that well if they hadn't first gone out and actually fought and beat other martial arts on a wide scale.    Again you ignore this huge part of it!


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> No the Gracie's didn't challenge the martial arts world.  That challenged individual fighters.  I train Goju if I lost dose that mean Goju lost or I lost?  Maybe I'm just not that good at Goju.  Maybe I had a bad day.
> 
> Nobody has said GJJ wasn't effective but this attitude of GJJ is king all else is sub par is just nonsense.




Lol, yes they did!  They spent a lifetime literally challenging the martial arts world!!!!  LITERALLY!!!!!  They put a loud and obvious challenge out to the whole martial arts world and they won.  Period!!!  Which art stepped up and proved that GJJ wasn't the superior art?


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Your not giving enough credit to just natural ability as well.  Maybe Gracie won because he's just that good.  Look at the guys in the UFC that are good but never become champs.  Do they not train to fight hard?  They just don't have the natural god given ability as others like GSP.  Sometimes guys are just better then everyone else.  That's why there are only 3 or 4 elite QBs in the NFL I'm sure all 32 teams QBs train hard to be good but in the end natural ablilty wins out.



Are you talking about the Gracie Challenges here or the street fighter vs the average blue belt?


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Its not that the art becomes ineffective by removing thing.  It is that by removing things its no longer that art.  Its something different.  If the core principles of your art are to get in close and do massive damage to sensitive body parts like the throat, eyes, groin, spine,  back of head,  and small joints and you say OK test your art but no groin and throat strikes and no small joint damage.  Well it's no longer my art I'm testing



This is tough to argue against......


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Why if your style has a known history and lineage why wouldn't it work.  For example I train Goju I can trace it back to where it started I can trace its founders teachers.  I can see the history.  I can look at and try out different things and through my experience tell yeah that's good or no that wouldn't work.  I get real life feedback from other Goju guys that have used it in real life against real attackers.  Its not blind faith but its faith none the less.



I guess my issue is in the "trying out and seeing what works".  Because I feel if you arnt really trying it out, then it's just theory.  Who is the toughest Goju fighter you know of?  Is there a place that Goju artists can really test there skills?  Or is it been so long since the art has truly been tested.

i don't know a lot. (Anything) about Goju but I will look it up for sure!


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> And your opinion is what?  They didn't shake up the traditional martial arts world by putting out a challenge to the whole martial arts world and then backing it up?   Can you give an example of the Gracie's turning down a challenge?
> yes they marketed well and sold a lot of DVD's, but there marketing was rooted in proof and truth!!!  They couldn't of marketed that well if they hadn't first gone out and actually fought and beat other martial arts on a wide scale.    Again you ignore this huge part of it!


No they didn't shake up the traditional martial arts world.  They shook up the sports world and not even a big part of the sports world just that small part.  Traditional Goju is bigger and more wide spread then ever.  Organizations like the IOGKF and Jundokan are world wide with millions of members.  Gracie's had no effect on them.  TKD and Judo are still Olympic sports with millions of followers world wide.  I'm glad you like your sport hell I train BJJ a few times a month I like it.  I think its fun and a great workout.  But your letting your fandom of your sport cloud your objectiveness.  It had a huge impact on YOUR world because you enjoy it.  It has no effect on MY world at all.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> I guess my issue is in the "trying out and seeing what works".  Because I feel if you arnt really trying it out, then it's just theory.  Who is the toughest Goju fighter you know of?  Is there a place that Goju artists can really test there skills?  Or is it been so long since the art has truly been tested.
> 
> i don't know a lot. (Anything) about Goju but I will look it up for sure!



Well I know I'm a cop for almost 15 years and have used it and it works for me.    I know of other cops that have used it and it works for them.  There are 7 cops just in my dojo.  I know of a man that used a bunkai from one of our kata to disarm a man with a knife at his hospital security guard job.  I know an undercover NYPD narc detective that used it to disarm a thug that had a gun that was trying to rob him and it worked.  These are all REAL world not on a padded mat in a nice one on one cell with a ref to keep you safe.  It is what it is.  I have nothing to prove I could care less if you like Goju or think it works.  The only ones I see trying to prove how tough their sport is would be you guys.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Of course.  Goes back to natural ability and some times some guys are just better no matter what.  But to try to say well that proves BJJ is the best and "blew the doors off". Well that's your opinion.  Its hardly dominating by itself anymore.



So the Gracie's Royce (170lbs) Royler (145lbs) Renzo (155lbs) Rickson (185lbs), Carlson (140lbs) George (130 lbs) Helio (150 lbs) all these guys had better "natural ability" than other guys in martial arts?!?!?!?

come on man!  GJJ has a loooooong history of fighting and winning.

what better way to prove it then by giving an open challenge and taking on all comers?

i feel your head is in the sand in regards to what GJJ did for martial arts.  See that's the thing, it isn't an opinion or theory anymore, that's what the martial arts world had before the Gracie's.  Now we have actual facts instead of posturing, hyperbole and stories........


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Are you talking about the Gracie Challenges here or the street fighter vs the average blue belt?



I'm talking about the Gracie's. You keep telling me how the graices kicked everyones butts because of GJJ.  Maybe they kicked everyone's butt because they are just that good.  Some family's have something special.  Like the manning family in football how many people have 1 son that's a starting QB in the NFL and won a super bowl?  Well the manning DNA has 2 so far.  Maybe the gracies have that and had they took up boxing they would all be world champ boxers or judo or tkd gold medal winners.  They just have that it factor.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Lol, yes they did!  They spent a lifetime literally challenging the martial arts world!!!!  LITERALLY!!!!!  They put a loud and obvious challenge out to the whole martial arts world and they won.  Period!!!  Which art stepped up and proved that GJJ wasn't the superior art?


LOL. OK if you say so.  You can't challenge an art only an artist.  All they proved was on that day they were better then that guy.  You see what you want to see your a fan its cool.  When I look at my favorite sports teams I feel the same way.  That's what being a fan is all about.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> No they didn't shake up the traditional martial arts world.  They shook up the sports world and not even a big part of the sports world just that small part.  Traditional Goju is bigger and more wide spread then ever.  Organizations like the IOGKF and Jundokan are world wide with millions of members.  Gracie's had no effect on them.  TKD and Judo are still Olympic sports with millions of followers world wide.  I'm glad you like your sport hell I train BJJ a few times a month I like it.  I think its fun and a great workout.  But your letting your fandom of your sport cloud your objectiveness.  It had a huge impact on YOUR world because you enjoy it.  It has no effect on MY world at all.



Of course it had a huge effect on the martial arts world, martial arts is forever changed because of what the Gracie's did.  Hell, it spawned not one, but two new martial arts that are the fastest growing (BJJ & MMA).   The MMA side has only really been taking form and shape for 15yrs.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Well I know I'm a cop for almost 15 years and have used it and it works for me.    I know of other cops that have used it and it works for them.  There are 7 cops just in my dojo.  I know of a man that used a bunkai from one of our kata to disarm a man with a knife at his hospital security guard job.  I know an undercover NYPD narc detective that used it to disarm a thug that had a gun that was trying to rob him and it worked.  These are all REAL world not on a padded mat in a nice one on one cell with a ref to keep you safe.  It is what it is.  I have nothing to prove I could care less if you like Goju or think it works.  The only ones I see trying to prove how tough their sport is would be you guys.



Thats awesome!   I'm not trying to say other martial arts are not effective, I'm just weary of arts that don't have real world applicability.   Why would you care less if I like Goju after looking it up?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> That's your opinion my friend.  They sure did a great job selling DVDs and Gracie brand Gis though I'll give them that.



Well it's an opinion backed by a lot of evidence.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Can you give an example of the Gracie's turning down a challenge?!



Gene Labelle and Benny the Jet Urquidez.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Thats awesome!   I'm not trying to say other martial arts are not effective, I'm just weary of arts that don't have real world applicability.   Why would you care less if I like Goju after looking it up?



Because I don't train for you to Care. If you like it awesome if you don't awesome.  Im ok either way.  I don't need to prove anything to anyone.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> LOL. OK if you say so.  You can't challenge an art only an artist.  All they proved was on that day they were better then that guy.  You see what you want to see your a fan its cool.  When I look at my favorite sports teams I feel the same way.  That's what being a fan is all about.



Of course :fanboy: just a fanboy.   The way I see it is the Gracie's put out a loud and boisterous challenge to everyone martial artist that GJJ was better than there art and no one was able to use there combat art to prove otherwise.  

If that isn't challenging an art than I don't know what is.   They didn't say hey ballen0351 we challenge you,  they said we challenge you and anyone from your art.   Big difference there.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Of course it had a huge effect on the martial arts world, martial arts is forever changed because of what the Gracie's did.  Hell, it spawned not one, but two new martial arts that are the fastest growing (BJJ & MMA).   The MMA side has only really been taking form and shape for 15yrs.



Yes it had an influence on the sport world.  And MMA was only started because GJJ started showing its weaknesses 
They started adding other arts to make up the weakness of GJJ.  There is nothing wrong with it.  No art is perfect.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> You keep bringing up this "rules and sporting contest" as your argument....... And you keep ignoring the fact that the Gracie Challenges, early Vale Tudo and early UFC's HAD NO RULES!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> GJJ was proven in a ruleless combat situation.



Vale Tudo had rules.

http://mmaswiss.blogspot.com.au/p/history-of-vale-tudomma_3969.html

And according to this:

http://www.valetudo.com.br/estatisticas.htm

The style with the most defeats was Jiujitsu.


----------



## ballen0351

[QUote;16117]Of co :fanboy: just a fanboy.   The way I see it is the Gracie's put out a loud and boisterous challenge to everyone martial artist that GJJ was better than there art and no one was able to use there combat art to prove otherwise.  

[/quote]

The following men beat a Gracie 

Masahiko Kimura
Frank Shamrock
Melvin Manhoef
Akihiro Gono
Allan Goes
Kazuhiro Nakamura
Takanori Gomi
B.J. Penn
Carlos Newton
Shungo Oyama
Dan Henderson

Kiyoshi Tamura
Dustin Hezelett
Shungo Oyama
B.J. Penn
Matt Hughes

Harold Howard.<---- Goju black belt
Hideo Tokoro
Norifumi Yakamoto
Genki Sudo

Tokimitsu Ishizawa
Kazushi Sakuraba  AKA the Gracie Hunter





> If that isn't challenging an art than I don't know what is.   They didn't say hey ballen0351 we challenge you,  they said we challenge you and anyone from your art.   Big difference there.


At that time there were still legends of Okinawian karate still alive and well during yhe early parts of this did any Gracie take a trip to the Island and lay down this challenge to them?  You want to prove something go to the source of the art.


----------



## ballen0351

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you.  There is nothing wrong with BJJ its a great art I like it I train in it some.  I personally like other arts better.  There is no superior art only superior fighters.  You believe GJJ is the best great its your opinion.  At the end of the day it's all opinions.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Well it's an opinion backed by a lot of evidence.



It's an opinion backed up by a lot of poorly gathered, intensely biased and rather misinterpreted evidence.


----------



## ballen0351

I will also say last night was the first time I ever saw anyone use BJJ in a street fight.  It worked great up until the guy getting choked outs friend punched the BJJ guy in the side of the head and dropped him.  Bjj guy did and awesome clinch spun around behind a much bigger guy and got him in a standing choke from behind.  Dude was goinging lights out.  Until the friend stepped in.  bJJ guy needed stitches and the friend that hit him went to jail.  bJJ guy was a purple belt and his standing work was really good I seriously was impressed.  Dude would have been out cold in like 2 more seconds if the friend didn't stop it.  It was fast too I was on one side of the street.  From the time it started to the BJJ guy flipping around and sinking the choke I had only walked half way across the street.  Dude sucker punched him just as I got there .    In almost 15 years that's the first time I've seen a choke like that slapped on and be effective


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Gene Labelle and Benny the Jet Urquidez.


Benny the jet huh.........

http://books.google.com/books?id=GN...cd=1#v=onepage&q=benny the Jet Rorion&f=false


as far Gene goes ( I love Gene and already mentioned him
in this thread) the Gracies challenged him and he he laughed and said he would fight Helio since they were closer in age.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> It's an opinion backed up by a lot of poorly gathered, intensely biased and rather misinterpreted evidence.



I don't see how you could even attempt to make that argument. All you need to do is look at Bjj's growth over the last 20 years, and the number of sport and traditional martial arts around the world that actively incorporate Bjj into their systems. This includes Ninjutsu, Krav, and Systema.

One of the most lucrative jobs in MA today is to be a Bjj black belt. My brother is a purple belt and he gets constant offers to teach at Universities, schools, MMA gyms, and traditional MA schools.


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> You keep bringing up this "rules and sporting contest" as your argument....... And you keep ignoring the fact that the Gracie Challenges, early Vale Tudo and early UFC's HAD NO RULES!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> GJJ was proven in a ruleless combat situation.



No rules????? You mean you could kill someone? There was no one to break up the fight? Wow. You watched a different event than I did. 

I still maintain that there is philosophically no difference between the UFC and the NFL. Same concept, different sport. By way of comparison, the early professional footballers had no rules either....did that mean that it wasn't a sport?

YMMV

Mike


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> No rules????? You mean you could kill someone? There was no one to break up the fight? Wow. You watched a different event than I did.
> 
> I still maintain that there is philosophically no difference between the UFC and the NFL. Same concept, different sport. By way of comparison, the early professional footballers had no rules either....did that mean that it wasn't a sport?
> 
> YMMV
> 
> Mike



Its important to note that an NFL player could beat the tar out of quite a few martial art experts out there.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> [QUote;16117]Of co :fanboy: just a fanboy.   The way I see it is the Gracie's put out a loud and boisterous challenge to everyone martial artist that GJJ was better than there art and no one was able to use there combat art to prove otherwise.



The following men beat a Gracie 

Masahiko Kimura
Frank Shamrock
Melvin Manhoef
Akihiro Gono
Allan Goes
Kazuhiro Nakamura
Takanori Gomi
B.J. Penn
Carlos Newton
Shungo Oyama
Dan Henderson

Kiyoshi Tamura
Dustin Hezelett
Shungo Oyama
B.J. Penn
Matt Hughes

Harold Howard.<---- Goju black belt
Hideo Tokoro
Norifumi Yakamoto
Genki Sudo

Tokimitsu Ishizawa
Kazushi Sakuraba  AKA the Gracie Hunter




At that time there were still legends of Okinawian karate still alive and well during yhe early parts of this did any Gracie take a trip to the Island and lay down this challenge to them?  You want to prove something go to the source of the art.[/QUOTE]

Almost every name on that list is from the modern MMA world, not style vs style.  Of course your guy Harold had a real tough, we'll earned victory over Royce Gracie.   "If you're coming on......then come on!!!"


----------



## TFP

Spinedoc said:


> No rules????? You mean you could kill someone? There was no one to break up the fight? Wow. You watched a different event than I did.
> 
> I still maintain that there is philosophically no difference between the UFC and the NFL. Same concept, different sport. By way of comparison, the early professional footballers had no rules either....did that mean that it wasn't a sport?
> 
> YMMV
> 
> Mike


I'm not sure how else to say it except that there were literally no rules.  The ref was not to interfere unless the corner thru in the towel, a fighter gave up or was knocked unconcious.   If that is what you are grasping at as "rules" than you are being childish.


----------



## jks9199

TFP said:


> Thats awesome!   I'm not trying to say other martial arts are not effective, I'm just weary of arts that don't have real world applicability.   Why would you care less if I like Goju after looking it up?



How are you assessing "real world applicability?"  Just about every art out there has someone who has actually used it.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Almost every name on that list is from the modern MMA world, not style vs style.  Of course your guy Harold had a real tough, we'll earned victory over Royce Gracie.   "If you're coming on......then come on!!!"


Oh ok so we are not allowed to count losses if the lose doesn't fit your point?  Yeah ok.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Oh ok so we are not allowed to count looses if the lose doesn't fit your point?  Yeah ok.


Do you even know what my point is?   I was talking about the style vs style challenges the Gracie's put out and fought vs other styles, pre MMA.


im not saying the Gracie's are undefeated in fighting or they are the best fighters in the world.  I was talking about style vs style.

so how about that Goju BB Harold Howard's defeat of Royce Gracie?  Pretty impressive huh?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I don't see how you could even attempt to make that argument. All you need to do is look at Bjj's growth over the last 20 years, and the number of sport and traditional martial arts around the world that actively incorporate Bjj into their systems. This includes Ninjutsu, Krav, and Systema.


And its still not to the lvl of Some other arts that have been world wide for decades with millions of followers all over the globe.   Its easy to show huge "growth". When you start from the bottom of the pack. 


> One of the most lucrative jobs in MA today is to be a Bjj black belt. My brother is a purple belt and he gets constant offers to teach at Universities, schools, MMA gyms, and traditional MA schools.


Depends on where you live. The BJJ/mma school that opens where I live went out of business in less than 6 months.  The TMA dojos here have been going for years.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Do you even know what my point is?   I was talking about the style vs style challenges the Gracie's put out and fought vs other styles, pre MMA.


No I don't know your point because you keep changing it.  And again how do you go art vs art?  I saw a clip of some Krav guy beating a BJJ guy on you tube so does that mean Krav art is superior to BJJ or does it mean that BJJ guy sucked at his sport.  An art can't win or loose.  Its an impossible comparison to many other variables.  


> im not saying the Gracie's are undefeated in fighting or they are the best fighters in the world.  I was talking about style vs style.


Gracie's were not even the best grapplers in the world I'd say that goes to "the Gracie hunter". They were just the best salesman 


> so how about that Goju BB Harold Howard's defeat of Royce Gracie?  Pretty impressive huh?


i dont know ive never seen the fight i googled who defeates Gracies  and that was the list.  I don't watch UFC and never even heard of Gracie Challenge until this thread.  So did he not beat them?  I really don't know I be never heard of most people on that list.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> And its still not to the lvl of Some other arts that have been world wide for decades with millions of followers all over the globe.   Its easy to show huge "growth". When you start from the bottom of the pack.



Well that was because it was a very obscure martial art until about 20 years ago. Even after coming out of obscurity, it took a few years for it to spread to other places.

The point though is that Bjj changed modern MA. No one can argue that.



> Depends on where you live.



I can agree with this.


----------



## Steve

Spinedoc said:


> Never said that it did! The point is that the situations are different and it's a false equivalency. The only way to ever know is to be in a real life or death encounter!
> 
> Mike


Thanks, Mike.  It's like the stereotypes where frumpy girls with with glasses must be smart and busty blondes must be dumb.  It's just possible that the office babe is not just prettier.  She might also be smarter and more competent.  

In the same way, it's possible to train in a crappy style that is equally ill suited for sport or self defense.  Just as it's possible to train in a style that is equally well suited for sport AND self defense. 

It really sounded as though, by omission, you were creating your own false equivalency.  I'm glad we cleared it up.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> That's your opinion my friend.  They sure did a great job selling DVDs and Gracie brand Gis though I'll give them that.


Gracie brand gis?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Gracie brand gis?



Yeah when you train at a Gracie school you have to use a Gracie approved GI which just so happens to have  their symbol all over it.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No they didn't shake up the traditional martial arts world.  They shook up the sports world and not even a big part of the sports world just that small part.  Traditional Goju is bigger and more wide spread then ever.  Organizations like the IOGKF and Jundokan are world wide with millions of members.  Gracie's had no effect on them.  TKD and Judo are still Olympic sports with millions of followers world wide.  I'm glad you like your sport hell I train BJJ a few times a month I like it.  I think its fun and a great workout.  But your letting your fandom of your sport cloud your objectiveness.  It had a huge impact on YOUR world because you enjoy it.  It has no effect on MY world at all.


Ballen, come on.  They shook up the martial arts world.  Wing Chun suddenly had "anti-grappling."  Many schools started teaching "MMA" or BJJ in addition to their core art.  Instructors began taking seminars.  The tactics and techniques of BJJ were folded into just about ever style out there, in some manner or another.  For good or bad, BJJ has had a significant impact upon the landscape of martial arts over the last 25 years.


----------



## ballen0351

http://secure.gracieacademy.com/categories/gis_and_patches/





Steve said:


> Gracie brand gis?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah when you train at a Gracie school you have to use a Gracie approved GI which just so happens to have  their symbol all over it.


Only one I'm aware of that does this is Gracie Barra, and that's relatively recent (within the last few years.)  I started training kind of on the front edge of the boutique gi market.  When i started, it was pretty much Vulkan, Koral, Atama and HCK.  Gameness made a splash with the "platinum weave" gis, and then with the Gameness Pearl.  That was the gi that changed everything.  Now, it's like everyone and their brother has a custom gi line.  

Gracie Barra is the most "TMA" like organization within BJJ.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Ballen, come on.  They shook up the martial arts world.  Wing Chun suddenly had "anti-grappling."  Many schools started teaching "MMA" or BJJ in addition to their core art.  Instructors began taking seminars.  The tactics and techniques of BJJ were folded into just about ever style out there, in some manner or another.  For good or bad, BJJ has had a significant impact upon the landscape of martial arts over the last 25 years.



Some schools added it but it's not as WIDE an impact as the BJJ community likes to claim.  We didn't add any BJJ to our schools.  Sure some schools did as a money thing to cash in on the latest fad in Martial Arts.  You guys act like the martial arts community was turned on its head or something.  That's just not the case. It had an impact just not earth shattering


----------



## Steve

TFP said:


> Do you even know what my point is?   I was talking about the style vs style challenges the Gracie's put out and fought vs other styles, pre MMA.
> 
> 
> im not saying the Gracie's are undefeated in fighting or they are the best fighters in the world.  I was talking about style vs style.
> 
> so how about that Goju BB Harold Howard's defeat of Royce Gracie?  Pretty impressive huh?


Just to throw out there, that the guys who have beaten the gracies are also very good grapplers.  Even guys within MMA who made a career out of striking, like Lyoto Machida and Chuck Liddell are terrific grapplers.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Only one I'm aware of that does this is Gracie Barra, and that's relatively recent (within the last few years.)  I started training kind of on the front edge of the boutique gi market.  When i started, it was pretty much Vulkan, Koral, Atama and HCK.  Gameness made a splash with the "platinum weave" gis, and then with the Gameness Pearl.  That was the gi that changed everything.  Now, it's like everyone and their brother has a custom gi line.
> 
> Gracie Barra is the most "TMA" like organization within BJJ.



I'm.not knocking it.  Again its brilliant marketing.  If I had afamous nAme I'd cash in too


----------



## ballen0351

Like I said BJJ is good you get no argument from me about it.  After last night seeing that kid I'm even more impressed at how it can be used standing up.  Kid got caught with a sucker punch to the side of the head that could happen to anyone.  I can now see I had underestimated the usefulness of BJJ in a street fight if using it as he did to stay on his feet like that.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Some schools added it but it's not as WIDE an impact as the BJJ community likes to claim.  We didn't add any BJJ to our schools.  Sure some schools did as a money thing to cash in on the latest fad in Martial Arts.  You guys act like the martial arts community was turned on its head or something.  That's just not the case. It had an impact just not earth shattering


I guess we'll have to just agree that our definitions of "earth shattering" are different.  I look at the growth and proliferation of BJJ and it seems pretty astounding to me.  I've seen the local tournaments around here grow from 40 to 50 competitors in a 1 day tournament to almost 700 competitors over two days.  The number of schools just 7 to 8 years ago in the area was less than 10.  Now, there have to be about 40 or 50.  Some are big, some are little, but even the crappy ones are still pretty good.  

And, driving around, I'd say at least half of the traditional schools also advertise BJJ.  Whether this is a young brown or black belt looking to start his own school who is leasing mat space, or an instructor who has decided to cross train, I don't know.   Both are very common.  But, it's getting rare to see "TKD" and very common to see "Kim's TKD and BJJ." 

As is often the case, though, this is anecdotal.  I don't think there is any reliable statistical information available.  Just my impressions.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> this is a very fair question and a tough one to answer, but I have on. Umerous occasions went live with elbow strikes using elbow pads.  Of course you can take out some of the more damaging strikes while practicing your art.  (What is your art?). But I disagrees that you don't need to test the rest.   How do you plan on getting into position for these strikes?  And what are you going to do when these strikes don't finish your opponent/attacker?
> 
> I would question an art that is ineffective if one or two moves are taken out then it becomes ineffective.


My main art is Goju but I have also been training Aikido for the past eight years. Krav and Systema are also friends of mine. 

i tested my my kumite skills for years in a previous life and to be honest, it didn't do it for me. So how do I get into position. Easy, I just wait for the grappler to move in. Same for the striker. Don't imagine for one second we don't test that. Now you can tell me that I won't be able to do that against the likes of Royce Gracie or Mike Tyson but the chances of that happening are about one in 100 billion. I'm talking about your average thug. 

Traditional Goju stemmed from Okinawan wrestling. I want to be hands on grappling. I just don't believe I need to go to the ground. If I do, I believe I have sufficient skill to regain my feet and I don't need to test that against professional MMA fighters.

Taking the teeth out of a tiger leaves a toothless tiger. Taking the main weapons out of a fighting art leaves it toothless too. Don't forget, we drill those techniques in our bunkai to make them spontaneous. If you use things in isolation you can take them out. It's a bit like leaving the fruit out of a fruit cake. You still have a cake but it is not what it should be.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I guess we'll have to just agree that our definitions of "earth shattering" are different.  I look at the growth and proliferation of BJJ and it seems pretty astounding to me.  I've seen the local tournaments around here grow from 40 to 50 competitors in a 1 day tournament to almost 700 competitors over two days.  The number of schools just 7 to 8 years ago in the area was less than 10.  Now, there have to be about 40 or 50.  Some are big, some are little, but even the crappy ones are still pretty good.
> 
> And, driving around, I'd say at least half of the traditional schools also advertise BJJ.  Whether this is a young brown or black belt looking to start his own school who is leasing mat space, or an instructor who has decided to cross train, I don't know.   Both are very common.  But, it's getting rare to see "TKD" and very common to see "Kim's TKD and BJJ."
> 
> As is often the case, though, this is anecdotal.  I don't think there is any reliable statistical information available.  Just my impressions.



 I agree with you.  I dont deny the exponential growth of BJJ.  That's not hard when you go from zero schools to 1000.  My opinion of earth changing is like Walmart changed the landscape of retail and drove its competition out of business.  The addition of BJJ to other schools is a win win for both.  So in that regard yes it has changed Martial arts.  But when I see claims like The Gracie's challenged the world and won and showed they are superior it puts me on the defensive because that's nonsense so then I see BJJ changed the face of Martial arts I revert back the default "that's nonsense".  Which isn't the case


----------



## Hanzou

This vid made me LoL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L6uAWRGpe0#t=35

I do appreciate the Systema guy posting it up, even if things didn't go his way. The boxing fellow was also very kind. However, the video is a bit awkward.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> This vid made me LoL.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L6uAWRGpe0#t=35
> 
> I do appreciate the Systema guy posting it up, even if things didn't go his way. The boxing fellow was also very kind. However, the video is a bit awkward.



So you don't understand or like systema I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.


----------



## TFP

A couple vids of BJJ used in street fights...just for fun

nerdy white kid stops guy from hitting a women.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6V97Pnljj7I

BJJ/MMA vs traditional martial artist (this one kinda sucks cause this guy has spent most likely a lifetime studying an art that doesn't work)
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdasNOFDNrM

when believing in magic goes wrong
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

Ninjitsu vs MMA
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xkvWyAb7TSw

BJJ used in self defense vs crazy man, 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJX9QnrZtfc

Guy breaks mans arm in street fight
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKB-BEtVR8g


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> The main offensive technique I train and teach would be the elbow strike. That is the point of the elbow. The targets are normally the ribs under the arm, the side of the head and the spinal cord. Please tell me where I can test the effectiveness of that strike in competition. Probably the second most important strike I teach is the forearm strike to the back of the neck or side of the neck and jaw. We now start coming into the more legal techniques such as knees, knife hand and hammer fist. Punching is not a great part of what we do but in competition I would have to rely on it. I can believe those first techniques are effective, I don't have to test them on people. I can test them against pads or bags.
> 
> So you talk of testing your art. I would be only testing part of my art and I don't feel the need to do that.
> :asian:



Agree! This is a good question. How do you test your skill that cannot be tested in the sport environment? 

IMO, you can't test everything that you want to train. This is why we need heavy bag, throwing dummy, ... Some teachers would ask their students to 

- go into the woods,
- hold on a tree branch,
- spin and drop the body, and
- use the upper arm to break that tree branch.

After you have broken 1000 tree branches this way, you have develop some technique that you can use to break someone's arm if needed. 

 Some skill just cannot be developed on your training partner. Here is another example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ygDeFx1y9E&feature=youtu.be


----------



## TFP

To be fair.........  MMA and BJJ guys getting beat up.

guys trains and fought MMA decides to sucker punch at bar.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uj3DTajPJPk

not really an MMA fighter, but funny the big man says "this ain't the MMA"
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vDDVTUEz_n4

Krav Maga fighter beats up BJJ fighter ( but doesn't count cause it's in a "sport cage with rules)
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ONrE-jbBGY0

Legit MMA Brazilian fighter gets beat up for hitting on wrong girl
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxFbpa9c8gg

Super Hero and MMA fighter Phoenix Jones beats up bully
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YAUVUWQ0H3k


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So you don't understand or like systema I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.



The topic is sport vs TMA. The vid shows a sport punch versus a punch based on traditional principles.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Deleted Post....I was in error...sorry


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> This vid made me LoL.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L6uAWRGpe0#t=35
> 
> I do appreciate the Systema guy posting it up, even if things didn't go his way. The boxing fellow was also very kind. However, the video is a bit awkward.



not it sure that is really a "Systema" guy, but more a martial artist using a Systema style punch.   That is Dan "The Wolfman". Who is an MMA fighter who uses less traditional MMA methods.   He started his stand up training in TKD but could of done a bit of Systema.

he is mostly known for being a sub grappling/Catch Wrestler.


----------



## TFP

Now I have two martial arts to look up.  Goju and Systema


----------



## Kframe

TFP that video of the ninjutsu guy is disheartening..  Christ he didn't even look like he trained.  No kamae, no good foot work, no distance control.


----------



## TFP

Kframe said:


> TFP that video of the ninjutsu guy is disheartening..  Christ he didn't even look like he trained.  No kamae, no good foot work, no distance control.


Yeah, I almost didn't put that one in there.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> You keep bringing up this "rules and sporting contest" as your argument....... And you keep ignoring the fact that the Gracie Challenges, early Vale Tudo and early UFC's HAD NO RULES!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> GJJ was proven in a ruleless combat situation.


Nobody is arguing with that. The other fighters proved their styles too in those early fights. The rule changes affected the other styles more than they affected BJJ.


----------



## Kframe

Whats stupid about that moron was, I have only done BBT for a very short while and I know that there is a low kick defense in the Kata I have done.   That video is a perfect example of what happens if you don't pressure test your self in some fashion.   Idiot backed him self into a wall didn't have his guard up, only moving back wards. It honestly looked like a very low level practitioner. I don't think it would have mattered what art he was. He was clearly not prepared for the pressure that was being put forth.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> They are just different methods and philosophies of training. I have seen an MMA video or two showing knife defences on the great and powerful YouTube. Since most MMA, as far as I am aware of, is geared towards competition in the ring or cage there is not as much need for weapons training or multiple attackers, unless they want to do it for the self defence aspects. As for Kata TMA's tend to think a little more long term so doing Kata allows them to refine their technique over time and learn how to move and work on their stances. I think the essential difference is that a self defence oriented TMA tend to operate on the principle that someone attacks, you defend, eliminate the threat quickly and move on. MMA and other sport oriented martial arts tend to operate on the principle that the fights are more continuous and drawn out, 5x5 minute rounds, wear down your opponent, go the distance, slowly improve your position and the like therefore Kata is not as useful to them.



Well, this was the purpose of this thread...just what you said in this post.  While everyone's mileage will vary, I've never seen any BJJ schools in my area that covered what you mentioned.  Are they out there?  I'm sure they are.  I do feel that MMA training is useful when it comes to the stamina aspect, however, my goal is to stop the threat as quick as possible, not draw it out, as you mentioned with the rounds.


----------



## MJS

lklawson said:


> It was a prediction, not a dismissal of the argument.  I just knew what was coming next.  When you've seen the "TMA vs MMA/Sport-fighter" argument played out so many times, you start to know how it's going to unfold.  Same with the "Grappling vs. Striking" thread over in the General MA Talk section.  You know that eventually someone is going to claim the EMFG's are sovereign against chokes and arm-bars, that a striker will simply one-shot KO a grappler on a shoot, that "going to the ground" is suicidal because of all the rocks, broken glass, HIV infected needles and lava, and that if a grappler takes his opponent down the other guy's friends will start kicking him.
> 
> These arguments follow utterly predictable patterns. In this thread "boxers break their hands" was next on the road-map.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Oh I know. I was simply posting that in case someone doubted that fact.


----------



## MJS

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you just don't have any choice. When you run a commercial school, different people may walk into your school and challenge you. Some may challenge you in boxing rules (punch only), some may challenge you in MT rules (kick + punch), some may challenge you in Judo rules (wrestling only). If you take those challenges as opportunities to test your own skill against other styles, you will be happy to accept those challenges.
> 
> Is that "self defense"? To defend you commercial school from closing down is "self defense" by my definition.



Out of curiosity, how often do you think these things happen?  Personally, I'd guess that some places may not give a rats *** about a challenge match, but that's just my opinion.  Furthermore, I'm more interested in challenging myself, rather than walking into a school.  Earlier, I gave examples of what I do to 'test' myself.


----------



## MJS

CNida said:


> Why do I get the feeling this thread is going to end up just like that other thread that got closed by staff a few weeks ago?
> 
> Oh wait. It already is.
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous



Well, unfortunately, you're right.  Despite numerous nudges, and blunt posts, to get back on track, well.....

However, despite all things considered, I'm surprised things are as civil as they are. LOL.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> So who's more likely to break their hand? A karateka, or a boxer?
> 
> My money's on the Karateka. The boxer gets constant hand conditioning either through the heavy bag, or sparring. They get added points since their art forces/teaches them to take punches.
> 
> Yet another benefit of competition and sport fighting.



I would say it would depend on the type of Karate.  My teacher has done years of various methods of hand conditioning.  We spar on a regular basis, as well as hit the heavy bag.  Watch any Kyokushin fight on YT, and you'll see many people taking shots.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I don't see how you could even attempt to make that argument. All you need to do is look at Bjj's growth over the last 20 years, and the number of sport and traditional martial arts around the world that actively incorporate Bjj into their systems. This includes Ninjutsu, Krav, and Systema.


:bs:
Sure BJJ has grown over that time but nowhere near as much as MMA. I have no hesitation in saying, if you want to compete in MMA you need to have some pretty good grappling skills. At present BJJ seems to be among the best places to gain those skills. In the future you will be able to learn the skills you need from the schools specialising in MMA.

Your last statement it total nonsense. It will need someone like Chris Parker to speak on your assertion that Ninjutsu have incorporated BJJ into their training but it sounds like a fairy story to me. As for Krav and Systema, they are neither sport nor TMA. They are constantly evolving and they make no secret of the fact they will take the best of any style if it works within their system. BJJ is a tiny part of Krav and Systema and in no way supports your assertions.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The topic is sport vs TMA. The vid shows a sport punch versus a punch based on traditional principles.



So which one is which?  Which one is the TMA?


----------



## MJS

Himura Kenshin said:


> I know you addressed his to Steve but I'd like to answer too.
> I think MMA fighters progress faster than most TMAs do and learn useable skills quicker on average. However, I think that TMA tend to have much more depth and have greater skills in the long run after many years of training. I think the sporting approach makes you very good at basic skills, which honestly is all most people need to defend themselves, but if you don't expand on it and go deeper through the proper use of things like kata or exploring those principles in other setting then at some point you stop growing and you can only work to maintain what you already have; and as one ages I think that would be a losing battle.



I agree.  MMA, IMO, takes the best from certain areas, and drills the hell out of it.  I suppose the same could be done with TMA as well.  If you stripped out certain things, ie: kata, and doing kicks/punches in the air, and replaced that with more sparring, more bag work, etc, you could reach the same goals.  And no, I'm not suggesting that all TMA does this.


----------



## MJS

Cyriacus said:


> Ill just throw in that there are more broken hands in MMA than you might expect with their wraps and gloves. Sorta makes me think, anyway.



Ken Shamrock and Keith Hackney are 2 that come to mind.  Both injured their hands in the UFC and both were unable to continue.


----------



## MJS

Takai said:


> After 18 pages...any chance of getting back to the OP?



Probably not.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> After Royce dominated the first few UFCs, fighters realized that in order to have a chance they needed to learn ground fighting. That's why everyone ends up on the floor grappling, because if you don't at least have a working knowledge of Bjj, you're going to get subbed or choked.
> 
> Why weren't there a lot of Bjj fighters in early UFC? Because no one in the states was really learning Bjj, and it took many years for the art to get dispersed to the point it has now. Relson Gracie for example was training people out of a garage in Honolulu around the time of the first UFC, and working a job in construction to help sustain himself and his family. Today, he has hundreds of schools throughout the United States. After Bjj took off, other Brazilian masters came up from Brazil to teach in the U.S. Now there's a Bjj school in just about every state.
> 
> 
> 
> Er... The Gracies won those early UFC tournaments, and they usually won them within a matter of minutes, so how were the rules unfavorable to Bjj? The Gracies actually left the UFC when new stricter rules were put into place.
> 
> Also how exactly do the rules tie RBSD guys up, but not MT, Boxing, Bjj, and other arts? Are RBSD folks incapable of adapting their tools?
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Royce vs Kimo fight is that Kimo was a hell of a lot bigger than Gracie at the time, and had studied grappling in order to counter Bjj.
> 
> Royce still subbed him.



Just to comment on a few things.

1) You are correct.  Royce dominated the sport and basically forced people to run out and learn the ground game.  Of course, once that happened, we also saw people focus a lot on striking as well.  Once that happened, we saw a decline in the Gracie winning streak.  Case in point...after a good 30min, boring *** cuddle match, Shamrock and Gracie ended up a draw in UFC 5, I believe.  

2) The Gracies left mainly due to the change in the time.  Early UFC events had no time limit, and once that was added in, ie: what we see now, they felt that it took away from their art.  So basically that translates to me, that they aren't comfortable being able to finish someone within a 5min round.  Like I said, looking at early UFC's, we saw a lot of fights, even the ones without Royce, going past the time you see now.

3) Even though he beat Kimo, Kimo still prevented Royce from being able to continue.  We saw Royce enter the ring for his next match, and the towel was tossed in.  All that aside though, I'd say that Kimo was the first opponent that Royce fought, that actually gave him a run for his money.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually Kimo had no martial arts training at all other than a bit of back yard brawling.



I'd say the same thing for Tank as well, although I believe he did say he had a wrestling background.


----------



## MJS

SENC-33 said:


> What is this thread "really about"? It's title centers around TMA and sport competition but it's in the general "self defense" forum
> 
> :burp:



I posted it in this section for a specific reason, as outlined in my OP.  If some fail to have read the OP, or just couldn't understand the point I was making, well, I don't know what to say.   This thread has been off the track for so long now, I doubt it'll get back.  Regardless, there are some posts that are very relevant to my OP.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Um, he had a background in wrestling,
> 
> He also had a significant weight advantage over Gracie.



So?  If their claims of being a superior art hold true, then it shouldn't have mattered if his opponents were the same size, lighter or heavier.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> And Teila Tuli had a significant weight advantage over Gerard Gordeau (a striker) who was beaten by him with kicks and punches so not really much of a point there.



Exactly!  And Keith Hackney was outweighed by Emmanuel Yarborough, yet Keith still won his fight.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Oh and as far as the original question goes, IMO it's a double edged sword.
> 
> one hand, sport martial arts at least have a go with live resistance which IMO makes them better.  But as you turn it into a "sport"'people look for ways to "win" the game and this May take away from what really works in a real life fight.
> 
> sport BJJ is going to be the watering g down of Jiu-Jitsu as a self defense martial art. IMO.



Thanks for your feedback.   I believe that both have things the other can benefit from.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity, how often do you think these things happen?  Personally, I'd guess that some places may not give a rats *** about a challenge match, but that's just my opinion.  Furthermore, I'm more interested in challenging myself, rather than walking into a school.  Earlier, I gave examples of what I do to 'test' myself.


The challenge fight had happened since the ancient time. If we look at this from the positive side, it gives us an excellent opportunity to test our skill against other systems. As long as both parties agree with the rule sets (punching only, punching + kicking only, wrestling only, or everything go), it can be fun. 

I don't mind face to face challenge, but I hate people attack by surprise. Sometime people pretend to be friendly and when he talked to you, he would suddenly shoot at your legs, or give you a bear hug from behind.


----------



## MJS

SENC-33 said:


> For some reason you can't seem to grasp that most people don't need their martial art, self defense system or whatever legitimized at all........If you study kung fu your entire life and never lay a finger on another human being are you somehow less of a martial artist? I don't think so......I don't work the door or bounce anymore but I do still work large events and personal security. I hope I never have to lay a hand on another person the rest of my life. I respect UFC guys for the athletes they are and I enjoy watching them compete for pennies while Dana White gets rich but it's nothing more to me than entertainment.



True.  I said this earlier but it's worth saying again.  I do think that competing has good benefits, but IMO, it's not necessary as long as you're testing yourself in some way.  The older people get, the more injuries that people get over the years...some just lose the desire to compete.  I fought my first Kyokushin tournament last year.  Despite losing, I still had a blast and gained a bunch of experience from it.  I intend on fighting again next year.  How much longer will I do this?  Don't know, but it probably won't be forever..lol.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> I don't know that's not my style.  I would assume if it were my style and I have faith in my style then it works.  Why do I need to prove to you anything about my style and why do you care what or how I train?



AMEN!  I gotta rep you for this one!!!  I've said the same thing as well.  Funny how some of my training partners probably train in arts that are looked down upon by others, (not that they care), yet interestingly enough, said people have used those skills in the real world and are still walking around to tell the story.  

I've got no desire to police the arts.  I care about how *I* train.  If someone wants to look down at what I do, that's fine.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> The topic is sport vs TMA. The vid shows a sport punch versus a punch based on traditional principles.



Umm...is that all you got from my OP?  My point of this thread, was to discuss whether or not all that is needed is pure fighting skill, rather than all of the stuff that is typically found in TMAs.  The thread wasn't to once again, have a dick waving contest, over which Gracie is best, how good BJJ is, etc, etc, etc. etc


----------



## MJS

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The challenge fight had happened since the ancient time. If we look at this from the positive side, it gives us an excellent opportunity to test our skill against other systems. As long as both parties agree with the rule sets (punching only, punching + kicking only, wrestling only, or everything go), it can be fun.
> 
> I don't mind face to face challenge, but I hate people attack by surprise. Sometime people pretend to be friendly and when he talked to you, he would suddenly shoot at your legs, or give you a bear hug from behind.



Oh sure, challenge fights have been going on for years.  I was asking in your opinion, whether you thought that they still existed today.  ie: 4 guys from the local BJJ/MMA club, going into the local TKD dojo, and calling the teacher and his students out.  

Like I've said already...I enjoy competition, but frankly, I don't eat, breath and sleep it. I went to a MMA event at the casino here in CT a few weeks ago.  I had a blast. Saw some great fights, both of which were finished by sub and strikes.  IMO, if someone doesn't wish to compete, they should at least pressure test their stuff in/out of the dojo, with a partner.  I like doing that, as it's a great way to see what's going to really work when the heat is on, and what you can do to improve on the things that may not.  But for me, I don't walk into the local (insert art) dojo, and call anyone out.  I need to work, and don't want to be arrested for being a dick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

MJS said:


> Oh sure, challenge fights have been going on for years.  I was asking in your opinion, whether you thought that they still existed today.  ie: 4 guys from the local BJJ/MMA club, going into the local TKD dojo, and calling the teacher and his students out.
> 
> Like I've said already...I enjoy competition, but frankly, I don't eat, breath and sleep it. I went to a MMA event at the casino here in CT a few weeks ago.  I had a blast. Saw some great fights, both of which were finished by sub and strikes.  IMO, if someone doesn't wish to compete, they should at least pressure test their stuff in/out of the dojo, with a partner.  I like doing that, as it's a great way to see what's going to really work when the heat is on, and what you can do to improve on the things that may not.  But for me, I don't walk into the local (insert art) dojo, and call anyone out.  I need to work, and don't want to be arrested for being a dick.


IMO, it doesn't happen as much today as it was 20 years ago. I still remember when I taught UT Austin Kung Fu informal class, one day I just started my class, a guy walked into my classroom. He was very polite, bowed to me, and said, "May I spar with you". It was in front of my 50 students and also my teacher was there too. There was no way that I would (or could) turn down that challenge.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> :bs:
> Sure BJJ has grown over that time but nowhere near as much as MMA. I have no hesitation in saying, if you want to compete in MMA you need to have some pretty good grappling skills. At present BJJ seems to be among the best places to gain those skills. In the future you will be able to learn the skills you need from the schools specialising in MMA.
> 
> Your last statement it total nonsense. It will need someone like Chris Parker to speak on your assertion that Ninjutsu have incorporated BJJ into their training but it sounds like a fairy story to me. As for Krav and Systema, they are neither sport nor TMA. They are constantly evolving and they make no secret of the fact they will take the best of any style if it works within their system. BJJ is a tiny part of Krav and Systema and in no way supports your assertions.


Frankly, from a strictly business perspective, this would be tough to do.  BJJ is a traditional style that can appeal to many, many different kinds of people.  While there are some strict MMA gyms, they almost all offer classes in one discipline or the other.  There are three schools affiliated with my main instructor.  One is where any of our guys who REALLY want to make a go of MMA end up, and that's run by a former UFC fighter and BJJ black belt.  While he definitely has the MMA thing covered, he also teaches both Gi and No-Gi BJJ classes, conditioning classes and I think he also offers Wrestling and Boxing.  I also think his wife offers yoga classes, as well.

Thing is, there are sharks and dolphins in this world.  Not everyone is a shark.  Not everyone has the warrior gene.  A good school will cater to one or the other.  A GREAT school will cater to both.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Just to comment on a few things.
> 
> 1) You are correct.  Royce dominated the sport and basically forced people to run out and learn the ground game.  Of course, once that happened, we also saw people focus a lot on striking as well.  Once that happened, we saw a decline in the Gracie winning streak.  Case in point...after a good 30min, boring *** cuddle match, Shamrock and Gracie ended up a draw in UFC 5, I believe.
> 
> 2) The Gracies left mainly due to the change in the time.  Early UFC events had no time limit, and once that was added in, ie: what we see now, they felt that it took away from their art.  So basically that translates to me, that they aren't comfortable being able to finish someone within a 5min round.  Like I said, looking at early UFC's, we saw a lot of fights, even the ones without Royce, going past the time you see now.
> 
> 3) Even though he beat Kimo, Kimo still prevented Royce from being able to continue.  We saw Royce enter the ring for his next match, and the towel was tossed in.  All that aside though, I'd say that Kimo was the first opponent that Royce fought, that actually gave him a run for his money.




Make is no mistake about it, GJJ was and is an art about attrition.  It's a patient art that is in absolutely no hurry to finish the fight.

oh and Keith Hackney was giving Royce a bit of trouble in there early fight.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Frankly, from a strictly business perspective, this would be tough to do.  BJJ is a traditional style that can appeal to many, many different kinds of people.  While there are some strict MMA gyms, they almost all offer classes in one discipline or the other.  There are three schools affiliated with my main instructor.  One is where any of our guys who REALLY want to make a go of MMA end up, and that's run by a former UFC fighter and BJJ black belt.  While he definitely has the MMA thing covered, he also teaches both Gi and No-Gi BJJ classes, conditioning classes and I think he also offers Wrestling and Boxing.  I also think his wife offers yoga classes, as well.
> 
> Thing is, there are sharks and dolphins in this world.  Not everyone is a shark.  Not everyone has the warrior gene.  A good school will cater to one or the other.  A GREAT school will cater to both.


Not quite sure what you are saying here. I was responding to *Hanzou *'s claim firstly that BJJ was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that BJJ was great because other styles are using its techniques. In my local area two BJJ schools have recently closed, one in the dojo I train where the guy left owing back rent. Frankly BJJ has no great following here although guys promoting MMA are doing all right. I like BJJ and don't doubt its effectiveness, but in the end it is just another martial art. Why do we have to have every discussion hijacked to this stupid BJJ is the greatest mantra? What I would love to discuss is how sport has affected TMAs without more than a passing mention of BJJ when it is appropriate. This is from memory the third thread that the rabbit has taken down his burrow. 
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Do you even know what my point is?   I was talking about the style vs style challenges the Gracie's put out and fought vs other styles, pre MMA.



Just out of interest can you list those styles that were taking part in thos pre MMA Gracie challenges?


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Not quite sure what you are saying here. I was responding to *Hanzou *'s claim firstly that BJJ was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that BJJ was great because other styles are using its techniques. In my local area two BJJ schools have recently closed, one in the dojo I train where the guy left owing back rent. Frankly BJJ has no great following here although guys promoting MMA are doing all right. I like BJJ and don't doubt its effectiveness, but in the end it is just another martial art. Why do we have to have every discussion hijacked to this stupid BJJ is the greatest mantra? What I would love to discuss is how sport has affected TMAs without more than a passing mention of BJJ when it is appropriate. This is from memory the third thread that the rabbit has taken down his burrow.
> :asian:



I think that if you don't like talking about Bjj, you're the best person to do something about that.

Regarding your post to hanzou, you chose to post it in a public forum and not to pm him, so I presume that it is fair game for a reply.  If you don't want other comments, then pm is the right place.  This is true, even if you bold his username.

Whether it is viable in your area or not is not really something I can't comment on, although I know that Bjj is popular and growing throughout the world.  That's regardless of a few poor business men you may have experience with.   Its a complex art suitable for all ages and body types.

And, while mma may be moving rapidly toward becoming a martial arts style all its own, it still enjoys a beneficial synergy with Bjj.   Which was my point.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Just out of interest can you list those styles that were taking part in thos pre MMA Gracie challenges?



You can see many of them on YouTube.  Just search keyword Gracie challenge.  I think rorian actually narrated several.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I think that if you don't like talking about Bjj, you're the best person to do something about that.
> 
> Regarding your post to hanzou, you chose to post it in a public forum and not to pm him, so I presume that it is fair game for a reply.  If you don't want other comments, then pm is the right place.  This is true, even if you bold his username.
> 
> Whether it is viable in your area or not is not really something I can't comment on, although I know that Bjj is popular and growing throughout the world.  That's regardless of a few poor business men you may have experience with.   Its a complex art suitable for all ages and body types.
> 
> And, while mma may be moving rapidly toward becoming a martial arts style all its own, it still enjoys a beneficial synergy with Bjj.   Which was my point.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Sorry? :idunno:

If I have a problem with *Hanzou *I'll certainly take it up with him. FWIW I highlight everyone's username if you care to check. I have no problem talking about BJJ in any forum that applies to me. If it was a BJJ thread I might read it and probably would not comment as I am the first to admit that I am not an exponent of that art. 

So how am I the best person to do something about that, neg rep him? I think I've done that once or twice in 5 years. Put him on ignore? Why bother? Just accept BS as fact? Come on, that's not right either.

I don't have a problem with any of your posts because they are rational and balanced but I do have a problem with posts from others that are totally biased and disrupt genuine discussion.

As to you comment on BJJ, no it wasn't poor business practice. The principal of those schools has a number of schools. These closed because of lack of numbers. That has nothing to do with popularity worldwide, here it is nothing special. As to BJJ's synergy with MMA, undoubtably at the moment it is a huge part of MMA. All I said was that as MMA develops and the instructors of MMA develop all the skills necessary to compete in MMA will be available in store, so to speak.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> Make is no mistake about it, GJJ was and is an art about attrition.  It's a patient art that is in absolutely no hurry to finish the fight.



Which is why Royce beat most of his opponents in under a minute?

I agree that the art can require patience, but it isn't an art of attrition by design. If anything, the user is capable of adapting the art to their opponent. Some can be dispatched quickly, others may require a bit more time.


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, this is an interesting little thread... honestly, there's a lot I'd love to say (Hanzou is wildly off-base in almost everything, TFP is missing quite a lot, Kframe [sorry bud] is deeply off in a lot of his comments, I have no idea what planet John [kung fu wang] is on, and far, far more), but that'd mean going over the whole thing, cause I'm kinda OCD that way, and I just don't have that kinda patience. So, I figure I'll just address a few things from recent pages, and then put in a few thoughts... and maybe revisit the, you know, actual topic...



Kframe said:


> TFP that video of the ninjutsu guy is disheartening..  Christ he didn't even look like he trained.  No kamae, no good foot work, no distance control.



What ninjutsu guy? There wasn't one in the clip.... frankly, the guy may have claimed ninjutsu (or, tellingly, "ninjitsu") but he showed less exposure to any Japanese art (ninjutsu or otherwise) than you get exposure to the French language by reading Asterix comics. To emphasise the point... it'd be like having someone claim that their art is Judo, and only using (poor, imitation) kickboxing actions. That's how far off ninjutsu he was... it wasn't just a poor example, it wasn't an example at all.

But, for the record, as there have been a few claims that Ninjutsu has never "stepped up", I am aware of a few Bujinkan members who have also trained and/or competed in MMA competitions, the third UFC was won by someone with a Ninjutsu background (well, an eclectic one that included Ninjutsu, from Robert Bussey's group), so....



Kframe said:


> Whats stupid about that moron was, I have only done BBT for a very short while and I know that there is a low kick defense in the Kata I have done.   That video is a perfect example of what happens if you don't pressure test your self in some fashion.   Idiot backed him self into a wall didn't have his guard up, only moving back wards. It honestly looked like a very low level practitioner. I don't think it would have mattered what art he was. He was clearly not prepared for the pressure that was being put forth.



Look, I'll deal with the idea of "pressure testing" in a bit, because it really isn't what you're thinking here (or many proponents of sparring and competition training, honestly), but again, there is no indication of ever stepping foot inside any Ninjutsu dojo here.



K-man said:


> Your last statement it total nonsense. It will need someone like Chris Parker to speak on your assertion that Ninjutsu have incorporated BJJ into their training but it sounds like a fairy story to me. As for Krav and Systema, they are neither sport nor TMA. They are constantly evolving and they make no secret of the fact they will take the best of any style if it works within their system. BJJ is a tiny part of Krav and Systema and in no way supports your assertions.



Hmm? Oh, okay...

Ninjutsu (as an art) has not, in any way, incorporated BJJ into itself. Some Ninjutsu instructors (coming primarily from the Bujinkan) have incorporated aspects of, or the art itself of, BJJ into their classes. People such as Simon Yeo in the UK train in both, and teach both (often separately, sometimes together) in their schools. Personally, I have trained in BJJ for a little while myself (a Gracie school, for the record... attended a seminar under Royce at one point... guys a great technician, but the blinders shown really put me off), and (in our "street defence" section) we do sometimes deal with ground work... with the dominant aim of getting up off the ground. In order to do that, I do teach a number of positions and reversals, and my time in BJJ did certainly help me in my understanding of what is real and what is not on the ground... and if a BJJ practitioner was to watch what I teach, they'd probably recognise what I was showing (with some alterations)... but I don't teach BJJ, nor have I really "incorporated" it into my methods. What I teach is our modern street defence (Goshinjutsu), in a different context entirely to BJJ, with a number of adaptations to bring it all in line with the rest of our methods... because BJJ, frankly, just doesn't cut it for me there.

But, of course, to follow what I'm saying, you'd need to understand that a martial art is not defined by it's techniques... 



MJS said:


> Didn't want to further sidetrack the "Is BJJ good for SD" thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.  In that thread, Steve and I were talking about sport and TMAs, and the misconceptions that some people may have, as to the effectiveness of sport fighting arts.
> 
> This is a comment that I made:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...JJ-work-in-a-real-fight?p=1610425#post1610425
> 
> I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.
> 
> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?



Ah, the OP.... good to see you again.

Before I deal with it specifically, there's a few things I'd like to mention. Namely, that the first thing that needs to be defined is "what is a TMA, and what is a 'sport' martial art"... then, we need to answer a more important question...."Are they different?"

Let's be clear. There are a large number of traditional martial arts that are sporting, or sporting centric (or, at least involve sporting methods through their teachings). There are a number of modern systems and non-traditional ones that have no sporting aspects whatsoever. "Sport" versus "Traditional Martial Arts" doesn't really exist... as Steve has mentioned a few times, by a huge list of criteria, BJJ is a Traditional Martial Art. Which, of course, takes us back to looking at exactly what a traditional martial art is.

A traditional martial art is a martial art that employs an established methodology that matches previously employed methods, typically those employed in previous generations of the art. It has nothing to do with the use of forms/kata, or anything similar (I know of traditional arts that don't use them, I know of modern, eclectic or non-traditional arts that do... all it means is that that is one teaching and training method used by that system). It has nothing to do with sparring or not. It has nothing to do with sporting/competition or not. All it has to do with is whether or not the approach or methodology being employed was established in previous generations.

Traditional non-sporting arts include Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (might revisit this one in a bit...), Araki Ryu Kogusoku, Takemusu (Iwama Ryu) Aikido, and so on.

Traditional sporting arts include Sumo, Shudokan (Tomiki) Aikido, Judo, Kendo... an argument could be made for Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu as it's primary contextual origins are based in duelling methods, and so on.

Traditional arts that are non-sporting, but include forms of competition include Iaido and Kyudo.

Modern non-sporting arts include Systema, RBSD systems (Tony Blauer's SPEAR, Richard Dmitri's Senshido etc), Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (I know, based on traditional stuff, but trust me, it ain't really traditional... it's a modern system), and so on.

Modern sporting systems include TKD, modern Karate forms (not all karate, of course), and so on.

So this idea of "if it's traditional, it's not a sporting system/doesn't spar" is patently false, really. Same with the idea that modern systems are all sporting ones. It just ain't reality. And, more importantly than anything else, none of these forms are better than any other... provided the approach is congruent with the system, and it fits the context and aims of the art, it's perfect. The problem is people thinking that the context of their art is "THE context" for martial arts... which is honestly far more common in the BJJ/MMA/Sporting approach (as they feel their art is "proven" there).

The OP mentions that sporting systems don't often train things like weapon or group defence, or against (or with) many "rule-breaking" tactics and methods. As has been attempted to be explained through the thread, each martial art is a response, or an attempt at addressing, a specific question (or group of questions) in a specific context. In order to begin to compare and contrast them, you have to know both what questions they're attempting to address, and the context in which they're addressing them. I mentioned Katori Shinto Ryu before... this is about as "traditional" as it can get. And they have survived for 600 years as one of the most eminent schools for Japanese warriors throughout their history... but they have a rule which actually forbids competition. Why? Well, according to the teachings of the school, the concept of "shiai" (a match, or competition) is just one character removed from "shiniai", or "a fight to the death"... in other words, the way they train, if you go in for a match, you're risking real injury or death. Bear in mind, this is a system of swordsmanship... get your reaction wrong, and you get badly cut, or, if using bokuto (wooden swords), broken. But really, what it all comes down to is that each art is answering a different question... a sporting art is asking "how do you win in this [particular] sporting context?", whereas a non-sporting art is asking a different question, which might be "what attacks am I likely to face in this [particular] context, such as a bar, or a mugging, or a sexual assault etc?" followed by "what are my best responses to such attacks in such contexts?"

What all that means, of course, is that you simply can't compare the context of BJJ with the context of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, for instance. It's like comparing diets... one might be for weight loss, sure, but another is a detox... and another might be to actually put weight on (for health reasons, or as a body-builder, or similar). If you insist that all diets are to lose weight, how does the body-builders diet fit into your scope? By the same token, you just can't say that "Well, BJJ proved itself in the ring, therefore that's where every other art should prove itself!", as that denies the very reality of different arts for different contexts and questions. Hell, if we genuinely look at the idea of the early UFC's being "NO RULES!" (they weren't, of course... there were quite a number of implied rules, in addition to the scarce codified ones), and I get to use my art, then I'm going to poison my opponents before hand, bribe officials and refs, have hidden weapons on me, and ambush them before the actual event. Sporting? Not a chance! But hey, we don't concern ourselves with such things. If I was following another favourite system of mine, I might wait until the face-off in the middle of the ring, and, before the ref starts anything, suddenly attack without warning (special points for guessing where that tactical approach is from...). Of course, all of this would be against the rules... not that there were any rules, of course... ha!

So, we've established that traditional arts can be sporting, modern systems aren't necessarily sporting at all, and you can't use a single context to test all arts. Cool. We're getting to it, then.

The crux of the OP is asking if we, as martial artists, practitioners of myriad systems and approaches, need to have a range of pre-set techniques against the different attacks likely, or if simply working on "fighting ability" in the ring is enough. And, really, the answer is "either"... provided, of course, that it's not done with your eyes closed.

The first thing I'd say is that the idea of needing a range of pre-set techniques as "answers" to these potential attacks is not the point. The pre-set techniques aren't there for you to memorise, they're there to allow you to ingrain the tactical responses (which are found in the techniques, but are not limited to the techniques). In other words, if you're wanting to learn a martial art (by which I mean wanting to learn a particular systems approach to combative situations, rather than just learn a generic skill of "fighting", or "grappling", or "kicking", or whatever), you have to embrace it's methods. You train in the pre-set techniques as they are teaching you how the art moves, how it works, and so on. You can't just "go for it" and still think it's the same art, really.

When it comes to the idea of "pure fighting ability", to my mind, that best suits the approach of MMA, rather than anything else. Systems such as BJJ really do keep to their own context, and add other methods for engaging in MMA competitions (in other words, BJJ, as with pretty much all other arts, rely dominantly on the "pre-set techniques" approach, not a "pure fighting ability" one). But the real essence of the question is whether or not such an approach is all that's needed for developing the ability to defend yourself. And, really, yeah, it can be. A real encounter is rarely the clean, technical engagement we might want it to be... so the ability and willingness to simply take and give a hit, to not get flustered and flummoxed by someone trying to hurt you, to have the confidence to know that you can dominate (physically) another person really can't be undervalued. 

But here's the thing. Is that ability, that mentality, really unique to, or even best achieved by sporting methods? I don't think so, on either count. This attitude is highly prevalent in traditional systems... I'd say even more so that in modern ones, for a variety of reasons, and certainly more than in sporting arts. But that's to be expected, really, when you start to look properly at what the sporting aspect actually is. Here's the secret...

Sports are nothing to do with pressure testing. Sporting methods and sparring are not pressure testing anything.

Sporting methods (sparring, competitive training, competition) are far more about development. Development of the system, as well as the practitioner. What does that mean? Well, the idea of a competitive engagement is that both partners are attempting to apply their techniques while attempting to prevent the other from applying theirs. This naturally leads to better, more effective ways of both application and defence... but isn't really the same as pressure testing. Pressure testing is about purely assessing the ability to apply a defined skill, with typically one side attempting to apply the skill (escape, control, defend, etc) against someone who has a different aim. This is more in line with self defence than sporting contests, of course.

Of course, training in sporting systems and methods can have a lot of cross-over into "street applicable" skill-sets. There's no reason a "sports" martial artist can't do what they do in a self defence situation (within reason, of course... Kendoka might have to make more of an adjustment than a TKD or BJJ practitioner...), but that in no way means that a sporting approach is optimal or geared up for self defence. It really comes back to understanding the question and context the art is addressing... and trying not to equate one arts answers (and questions) with anothers.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> :bs:
> Sure BJJ has grown over that time but nowhere near as much as MMA. I have no hesitation in saying, if you want to compete in MMA you need to have some pretty good grappling skills. At present BJJ seems to be among the best places to gain those skills. In the future you will be able to learn the skills you need from the schools specialising in MMA.
> 
> Your last statement it total nonsense. It will need someone like Chris Parker to speak on your assertion that Ninjutsu have incorporated BJJ into their training but it sounds like a fairy story to me. As for Krav and Systema, they are neither sport nor TMA. They are constantly evolving and they make no secret of the fact they will take the best of any style if it works within their system. BJJ is a tiny part of Krav and Systema and in no way supports your assertions.




How is the last statement total nonsense when you backed up that statement in your last sentence?

as for. Ninjutsu using Bjj:

http://youtu.be/8rp_AZttnOI
http://youtu.be/4ftxxEDMfOk







And there's plenty more.


----------



## ballen0351

You seem to believe because one person that studies an art does something then that represents the entire art.  Just because that guy teaches BJJ at his school doesn't mean Ninjutsu teaches BJJ.  It means that guy teaches it.  I train Goju but I don't represent Goju as a whole just because I do something doesn't mean Goju does it


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> as for. Ninjutsu using Bjj:
> 
> http://youtu.be/4ftxxEDMfOk



I have seen the Undertaker do that exact same move, maybe the WWE does BJJ as well.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> Which is why Royce beat most of his opponents in under a minute?
> 
> I agree that the art can require patience, but it isn't an art of attrition by design. If anything, the user is capable of adapting the art to their opponent. Some can be dispatched quickly, others may require a bit more time.




Im im sorry but you are just wrong here.  GJJ was in fact designed to be an art of attrition.  It's one of there main philosophies.  There is the positional hierarchy of slowly advancing your position thru grappling and pressure until you get the back and sink in the mata-leão, or use the full guard position as a safe neutral position until your opponent makes a mistake or tires out and then capitalize on the positional hierarchy again or find a submission from the bottom.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> You seem to believe because one person that studies an art does something then that represents the entire art.  Just because that guy teaches BJJ at his school doesn't mean Ninjutsu teaches BJJ.  It means that guy teaches it.  I train Goju but I don't represent Goju as a whole just because I do something doesn't mean Goju does it



It's not just one guy, it's that entire style/branch of Ninjutsu. They even openly admit to using techniques from Bjj.

Its important to note that these aren't the only Ninjas incorporating Bjj into their art.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> It's not just one guy, it's that entire style/branch of Ninjutsu. They even openly admit to using techniques from Bjj.



So when Chris Parker who knows more about ninjutsu then you and I combined tells you its not true he's wrong?  Like I said even 50 guys doing something doesn't mean the entire style has added BJJ to the style.  If I start teaching the triangle in my Goju class it doesn't mean Goju is now using BJJ


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> It's not just one guy, it's that entire style/branch of Ninjutsu. They even openly admit to using techniques from Bjj.



I can't address it in detail -- but Akban is to the traditional ninjutsu schools (the x-kans) as Gracie jiujitsu is to Kodokan judo.  The folks in Akban have chosen to go their own, very different route from the Bujinkan and many of the other traditional ninjutsu schools.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> Im im sorry but you are just wrong here.  GJJ was in fact designed to be an art of attrition.  It's one of there main philosophies.  There is the positional hierarchy of slowly advancing your position thru grappling and pressure until you get the back and sink in the mata-leão, or use the full guard position as a safe neutral position until your opponent makes a mistake or tires out and then capitalize on the positional hierarchy again or find a submission from the bottom.



Royce Gracie's 30-60 second fights in the first UFC disprove your entire post.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> But, for the record, as there have been a few claims that Ninjutsu has never "stepped up", I am aware of a few Bujinkan members who have also trained and/or competed in MMA competitions, the third UFC was won by someone with a Ninjutsu background (well, an eclectic one that included Ninjutsu, from Robert Bussey's group), so....
> 
> Ninjutsu (as an art) has not, in any way, incorporated BJJ into itself. Some Ninjutsu instructors (coming primarily from the Bujinkan) have incorporated aspects of, or the art itself of, BJJ into their classes. People such as Simon Yeo in the UK train in both, and teach both (often separately, sometimes together) in their schools. Personally, I have trained in BJJ for a little while myself (a Gracie school, for the record... attended a seminar under Royce at one point... guys a great technician, but the blinders shown really put me off), and (in our "street defence" section) we do sometimes deal with ground work... with the dominant aim of getting up off the ground.



Actually Scott Morrison was a black belt under Mike Bussey as part of Robert Bussey's Warrior International fight system. It's a splinter art of ninjutsu, meant to functionalize the traditional martial art for modern hand to hand combat.  The interesting thing about this is he fought MMA 3 times, loosing on e via TKO and winning twice via *SUBMISSION*.
Your boy Steve Jennum also fought in the UFC, winning two fights, one by submission and another by out grappling Harold Howard to gain full mount and win via ground and pound.

so out of 5 UFC victories by Ninjutsu fighters 5 of those wins came via grappling and submissions, chokes and armbars.

thats a pretty long post of yours. I will take the time to read it all and maybe learn something.


----------



## K-man

> Originally Posted by Hanzou
> I don't see how you could even attempt to make that argument. All you need to do is look at Bjj's growth over the last 20 years, and the number of sport and traditional martial arts around the world that actively incorporate Bjj into their systems. This includes Ninjutsu, Krav, and Systema.






Hanzou said:


> How is the last statement total nonsense when you backed up that statement in your last sentence?
> 
> as for. Ninjutsu using Bjj:
> 
> http://youtu.be/8rp_AZttnOI
> http://youtu.be/4ftxxEDMfOk
> 
> And there's plenty more.


just where did the triangle choke originate? Judo, it's parent Jujutso or maybe it was present in Ninjutsu as well. Wherever it came from, there is nothing to suggest it came from BJJ.
What about juji gatame? What are its origins? Arm bars are in many styles especially judo. Where did the ground variant come from?

As to the minimal grappling in Krav and Systema. I'm sure in times past judo guys sat on their opponents' chest also or do you think that was a BJJ invention. Did the guy on the ground stay there until one of the Gracies showed up to teach him how to get away? 

As I said, Krav and Systema take from everywhere. They are neither Sport nor TMA (remember, this thread is about Sport and TMA) therefore the fact that they have techniques that may or may not have come from BJJ is irrelevant. Chris has already tried to explain to you the Ninjustsu aspect.

You make a point that may be true, that a number of sport and traditional martial arts around the world are actively incorporating techniques used in Bjj into their training. I would suggest that these may in fact be techniques from elsewhere that BJJ has also incorporated into its system and they may be techniques that have been incorporated into the training of other schools but not into the art itself. When I see the guys at the Jundokan donning rash suits and rolling about on the floor I will acknowledge that you were right. Until then ... !

*Hanzou*, why don't you take a step back and enter into the spirit of the discussions instead of peddling the incessant BJJ party line? Much of what you say is based on fact, but you clothe it in BJJ spin and it loses credibility. What do they say? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

Perhaps if we all agree that BJJ is the greatest system of self defence the world has ever seen, the Gracies are the greatest  martial artists ever produced, and yes every other style should give up what it does best to compete with BJJ guys in the ring, then we can actually get back to normal discussion.


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> I can't address it in detail -- but Akban is to the traditional ninjutsu schools (the x-kans) as Gracie jiujitsu is to Kodokan judo.  The folks in Akban have chosen to go their own, very different route from the Bujinkan and many of the other traditional ninjutsu schools.



Well that's a pretty strange comparison. In many ways Gjj is more traditional than Judo. Kano's goal was to make Judo an Olympic sport. Helio Gracie's goal was to create a practical fighting system. You're already seeing some division between more traditional Bjj, and more sport/MMA based Bjj. That said, all Bjj schools, Gjj or otherwise encourage competition. I would also say that Judo is far more resistant to change than Bjj. The embrace of No Gi in Bjj vs its virtual non-existence in Judo is a prime example.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> Royce Gracie's 30-60 second fights in the first UFC disprove your entire post.


Royce Gracie has had one fight that was under a minute and that was 57 seconds vs Ken Shamrock.

now do you care to talk about his 15:00, 15:00, 15:49, 36:00 or 90:00 minute fights?  Or how about his fathers 3 hour, 42 minute fight?

listen, just because Royce did well In a quick fashion against some fighters with little experience vs grappling or the gi does not change the philosophy of GJJ.  They were not taught to pass up on a submission attempt in order to go slow, of course if your opponent makes a mistake early you capitalize on it, but you don't force it and you don't rush it.  GJJ is an extremely patient martial art.

listen it's ok to go "hey GJJ is an extremely effective art that can finish an opponent fast. But I didn't realize the philosophy behind the art was one of methodical patience".


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> just where did the triangle choke originate? Judo, it's parent Jujutso or maybe it was present in Ninjutsu as well. Wherever it came from, there is nothing to suggest it came from BJJ.



For our intents and purposes (meaning modern era martial arts) it came from Judo.  Infact the triangle choke wasn't even taught to the Gracie's originally and wasn't added into the art until the 70's when one of the second generation Gracie's (Rolls) students brought an old Judo book into the academy.

in real life it was in invented by a cave man, along with all other ways of twisting, breaking and choking the human body.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> just where did the triangle choke originate? Judo, it's parent Jujutso or maybe it was present in Ninjutsu as well. Wherever it came from, there is nothing to suggest it came from BJJ.
> What about juji gatame? What are its origins? Arm bars are in many styles especially judo. Where did the ground variant come from?



What suggests that it is pulled from Bjj is that they openly admit to incorporating Bjj into their syllabus, and the fact that they're calling it a Triangle Choke instead of Sankaku Jime. This also applies to them calling their primary ground position the Guard as opposed to Do-Sae. 



> As to the minimal grappling in Krav and Systema. I'm sure in times past judo guys sat on their opponents' chest also or do you think that was a BJJ invention. Did the guy on the ground stay there until one of the Gracies showed up to teach him how to get away?
> 
> As I said, Krav and Systema take from everywhere. They are neither Sport nor TMA (remember, this thread is about Sport and TMA) therefore the fact that they have techniques that may or may not have come from BJJ is irrelevant. Chris has already tried to explain to you the Ninjustsu aspect.



Again, we're  not just talking about movement similarities. We're also talking about these schools using the same names as well as admitting to incorporating Bjj themselves.


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> So when Chris Parker who knows more about ninjutsu then you and I combined tells you its not true he's wrong?  Like I said even 50 guys doing something doesn't mean the entire style has added BJJ to the style.  If I start teaching the triangle in my Goju class it doesn't mean Goju is now using BJJ



I think that the AKBAN is a separate organization, that uses bujinkan techniques but because they have extra stuff they created there own org.  From my understanding the entire AKBAN organization teaches bjj techniques. I have seen some of there sparring videos and they often devolve into ground grappling. Some of them are quite good.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> I think that the AKBAN is a separate organization, that uses bujinkan techniques but because they have extra stuff they created there own org.  From my understanding the entire AKBAN organization teaches bjj techniques. I have seen some of there sparring videos and they often devolve into ground grappling. Some of them are quite good.


So its a new style all its own and not ninjitsu at all.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> Well that's a pretty strange comparison. In many ways Gjj is more traditional than Judo. Kano's goal was to make Judo an Olympic sport. Helio Gracie's goal was to create a practical fighting system. You're already seeing some division between more traditional Bjj, and more sport/MMA based Bjj. That said, all Bjj schools, Gjj or otherwise encourage competition. I would also say that Judo is far more resistant to change than Bjj. The embrace of No Gi in Bjj vs its virtual non-existence in Judo is a prime example.



No, Kano didn't create judo to get to the Olympics.  Just no.  Where on Earth are you finding these ideas?


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> So its a new style all its own and not ninjitsu at all.



Ya I guess your right, but by that same token the Bujinkan isn't ninjutsu either.


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> No, Kano didn't create judo to get to the Olympics.  Just no.  Where on Earth are you finding these ideas?



I didn't say that he created Judo for that purpose, I said it was his goal (part of the reason he served on the olympic committee was to get Judo into the games). It's also why Judo became part of the Olympics.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So its a new style all its own and not ninjitsu at all.



The Akban definitely consider themselves a Ninjutsu style.


----------



## TFP

Ok all battles and banter aside EVERYONE watch this video!   This is some "legit ninja ***** to BJJ" right here!  If you can't get excited  about this than get the hell out of the Martial Arts world...........: respectively.  

[yt]LH26uFeIIaw[/yt]i


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> Ok all battles and banter aside EVERYONE watch this video! This is some "legit ninja **** to BJJ" right here! If you can't get excited about this than get the hell out of the Martial Arts world!!!!
> 
> [yt]LH26uFeIIaw[/yt]




I would only comment that my excitement about the martial arts has nothing to do with cages, fights, or competition. It also does not need your approval or validation. 

It's an internal thing, not dependent on external factors. 

Also, the martial arts world is not defined by your parameters. MMA/UFC stuff is only a very small part of the martial arts world. It may be the loudest, but as with most loud things, it is certainly not the biggest. 

Just my thoughts....

Peace always,

Mike
Anata no ken ga anata no soba de taiki ***** iru ma no heiwa wa itsumo, anatanokokoroni sunde iru koto ga arimasu.

&#12354;&#12394;&#12383;&#12398;&#21091;&#12364;&#12354;&#12394;&#12383;&#12398;&#20596;&#12391;&#24453;&#27231;&#12375;&#12390;&#12356;&#12427;&#38291;&#12398;&#24179;&#21644;&#12399;&#12356;&#12388;&#12418;&#12289;&#12354;&#12394;&#12383;&#12398;&#24515;&#12395;&#20303;&#12435;&#12391;&#12356;&#12427;&#12371;&#12392;&#12364;&#12354;&#12426;&#12414;&#12377;&#12290;​


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The Akban definitely consider themselves a Ninjutsu style.



Doesn't matter what they consider themselves if they don'tsubscribe to ninjutsu pprinciples then its not ninjutsu.  I can call myself a BJJ guy if I want but it doesn't make it true


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Kano's goal was to make Judo an Olympic sport.



No, no it wasn't.... at least not based on verifiable historical facts....


----------



## TFP

Spinedoc said:


> I would only comment that my excitement about the martial arts has nothing to do with cages, fights, or competition. It also does not need your approval or validation.
> 
> It's an internal thing, not dependent on external factors.
> 
> Also, the martial arts world is not defined by your parameters. MMA/UFC stuff is only a very small part of the martial arts world. It may be the loudest, but as with most loud things, it is certainly not the biggest.
> 
> Just my thoughts....
> 
> Peace always,
> 
> Mike
> Anata no ken ga anata no soba de taiki ***** iru ma no heiwa wa itsumo, anatanokokoroni sunde iru koto ga arimasu.
> 
> &#12354;&#12394;&#12383;&#12398;&#21091;&#12364;&#12354;&#12394;&#12383;&#12398;&#20596;&#12391;&#24453;&#27231;&#12375;&#12390;&#12356;&#12427;&#38291;&#12398;&#24179;&#21644;&#12399;&#12356;&#12388;&#12418;&#12289;&#12354;&#12394;&#12383;&#12398;&#24515;&#12395;&#20303;&#12435;&#12391;&#12356;&#12427;&#12371;&#12392;&#12364;&#12354;&#12426;&#12414;&#12377;&#12290;​



Profound, boring as fvck, but very deep and meaningful non the less.......

Not cool and exciting enough to shake a smile out of you huh?  Meh, I tried.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Doesn't matter what they consider themselves if they don'tsubscribe to ninjutsu pprinciples then its not ninjutsu.  I can call myself a BJJ guy if I want but it doesn't make it true



What exactly are "Ninjutsu Principles"? To my knowledge Masaki Hatsumi plays everything pretty loose over at the Bujinkan, leaving his disciples to develop their own Ninjutsu.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> No, no it wasn't.... at least not based on verifiable historical facts....



If Kano didn't want Judo in the Olympics, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. Nor would the Olympic aspect of Judo have so much power and sway in the Judo world.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> What exactly are "Ninjutsu Principles"? To my knowledge Masaki Hatsumi plays everything pretty loose over at the Bujinkan, leaving his disciples to develop their own Ninjutsu.



I have no idea you would have to ask Chris Parker since I've never stepped one foot in a Ninjutsu dojo.  They may very well be ninjutsu branch it still does not mean ninjutsu now teaches BJJ it means that branch does.  I've trained in GOJU under IOGKF and Jundikan orgs.  They are both similar but different.  So does one speak for all Goju or just themselves?


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> Profound, boring as fvck, but very deep and meaningful non the less.......
> 
> Not cool and exciting enough to shake a smile out of you huh? Meh, I tried.



No it made me smile. It was a good kick. But the point is, it didn't make me jump up and go "wow, I want to go study that". I smiled, and then that was it. The point is that many of us have been in lots of fights, some of us have been in military combat roles. The fact that many of us don't want to fight, don't need to fight, and don't require external validation of our martial arts style does not mean that we are lesser or greater. It simply is. I will never seek out a fight again. But that doesn't mean I'm weak (my patients always ask what college I played linebacker for, cause I'm 6'0" and 240 pounds and look like an NFL linebacker). If you attack me or my family you will find that out. Short of that, I intend and need to focus on repairing my own soul. My focus is on myself and what I can control around me, not what others think or want. 

Peace,

Mike


----------



## TFP

Spinedoc said:


> No it made me smile. It was a good kick. But the point is, it didn't make me jump up and go "wow, I want to go study that". I smiled, and then that was it. The point is that many of us have been in lots of fights, some of us have been in military combat roles. The fact that many of us don't want to fight, don't need to fight, and don't require external validation of our martial arts style does not mean that we are lesser or greater. It simply is. I will never seek out a fight again. But that doesn't mean I'm weak (my patients always ask what college I played linebacker for, cause I'm 6'0" and 240 pounds and look like an NFL linebacker). If you attack me or my family you will find that out. Short of that, I intend and need to focus on repairing my own soul. My focus is on myself and what I can control around me, not what others think or want.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Mike




All well and good, but the post clearly implied to set all that aside and enjoy a damn good move regardless of style or where it was applied.

you just imposed your hang ups and jaded outlook on it.

no big deal, just kinda sad.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> All well and good, but the post clearly implied to set all that aside and enjoy a damn good move regardless of style or where it was applied.
> 
> you just imposed your hang ups and jaded outlook on it.
> 
> no big deal, just kinda sad.



Who made you the gate keeper of the arts?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> If Kano didn't want Judo in the Olympics, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. Nor would the Olympic aspect of Judo have so much power and sway in the Judo world.



Lets see....Judo became an Olympic sport in 1964 and Kano died in 1938....sorry no...Kano had nothing to do with it becoming an Olympic sport nor did he develop it with the Olympics in mind. So I am pretty sure you are basing that on opinion, theory and conjecture all of which are not historically provable

However the historical fact is that Kano did develop Judo practiced for self-development, physical education and sport... but the Olympics never entered into it in his lifetime


----------



## TFP

Nobody,  it was a fun jokingly way of saying no matter your art this is neat..........


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say that he created Judo for that purpose, I said it was his goal (part of the reason he served on the olympic committee was to get Judo into the games). It's also why Judo became part of the Olympics.


:bs:
Unless Kano was a mind reader when he developed his style of jujutsu in 1882. He started his own competition in 1884. The modern Olympics started in 1896. He served on the Olympic Committee because of his expertise in developing and organising the highly regarded All Japan Judo Competition that began to attract competitors from all around the world. I know Kano was a man ahead of his time but ...

Don't just take my word that you are wrong ... here's Kano's response to you from beyond the grave;



> I have been asked by people of various sections as to the wisdom and possibility of judo being introduced with other games and sports at the Olympic Games. My view on the matter, at present, is rather passive. If it be the desire of other member countries, I have no objection. But I do not feel inclined to take any initiative. For one thing, judo in reality is not a mere sport or game. I regard it as a principle of life, art and science. In fact, it is a means for personal cultural attainment. Only one of the forms of judo training, so-called randori or free practice can be classed as a form of sport. Certainly, to some extent, the same may be said of boxing and fencing, but today they are practiced and conducted as sports. Then the Olympic Games are so strongly flavored with nationalism that it is possible to be influenced by it and to develop "Contest Judo", a retrograde form as ju-jitsu was before the Kodokan was founded. Judo should be free as art and science from any external influences, political, national, racial, and financial or any other organized interest. And all things connected with it should be directed to its ultimate object, the "Benefit of Humanity". Human sacrifice is a matter of ancient history.


Thank you Kano Sensei for your contribution to this seemingly endless debate. :asian:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> If Kano didn't want Judo in the Olympics, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. Nor would the Olympic aspect of Judo have so much power and sway in the Judo world.


:bs:
OMG! I hadn't got this far. Judo didn't make it to the Olympics 'til about 30 years after Kano's death.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Lets see....Judo became an Olympic sport in 1964 and Kano died in 1938....sorry no...Kano had nothing to do with it becoming an Olympic sport nor did he develop it with the Olympics in mind. So I am pretty sure you are basing that on opinion, theory and conjecture all of which are not historically provable.
> 
> However the historical fact is that Kano did develop Judo practiced for self-development, physical education and sport... but the Olympics never entered into it in his lifetime



We seem to have a conflict of evidence here. It is known that Judo was to be included in the 1940 games which were to take place in Tokyo, and that Kano was alive at that time when that decision was made.



> As a member of the International Olympic Committee, Kano attended every Olympic Games from the Fifth Olympiad in 1912 in Stockholm to the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, including the 10th Olympiad in Los Angeles in 1932. Kudo asked Kano if Judo should be included in the Olympics and the Shihan replied: "If the IOC asks Japan to include it, then Japan will consider it." In 1913 Jigoro Kano, accompanied by Takasaki and S. Kotani, now international secretary of the Kodokan, went to Geneva to offer Tokyo as the site for the 12th Olympiad in 1940.
> 
> 
> In 1935 Kano received the Asahi Prize for outstanding contributions in the fields of art, science and sports. Three years later he went to an IOC meeting in Cairo and succeeded in getting Tokyo nominated for the site of the 1940 Olympics at which Judo was to be included as one of the events for the first time.
> 
> 
> It turned out to be the Shihan's crowning achievement although a cataclysmic world war was to force its postponement for another quarter of a century. On his way home from that momentous conference on board the SS Hikawa Maru on May 4, 1938, Jigoro Kano died from pneumonia. He was 78 years old.


http://www.judoinfo.com/kano4.htm


This isn't a huge issue IMO, but I'd just like to point out that I never said that Kano CREATED Judo to be an Olympic sport, Kano did help develop the rules that would eventually become Olympic Judo, and Judo was scheduled to become an Olympic sport in his lifetime and while he was on the Olympic committee. If not for WW2, Judo would have made its debut in the 1940 Olympics in Tokyo, instead of 24 years later at the 1964 Olympics.

To believe that Kano had no hand in Judo's scheduled appearance at the 1940 Tokyo games is ridiculous.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> We seem to have a conflict of evidence here. It is known that Judo was to be included in the 1940 games which were to take place in Tokyo, and that Kano was alive at that time when that decision was made.
> 
> 
> http://www.judoinfo.com/kano4.htm
> 
> 
> This isn't a huge issue IMO, but I'd just like to point out that I never said that Kano CREATED Judo to be an Olympic sport, Kano did help develop the rules that would eventually become Olympic Judo, and Judo was scheduled to become an Olympic sport in his lifetime and while he was on the Olympic committee. If not for WW2, Judo would have made its debut in the 1940 Olympics in Tokyo, instead of 24 years later at the 1964 Olympics.
> 
> To believe that Kano had no hand in Judo's scheduled appearance at the 1940 Tokyo games is ridiculous.



It was known...by who? Again you are wrong

Judo was slated to be part of the 1940 Olympics in Tokyo but there were no 1940 Olympics in Tokyo...a little thing called World war 2 got in the way and it was not until 1964 that Judo was part of the Olympics. So it seems that your interpretation of the evidence you presented is...well...wrong

Japanese Olympic Committee

Olympic Flashback: Judo at the 1964 Summer Games

You have an obvious agenda here but you really need to do better research before presenting your....evidence.... what you have is opinion, theory and conjecture.....and no facts

have a nice day


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> I have no idea you would have to ask Chris Parker since I've never stepped one foot in a Ninjutsu dojo.  They may very well be ninjutsu branch it still does not mean ninjutsu now teaches BJJ it means that branch does.  I've trained in GOJU under IOGKF and Jundikan orgs.  They are both similar but different.  So does one speak for all Goju or just themselves?



Well here's another Ninjutsu branch that incorporates Bjj. This one appears to be more affiliated with the Bujinkan;

http://youtu.be/Wr4fN373Q2w

http://www.todaidojo.com/

The point is, if you join a ninjutsu school there's a solid chance you're going to be learning some Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> It was known...by who? Again you are wrong
> 
> Judo was slated to be part of the 1940 Olympics in Tokyo but there were no 1940 Olympics in Tokyo...a little thing called World war 2 got in the way and it was not until 1964 that Judo was part of the Olympics. So it seems that your interpretation of the evidence you presented is...well...wrong
> 
> Japanese Olympic Committee
> 
> Olympic Flashback: Judo at the 1964 Summer Games
> 
> You have an obvious agenda here but you really need to do better research before presenting your....evidence.... what you have is opinion, theory and conjecture.....and no facts
> 
> have a nice day



How am I wrong when my post said exactly the same thing as your post did?


My point, (the one you seem to be missing) is that Kano was very much alive when Judo was slated to be a sport at the 1940 Olympics.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Well here's another Ninjutsu branch that incorporates Bjj. This one appears to be more affiliated with the Bujinkan;
> 
> http://youtu.be/Wr4fN373Q2w
> 
> http://www.todaidojo.com/
> 
> The point is, if you join a ninjutsu school there's a solid chance you're going to be learning some Bjj.


No the point is if you join THAT school you will learn BJJ


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Make is no mistake about it, GJJ was and is an art about attrition.  It's a patient art that is in absolutely no hurry to finish the fight.



Agreed. That's why I brought that up in my post to Hanzou. 



> oh and Keith Hackney was giving Royce a bit of trouble in there early fight.



Agreed.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Which is why Royce beat most of his opponents in under a minute?
> 
> I agree that the art can require patience, but it isn't an art of attrition by design. If anything, the user is capable of adapting the art to their opponent. Some can be dispatched quickly, others may require a bit more time.



That is true, however, I think that the 30min "Superfight" with Gracie and Shamrock, was a bit of an overkill.  I mean, come on...30min and that was by far, one of the most boring fights I've seen in my life.  I would say that while some fights were over pretty quick, most went past the min. mark.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> That is true, however, I think that the 30min "Superfight" with Gracie and Shamrock, was a bit of an overkill.  I mean, come on...30min and that was by far, one of the most boring fights I've seen in my life.  I would say that while some fights were over pretty quick, most went past the min. mark.



Which ones? The only two that went exceedingly long were Severn and Shamrock. Kimo vs Gracie was over in 4 minutes. The rest if I recall were over within three minutes or less.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No the point is if you join THAT school you will learn BJJ



And the Akban organization, which have quite a number of schools. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find more Ninjutsu groups doing Bjj ground fighting.

Like I said, you have ninjutsu schools teaching and incorporating Bjj into their style.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Like I said, you have ninjutsu schools teaching and incorporating Bjj into their style.


That's not what you said.  That's is true you do have SOME schools adding BJJ.  Your claim was the ninjutsu as a style added it.  That's false.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> How am I wrong when my post said exactly the same thing as your post did?
> 
> 
> My point, (the one you seem to be missing) is that Kano was very much alive when Judo was slated to be a sport at the 1940 Olympics.



My point which you seem to be missing is that when you said 



Hanzou said:


> Kano's goal was to make Judo an Olympic sport.



You were wrong because it wasn't, he was incredibly supportive of the 1940 Olympics in Japan, he was not opposed to having Judo in the Olympics but he was not pushing for it, his goal was not to make Judo an Olympic spot. Kano did develop Judo practice for self-development, physical education and sport. Tokyo got the Olympics in 1936 when Kano was alive that is true and that was Kano's goal, to get the Olympics in Tokyo

But why believe me lets see what Kano had to say about it




> I have been asked by people of various sections as to the wisdom and the possibility of Judo being introduced at the Olympic Games. My view on the matter, at present, is rather passive. If it be the desire of other member countries, I have no objection. But I do not feel inclined to take any initiative. F*or one thing, Judo in reality is not a mere sport or game. I regard it as a principle of life, art and science.* In fact, it is a means for personal cultural attainment. Only one of the forms of Judo training, the so-called randori can be classed as a form of sport... [In addition, the] Olympic Games are so strongly flavoured with nationalism that it is possible to be influenced by it and to develop Contest Judo as a retrograde form as Jujitsu was before the Kodokan was founded. Judo should be as free as art and science from external influences &#8211; political, national, racial, financial or any other organised interest. And all things connected with it should be directed to its ultimate object, the benefit of humanity.
> 
> ---Jigoro Kano



Later


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Which ones? The only two that went exceedingly long were Severn and Shamrock. Kimo vs Gracie was over in 4 minutes. The rest if I recall were over within three minutes or less.




http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Royce-Gracie-19

1 fight was under 1min.  4 were over 1min but under 2min.  The rest were all well over the 1min mark.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> My point which you seem to be missing is that when you said
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong because it wasn't, he was incredibly supportive of the 1940 Olympics in Japan, he was not opposed to having Judo in the Olympics but he was not pushing for it, his goal was not to make Judo an Olympic spot. Kano did develop Judo practice for self-development, physical education and sport. Tokyo got the Olympics in 1936 when Kano was alive that is true and that was Kano's goal, to get the Olympics in Tokyo
> 
> But why believe me lets see what Kano had to say about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later



That quote was from 1936. Judo was added to the games in 1938. The legacy of Kano and Judo has been pretty  strongly tied to the Olympic Games, for better or for worse. Because of that, Judo and Bij has evolved in very different ways, despite coming from the same base.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> That quote was from 1936. Judo was added to the games in 1938. The legacy of Kano and Judo has been pretty  strongly tied to the Olympic Games, for better or for worse. Because of that, Judo and Bij has evolved in very different ways, despite coming from the same base.



Actually BJJ's base is Judo (Mitsuyo Maeda)... Judo's base is Jujutsu (Fukuda Hachinosuke)...so they do not actually have the same base


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually BJJ's base is Judo (Mitsuyo Maeda)... Judo's base is Jujutsu (Fukuda Hachinosuke)...so they do not actually have the same base



Actually they do have the same base, because at one point they were the same style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually BJJ's base is Judo (Mitsuyo Maeda)... Judo's base is Jujutsu (Fukuda Hachinosuke)...so they do not actually have the same base



BJJ's base is Judo. Judo's base is Jujutsu. I would say that both came from Jujutsu. 

Jujutsu -> Judo -> BJJ


----------



## TFP

Royce Gracie has had one fight that was under a minute and that was 57 seconds vs Ken Shamrock.


now do you care to talk about his 15:00, 15:00, 15:49, 36:00 or 90:00 minute fights? Or how about his fathers 3 hour, 42 minute fight?


listen, just because Royce did well In a quick fashion against some fighters with little experience vs grappling or the gi does not change the philosophy of GJJ. They were not taught to pass up on a submission attempt in order to go slow, of course if your opponent makes a mistake early you capitalize on it, but you don't force it and you don't rush it. GJJ is an extremely patient martial art.


listen it's ok to go "hey GJJ is an extremely effective art that can finish an opponent fast. But I didn't realize the philosophy behind the art was one of methodical patience".


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually BJJ's base is Judo (Mitsuyo Maeda)... Judo's base is Jujutsu (Fukuda Hachinosuke)...so they do not actually have the same base



Modern judo and bjj are both the children of the judo taught in the early 1900s.  They both have the same base.    Two sides of the same coin. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Actually they do have the same base, because at one point they were the same style.



Nope....BJJ's base is Judo not Jujutsu. Judo's base is Jujutsu.

Kano Modified Jujutsu to get Judo and Gracie modified Judo to get Brazilian jiu-jitsu 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> BJJ's base is Judo. Judo's base is Jujutsu. I would say that both came from Jujutsu.
> 
> Jujutsu -> Judo -> BJJ



I would say that they both came from Jujutsu as well but the beginning point (aka the base) for BJJ is Judo not Jujutsu

There was an evolution from an established style (Jujutsu) to another established style (Judo) and from that second established style you get an evolution to Brazilian jiu-jitsu 

If Mitsuyo Maeda was a student of Kano and Kano taught Jujutsu to Mitsuyo Maeda then the base of BJJ would be Jujutsu. But the fact is that Mitsuyo Maeda was a student of Kano and Kano taught him Judo and Carlos Gracie learned Judo from Mitsuyo Maeda (not Jujutsu) its base is Judo. BJJ was developed based on the knowledge of Judo from Carlos and Hélio Gracie which they learned from Mitsuyo Maeda.


----------



## Steve

Modern judo is not the same as what was being taught in the early 1900s.  Post world war 2 judo is different.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> We seem to have a conflict of evidence here. It is known that Judo was to be included in the 1940 games which were to take place in Tokyo, and that Kano was alive at that time when that decision was made.
> 
> 
> http://www.judoinfo.com/kano4.htm
> 
> 
> This isn't a huge issue IMO, but I'd just like to point out that I never said that Kano CREATED Judo to be an Olympic sport, Kano did help develop the rules that would eventually become Olympic Judo, and Judo was scheduled to become an Olympic sport in his lifetime and while he was on the Olympic committee. If not for WW2, Judo would have made its debut in the 1940 Olympics in Tokyo, instead of 24 years later at the 1964 Olympics.
> 
> To believe that Kano had no hand in Judo's scheduled appearance at the 1940 Tokyo games is ridiculous.





Steve said:


> Modern judo is not the same as what was being taught in the early 1900s.  Post world war 2 judo is different.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Yes but it was changing a long time before the war. It was demonstrated informally as sport at the 1932 Olympics from memory. I need to go out but will check later. 

I will also try to check more as too whether it was accepted for the 1940 games or whether that is heresay. Everything I have found so far goes to one source which is at odds with Kano's own account. If anyone has a definitive source please post a reference.


----------



## RTKDCMB

What was this thread about again?


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, this might take a bit... I'm going to split it into the "ninjutsu" questions and statements, and the BJJ/Judo origins part...



Hanzou said:


> How is the last statement total nonsense when you backed up that statement in your last sentence?
> 
> as for. Ninjutsu using Bjj:
> 
> http://youtu.be/8rp_AZttnOI
> http://youtu.be/4ftxxEDMfOk
> 
> And there's plenty more.



That's not "ninjutsu using BJJ", though. It's the AKBAN organisation (a Ninjutsu/Bujinkan based organisation, headed by Yossi Sherif, former student of Doron Navon), and a big part of what they do is to attempt to document the various arts that have gone into the make-up of their teachers backgrounds (albeit with one or two other things...). In this case, you need to know that Doron Navon was also a Judoka, and taught his Judo methodology alongside the "Ninjutsu" portion of his syllabus (that's the thing here, mate, this ain't BJJ, it's Judo. Similar? Definitely. The same? Definitely not). Doron also taught Feldencrais... does that mean that the movement and postural work is part of Ninjutsu? Nope, not in the slightest.

But really, if you're going to post such clips, take a moment to read the comments, where Yossi states pretty clearly that this is from Judo, not BJJ, that it's not part of any of the schools of the Ninjutsu side (here's some free information for you.. in the "Ninjutsu" schools, what's taught is really only called "Ninjutsu" for convenience... it's actually a number of Japanese arts, namely Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu [and Ju(tai)jutsu in some cases], Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken [Dakentaijutsu and a large Bukijutsu syllabus], Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu Ju[tai]jutsu, Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu [one of the smallest, and the primary source of any actual "ninjutsu"], Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu, Koto Ryu Koppojutsu, and so on), and is really only there as part of an attempt to document the myriad techniques found in all the arts taught there, Judo being one of them.

This, by the way, is the definition of "fail" when it comes to recognizing what a martial art is.



Hanzou said:


> It's not just one guy, it's that entire style/branch of Ninjutsu. They even openly admit to using techniques from Bjj.
> 
> Its important to note that these aren't the only Ninjas incorporating Bjj into their art.



No, they state that they also teach BJJ/Judo, not that they "openly admit to using techniques from BJJ". And, as I already said, yes, there are some teachers who are teaching both Bujinkan and BJJ... or training in both. And there are others who have used BJJ to help inform their ground work... but that's not the same as "incorporating" BJJ into Ninjutsu. Your logic is flawed, and you aren't listening to any correction.



RTKDCMB said:


> I have seen the Undertaker do that exact same move, maybe the WWE does BJJ as well.



Well... the WWE doesn't do BJJ, but Mark Calaway (the Undertaker) does. He holds a black belt under Rolles Gracie. Other WWE performers have trained, or continue to train in it as well, such as Eve Torres and CM Punk.



jks9199 said:


> I can't address it in detail -- but Akban is to the traditional ninjutsu schools (the x-kans) as Gracie jiujitsu is to Kodokan judo.  The folks in Akban have chosen to go their own, very different route from the Bujinkan and many of the other traditional ninjutsu schools.



While there are certain differences between the Akban group and other organisations, it's not quite the same as that... but that's getting way off topic.



Hanzou said:


> What suggests that it is pulled from Bjj is that they openly admit to incorporating Bjj into their syllabus, and the fact that they're calling it a Triangle Choke instead of Sankaku Jime. This also applies to them calling their primary ground position the Guard as opposed to Do-Sae.
> 
> Again, we're not just talking about movement similarities. We're also talking about these schools using the same names as well as admitting to incorporating Bjj themselves.



Firstly, again I'd suggest what's written on the clips you post... there's a mix of both Japanese and English terminology... but I noted absolutely no Portuguese. Hmm.... Frankly, the usage of the English is because it's aimed at a large audience, so simple, easily identifiable and recognizable language is used. If Do Jime or Do Sae was listed, would the larger audience know what they were? Additionally, as I just showed by using a different (Japanese) term, specific names are particular to specific systems/arts... there is no such thing as a singly used and adopted terminology. Using a "common language" is simply a way to get more people identifying what they're seeing and being able to relate to them.



Hanzou said:


> Well here's another Ninjutsu branch that incorporates Bjj. This one appears to be more affiliated with the Bujinkan;
> 
> http://youtu.be/Wr4fN373Q2w
> 
> http://www.todaidojo.com/
> 
> The point is, if you join a ninjutsu school there's a solid chance you're going to be learning some Bjj.



Again, mate, read the comments... there is mention that the head instructor trained in both Bujinkan and BJJ. And, again, I personally brought up instructors in the Bujinkan (Simon Yeo) who teach BJJ alongside the Bujinkan material... so? Richard Van Donk also teaches a line of Escrima/Kali that he has... does that mean that Ninjutsu has Kali in it? I mean, I also know of other Bujinkan students who train in other forms of Kali as well... 

I will say this. Despite claims from certain circles, there is no ground fighting in any of the arts of the Bujinkan. There are Kime Waza/Osai Komi, and there is Suwari Waza, but there is no ne waza. So, should a particular dojo want to look at ne waza, I'd recommend they look to either Judo or BJJ. We don't have any. Why not? Because it has no place in the contexts and historical realities of our systems. There's also no ne waza in any of the Koryu I study either... should they have some, do you think? Here's a clue - the answer is no.



TFP said:


> Actually Scott Morrison was a black belt under Mike Bussey as part of Robert Bussey's Warrior International fight system. It's a splinter art of ninjutsu, meant to functionalize the traditional martial art for modern hand to hand combat.  The interesting thing about this is he fought MMA 3 times, loosing on e via TKO and winning twice via *SUBMISSION*.
> Your boy Steve Jennum also fought in the UFC, winning two fights, one by submission and another by out grappling Harold Howard to gain full mount and win via ground and pound.
> 
> so out of 5 UFC victories by Ninjutsu fighters 5 of those wins came via grappling and submissions, chokes and armbars.



Er... and? Are you trying to imply that the only way anyone can win via submission is by using BJJ? Seriously? Not familiar with Judo, Kansetsu waza, Osai Komi, CaCC Wrestling, Greco-Roman, Freestyle, or any of a large number of other forms? You do realise, of course, that although there is no traditional ground fighting what are called the Ninjutsu systems, they are Japanese arts, which makes them grappling-oriented almost by definition (note here: grappling does not, nor has it ever, refer to ground fighting. That is a gross mis-application of the term by modern ground fighters)? Japanese arts aren't striking arts... they're all about catching, holding, pinning, choking, locking, throwing... and you're thinking that someone with a Japanese art background getting people to submit shows a dominance of something he hadn't trained in? Really?

I mean, let me ask you something... is this BJJ?




How about this one?



The answer is that, no, they're not. They are Tengu Gaeshi and Tengu Otoshi (respectively) from Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu... from the late 16th/early 17th Century. And, for the record, this is something that is found in the Ninjutsu schools (Hatsumi learnt it early on, and Tanemura [head of the Genbukan] currently holds the position of head of the Ryu in a line of it).

And, yes, Scott was a black belt under Mike... who is Bob's brother. Your point? Oh, and I'm really not the person to inform about the history of RBWI or anything related, for the record.



TFP said:


> thats a pretty long post of yours. I will take the time to read it all and maybe learn something.



Hope you do. And yeah, it had some length... but still far from a record for me, ha!



Hanzou said:


> Well that's a pretty strange comparison. In many ways Gjj is more traditional than Judo. Kano's goal was to make Judo an Olympic sport. Helio Gracie's goal was to create a practical fighting system. You're already seeing some division between more traditional Bjj, and more sport/MMA based Bjj. That said, all Bjj schools, Gjj or otherwise encourage competition. I would also say that Judo is far more resistant to change than Bjj. The embrace of No Gi in Bjj vs its virtual non-existence in Judo is a prime example.



1: Kano's goal was absolutely not to "make Judo an Olympic sport".
2: Even if true, that would in no way make Judo less or more traditional... the idea that BJJ (Gracie variant) and it's goal of a "practical fighting system" makes it more traditional is completely irrelevant. RBSD systems are even more concerned than BJJ is for creating practical fighting systems, with absolutely no competition aspect at all...and they aren't traditional in the slightest. The benchmarks you're applying aren't accurate at all.



Kframe said:


> I think that the AKBAN is a separate organization, that uses bujinkan techniques but because they have extra stuff they created there own org.  From my understanding the entire AKBAN organization teaches bjj techniques. I have seen some of there sparring videos and they often devolve into ground grappling. Some of them are quite good.



Ground grappling does not equal BJJ. Most of their ground work comes from Doron Navon's Judo background. And, if you ask them, they will tell you that they're still part of the Bujinkan... there actually aren't any restrictions on what an instructor or group within the Bujinkan can or can't add to their syllabus. 



ballen0351 said:


> So its a new style all its own and not ninjitsu at all.



No, it's a group of Ninjutsu-based schools within the Bujinkan fold (oh, and for the record, "ninjutsu", never "ninjitsu"... there are reasons...)



Kframe said:


> Ya I guess your right, but by that same token the Bujinkan isn't ninjutsu either.



Sure, it isn't... but the term is used because listing "Jujutsu, Dakentaijutsu, Taihenjutsu, Kenjutsu, Bojutsu, Hanbojutsu, Sojutsu, Jojutsu, Jutte, Kodachi, Taijutsu, Ninpo, Naginatajutsu, Bisentojutsu etc etc etc", or "Togakure Ryu, Shinden Fudo Ryu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Kukishinden Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, Gikan Ryu, Gyokushin Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu" just takes too damn long to say...



Hanzou said:


> The Akban definitely consider themselves a Ninjutsu style.



Yes they do. Because the bulk of what they do comes from Doron Navon, the first non-Japanese to be awarded a teaching licence in the Bujinkan. But it's not the only thing they do.



ballen0351 said:


> Doesn't matter what they consider themselves if they don'tsubscribe to ninjutsu pprinciples then its not ninjutsu.  I can call myself a BJJ guy if I want but it doesn't make it true



Ah, now that opens up a whole grey area... 



Hanzou said:


> What exactly are "Ninjutsu Principles"? To my knowledge Masaki Hatsumi plays everything pretty loose over at the Bujinkan, leaving his disciples to develop their own Ninjutsu.



Yes and no. While there certainly is a lot of freedom, and personal exploration is encouraged, there are still quite a number of traits and concepts that are found throughout the art and it's practice. What are these principles? Well, it'll depend on what exactly you're looking at... but, in essence, you'll see a lot of evasive movement, subtle usage of angling and distancing, particular approaches to targeting, fluid actions, complete body movement rather than isolated parts of the body, and so on. It also has incorporation of weapons into a lot of "unarmed" approaches.



ballen0351 said:


> No the point is if you join THAT school you will learn BJJ



No, I'd say that if you joined that school you'd learn some aspects which are part of what is found in BJJ. I mean, if you learnt only two stick drills from Kali in amongst a deeper, wider study of karate, are you also learning FMA? Or are you learning something, an aspect, that draws from FMA? Semantics, maybe, but important, I feel.



Hanzou said:


> And the Akban organization, which have quite a number of schools. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find more Ninjutsu groups doing Bjj ground fighting.
> 
> Like I said, you have ninjutsu schools teaching and incorporating Bjj into their style.



No Ninjutsu school that I have ever come across is actually incorporating BJJ into their "style". It's simply not possible, really. It can be incorporated into the school, but that's another situation entirely.



ballen0351 said:


> That's not what you said.  That's is true you do have SOME schools adding BJJ.  Your claim was the ninjutsu as a style added it.  That's false.



And, frankly, impossible. To do so would be to create something that was neither Ninjutsu nor BJJ.



Xue Sheng said:


> Actually BJJ's base is Judo (Mitsuyo Maeda)... Judo's base is Jujutsu (Fukuda Hachinosuke)...so they do not actually have the same base



From a technical standpoint, the base of Judo is Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (Kano had two teachers of that system, Fukuda Hachinosuke first, and Iso Masatomo second), and Kito Ryu (under Iikubo Tsunetoshi) with Fukuda and Iikubo having a preference for randori (free training), which helped shape the young Kano's approach to his development of Judo. The ne-waza is based primarily in the Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, but got a lot more developed when Mataemon Tanabe was brought in as a guest instructor (Tanabe, as a smaller person, realized early that his best defence against the larger opponents in his randori training throwing him was to drop down and pull the opponent down as well, fighting from there. Despite Tanabe being the then-head of Fusen Ryu, the ne waza he employed was almost purely from his randori exploration, not Fusen Ryu itself).



Hanzou said:


> Actually they do have the same base, because at one point they were the same style.



Not really... Maeda was a Kodokan member, sure. But that's not the whole story either. He was also pretty much what we'd class today as almost a professional wrestler... there was a range of other influences in what he taught. And from what I've seen, he hardly gave the full Kodokan syllabus... at best, he gave a form of Judo in it's infancy, mixed with a few other things, and skewed towards working on the ground.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> BJJ's base is Judo. Judo's base is Jujutsu. I would say that both came from Jujutsu.
> 
> Jujutsu -> Judo -> BJJ



Except that's not right either. For one thing, there's no such single art as "jujutsu". You need to trace it back to specific systems of Jujutsu... if we go back via Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, we go back to Yoshin Ryu (Akiyama Yoshin Ryu), which was based on three primarily striking techniques brought back by Akiyama from China, extrapolated and developed into an expansive grappling method. Kito Ryu traces back to the Yagyu family, who taught Yagyu Shinkage Ryu... which goes back to Shinkage Ryu, then to Kage Ryu... all of which are sword systems.

You really need to recognise which Jujutsu you're talking about... 



Xue Sheng said:


> Nope....BJJ's base is Judo not Jujutsu. Judo's base is Jujutsu.
> 
> Kano Modified Jujutsu to get Judo and Gracie modified Judo to get Brazilian jiu-jitsu
> 
> I would say that they both came from Jujutsu as well but the beginning point (aka the base) for BJJ is Judo not Jujutsu
> 
> There was an evolution from an established style (Jujutsu) to another established style (Judo) and from that second established style you get an evolution to Brazilian jiu-jitsu
> 
> If Mitsuyo Maeda was a student of Kano and Kano taught Jujutsu to Mitsuyo Maeda then the base of BJJ would be Jujutsu. But the fact is that Mitsuyo Maeda was a student of Kano and Kano taught him Judo and Carlos Gracie learned Judo from Mitsuyo Maeda (not Jujutsu) its base is Judo. BJJ was developed based on the knowledge of Judo from Carlos and Hélio Gracie which they learned from Mitsuyo Maeda.



Well.... the early name for Judo was simply Kano-ha Jujutsu, so was Maeda taught Judo or Jujutsu? And is there a difference? Honestly, the answer is no, Judo is Jujutsu... it's just one form of it. 



Steve said:


> Modern judo is not the same as what was being taught in the early 1900s.  Post world war 2 judo is different.



Damn straight, it is!



RTKDCMB said:


> What was this thread about again?



Yeah... I tried to address that a few pages back... didn't seem to take....


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> 1: Kano's goal was absolutely not to "make Judo an Olympic sport".
> 2: Even if true, that would in no way make Judo less or more traditional... the idea that BJJ (Gracie variant) and it's goal of a "practical fighting system" makes it more traditional is completely irrelevant. RBSD systems are even more concerned than BJJ is for creating practical fighting systems, with absolutely no competition aspect at all...and they aren't traditional in the slightest. The benchmarks you're applying aren't accurate at all.



The reason I said that in many ways Gjj is more traditional than modern Judo is because Bjj was able to evolve freely without outside limitations (post-war ban, Olympic rules).

Also in my experience, Bjj as a whole tends to be quite a bit more progressive than Judo.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The reason I said that in many ways Gjj is more traditional than modern Judo is because Bjj was able to evolve freely without outside limitations (post-war ban, Olympic rules).
> 
> Also in my experience, Bjj as a whole tends to be quite a bit more progressive than Judo.


Maby my interpretation of progressive and traditional are different then yours.  To me they are opposite.  So to say BJJ is more traditional because its more progressive makes no sense to me


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Modern judo and bjj are both the children of the judo taught in the early 1900s.  They both have the same base.    Two sides of the same coin.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


What's the difference between judo and modern judo in your opinion?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Maby my interpretation of progressive and traditional are different then yours.  To me they are opposite.  So to say BJJ is more traditional because its more progressive makes no sense to me



I didn't say that Bjj is more traditional because its more progressive. I said that in many ways its more traditional than modern Judo, and at the same time its also more progressive as a whole than modern Judo. Its more traditional because it has a more direct line to pre-war Judo and it isn't influenced by Olympic rules. At the same time, its more progressive than Judo because its more open to changes in grappling, like No-Gi for example.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say that Bjj is more traditional because its more progressive. I said that in many ways its more traditional than modern Judo, and at the same time its also more progressive as a whole than modern Judo. Its more traditional because it has a more direct line to pre-war Judo and it isn't influenced by Olympic rules. At the same time, its more progressive than Judo because its more open to changes in grappling, like No-Gi for example.


So what's the difference between prewar judo and post war?


----------



## Kframe

Chris parker.  I didn't know that there ground work was judo. I didn't read much into there comments section.   I tend to call all ground fighting techniques BJJ by default.  I guess I should be more careful with my terminology.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Chris Parker said:


> Well.... the early name for Judo was simply Kano-ha Jujutsu, so was Maeda taught Judo or Jujutsu? And is there a difference? Honestly, the answer is no, Judo is Jujutsu... it's just one form of it.



Yeah I know...so if we are going to play this game then lets be completely correct here since Jujutsu is a generic name and you are using an specific name, Kano-ha Jujutsu, and mixing it with the generic term to make your case.....

Then the base of Judo (aka Kano-ha Jujutsu) is Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu and the base of Brazillion Jiujitsu is Kano-ha Jujutsu which does say that generically they both have a jujutsu base but yet they still do not have the "same" base since Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu is not the same as Kano-ha Jujutsu.

Therefore they still do not share the same base since Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu was changed to get to Kano-ha Jujutsu and the beginning of BJJ is Kano-ha Jujutsu not Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So what's the difference between prewar judo and post war?



Newaza. Two things really stifled the growth of newaza in Judo: Kano and Olympic Judo. Kano greatly preferred throws over ground work. Some sources even go so far as to say he disliked ground work because he wasn't very good at it. Kano's distaste for ground work spilled over into tournament Judo, where the rules forced newaza to be limited, and throwing was emphasized. Maeda left Japan right at the time when Newaza had begun to become popular in Judo, and before Kano began to put rules in place to limit it.

Olympic Judo also limited newaza, and every new rule they put in place limits it even further.

Gjj does teach breakfalling, and Judo throws. However, a lot more wrestling takedowns took hold in Bjj's stand up game because the Gracies found that a lot of Judo throws simply didn't work without the Gi. I'm willing to bet that Maeda came to a similar conclusion.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Newaza. Two things really stifled the growth of newaza in Judo: Kano and Olympic Judo. Kano greatly preferred throws over ground work. Some sources even go so far as to say he disliked ground work because he wasn't very good at it. Kano's distaste for ground work spilled over into tournament Judo, where the rules forced newaza to be limited, and throwing was emphasized. Maeda left Japan right at the time when Newaza had begun to become popular in Judo, and before Kano began to put rules in place to limit it.
> 
> Olympic Judo also limited newaza, and every new rule they put in place limits it even further.
> 
> Gjj does teach breakfalling, and Judo throws. However, a lot more wrestling takedowns took hold in Bjj's stand up game because the Gracies found that a lot of Judo throws simply didn't work without the Gi. I'm willing to bet that Maeda came to a similar conclusion.



So then again that would depend on where you learn judo.  We must learn pre-war judo in my class since we spend equal time on takedown and ground work.  We learn stuff not allowed in comps leg locks ankle locks finger and wrist locks.  He even teaches strikes.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, this might take a bit... I'm going to split it into the "ninjutsu" questions and statements, and the BJJ/Judo origins part...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not "ninjutsu using BJJ", though. It's the AKBAN organisation (a Ninjutsu/Bujinkan based organisation, headed by Yossi Sherif, former student of Doron Navon), and a big part of what they do is to attempt to document the various arts that have gone into the make-up of their teachers backgrounds (albeit with one or two other things...). In this case, you need to know that Doron Navon was also a Judoka, and taught his Judo methodology alongside the "Ninjutsu" portion of his syllabus (that's the thing here, mate, this ain't BJJ, it's Judo. Similar? Definitely. The same? Definitely not). Doron also taught Feldencrais... does that mean that the movement and postural work is part of Ninjutsu? Nope, not in the slightest.
> 
> But really, if you're going to post such clips, take a moment to read the comments, where Yossi states pretty clearly that this is from Judo, not BJJ, that it's not part of any of the schools of the Ninjutsu side (here's some free information for you.. in the "Ninjutsu" schools, what's taught is really only called "Ninjutsu" for convenience... it's actually a number of Japanese arts, namely Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu [and Ju(tai)jutsu in some cases], Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken [Dakentaijutsu and a large Bukijutsu syllabus], Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu Ju[tai]jutsu, Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu [one of the smallest, and the primary source of any actual "ninjutsu"], Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu, Koto Ryu Koppojutsu, and so on), and is really only there as part of an attempt to document the myriad techniques found in all the arts taught there, Judo being one of them.
> 
> This, by the way, is the definition of "fail" when it comes to recognizing what a martial art is.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they state that they also teach BJJ/Judo, not that they "openly admit to using techniques from BJJ". And, as I already said, yes, there are some teachers who are teaching both Bujinkan and BJJ... or training in both. And there are others who have used BJJ to help inform their ground work... but that's not the same as "incorporating" BJJ into Ninjutsu. Your logic is flawed, and you aren't listening to any correction.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... the WWE doesn't do BJJ, but Mark Calaway (the Undertaker) does. He holds a black belt under Rolles Gracie. Other WWE performers have trained, or continue to train in it as well, such as Eve Torres and CM Punk.
> 
> 
> 
> While there are certain differences between the Akban group and other organisations, it's not quite the same as that... but that's getting way off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, again I'd suggest what's written on the clips you post... there's a mix of both Japanese and English terminology... but I noted absolutely no Portuguese. Hmm.... Frankly, the usage of the English is because it's aimed at a large audience, so simple, easily identifiable and recognizable language is used. If Do Jime or Do Sae was listed, would the larger audience know what they were? Additionally, as I just showed by using a different (Japanese) term, specific names are particular to specific systems/arts... there is no such thing as a singly used and adopted terminology. Using a "common language" is simply a way to get more people identifying what they're seeing and being able to relate to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, mate, read the comments... there is mention that the head instructor trained in both Bujinkan and BJJ. And, again, I personally brought up instructors in the Bujinkan (Simon Yeo) who teach BJJ alongside the Bujinkan material... so? Richard Van Donk also teaches a line of Escrima/Kali that he has... does that mean that Ninjutsu has Kali in it? I mean, I also know of other Bujinkan students who train in other forms of Kali as well...
> 
> I will say this. Despite claims from certain circles, there is no ground fighting in any of the arts of the Bujinkan. There are Kime Waza/Osai Komi, and there is Suwari Waza, but there is no ne waza. So, should a particular dojo want to look at ne waza, I'd recommend they look to either Judo or BJJ. We don't have any. Why not? Because it has no place in the contexts and historical realities of our systems. There's also no ne waza in any of the Koryu I study either... should they have some, do you think? Here's a clue - the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> Er... and? Are you trying to imply that the only way anyone can win via submission is by using BJJ? Seriously? Not familiar with Judo, Kansetsu waza, Osai Komi, CaCC Wrestling, Greco-Roman, Freestyle, or any of a large number of other forms? You do realise, of course, that although there is no traditional ground fighting what are called the Ninjutsu systems, they are Japanese arts, which makes them grappling-oriented almost by definition (note here: grappling does not, nor has it ever, refer to ground fighting. That is a gross mis-application of the term by modern ground fighters)? Japanese arts aren't striking arts... they're all about catching, holding, pinning, choking, locking, throwing... and you're thinking that someone with a Japanese art background getting people to submit shows a dominance of something he hadn't trained in? Really?
> 
> I mean, let me ask you something... is this BJJ?
> 
> View attachment 18463
> 
> How about this one?
> 
> View attachment 18464
> 
> The answer is that, no, they're not. They are Tengu Gaeshi and Tengu Otoshi (respectively) from Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu... from the late 16th/early 17th Century. And, for the record, this is something that is found in the Ninjutsu schools (Hatsumi learnt it early on, and Tanemura [head of the Genbukan] currently holds the position of head of the Ryu in a line of it).
> 
> And, yes, Scott was a black belt under Mike... who is Bob's brother. Your point? Oh, and I'm really not the person to inform about the history of RBWI or anything related, for the record.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you do. And yeah, it had some length... but still far from a record for me, ha!
> 
> 
> 
> 1: Kano's goal was absolutely not to "make Judo an Olympic sport".
> 2: Even if true, that would in no way make Judo less or more traditional... the idea that BJJ (Gracie variant) and it's goal of a "practical fighting system" makes it more traditional is completely irrelevant. RBSD systems are even more concerned than BJJ is for creating practical fighting systems, with absolutely no competition aspect at all...and they aren't traditional in the slightest. The benchmarks you're applying aren't accurate at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Ground grappling does not equal BJJ. Most of their ground work comes from Doron Navon's Judo background. And, if you ask them, they will tell you that they're still part of the Bujinkan... there actually aren't any restrictions on what an instructor or group within the Bujinkan can or can't add to their syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a group of Ninjutsu-based schools within the Bujinkan fold (oh, and for the record, "ninjutsu", never "ninjitsu"... there are reasons...)
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it isn't... but the term is used because listing "Jujutsu, Dakentaijutsu, Taihenjutsu, Kenjutsu, Bojutsu, Hanbojutsu, Sojutsu, Jojutsu, Jutte, Kodachi, Taijutsu, Ninpo, Naginatajutsu, Bisentojutsu etc etc etc", or "Togakure Ryu, Shinden Fudo Ryu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Kukishinden Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, Gikan Ryu, Gyokushin Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu" just takes too damn long to say...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. Because the bulk of what they do comes from Doron Navon, the first non-Japanese to be awarded a teaching licence in the Bujinkan. But it's not the only thing they do.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now that opens up a whole grey area...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. While there certainly is a lot of freedom, and personal exploration is encouraged, there are still quite a number of traits and concepts that are found throughout the art and it's practice. What are these principles? Well, it'll depend on what exactly you're looking at... but, in essence, you'll see a lot of evasive movement, subtle usage of angling and distancing, particular approaches to targeting, fluid actions, complete body movement rather than isolated parts of the body, and so on. It also has incorporation of weapons into a lot of "unarmed" approaches.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'd say that if you joined that school you'd learn some aspects which are part of what is found in BJJ. I mean, if you learnt only two stick drills from Kali in amongst a deeper, wider study of karate, are you also learning FMA? Or are you learning something, an aspect, that draws from FMA? Semantics, maybe, but important, I feel.
> 
> 
> 
> No Ninjutsu school that I have ever come across is actually incorporating BJJ into their "style". It's simply not possible, really. It can be incorporated into the school, but that's another situation entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> And, frankly, impossible. To do so would be to create something that was neither Ninjutsu nor BJJ.
> 
> 
> 
> From a technical standpoint, the base of Judo is Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (Kano had two teachers of that system, Fukuda Hachinosuke first, and Iso Masatomo second), and Kito Ryu (under Iikubo Tsunetoshi) with Fukuda and Iikubo having a preference for randori (free training), which helped shape the young Kano's approach to his development of Judo. The ne-waza is based primarily in the Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, but got a lot more developed when Mataemon Tanabe was brought in as a guest instructor (Tanabe, as a smaller person, realized early that his best defence against the larger opponents in his randori training throwing him was to drop down and pull the opponent down as well, fighting from there. Despite Tanabe being the then-head of Fusen Ryu, the ne waza he employed was almost purely from his randori exploration, not Fusen Ryu itself).
> 
> 
> 
> Not really... Maeda was a Kodokan member, sure. But that's not the whole story either. He was also pretty much what we'd class today as almost a professional wrestler... there was a range of other influences in what he taught. And from what I've seen, he hardly gave the full Kodokan syllabus... at best, he gave a form of Judo in it's infancy, mixed with a few other things, and skewed towards working on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not right either. For one thing, there's no such single art as "jujutsu". You need to trace it back to specific systems of Jujutsu... if we go back via Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, we go back to Yoshin Ryu (Akiyama Yoshin Ryu), which was based on three primarily striking techniques brought back by Akiyama from China, extrapolated and developed into an expansive grappling method. Kito Ryu traces back to the Yagyu family, who taught Yagyu Shinkage Ryu... which goes back to Shinkage Ryu, then to Kage Ryu... all of which are sword systems.
> 
> You really need to recognise which Jujutsu you're talking about...
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... the early name for Judo was simply Kano-ha Jujutsu, so was Maeda taught Judo or Jujutsu? And is there a difference? Honestly, the answer is no, Judo is Jujutsu... it's just one form of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn straight, it is!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... I tried to address that a few pages back... didn't seem to take....



Chris, if it is ground fighting and it works, it's Bjj...  Even if it's not.  You should know that.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> Newaza. Two things really stifled the growth of newaza in Judo: Kano and Olympic Judo. Kano greatly preferred throws over ground work. Some sources even go so far as to say he disliked ground work because he wasn't very good at it. Kano's distaste for ground work spilled over into tournament Judo, where the rules forced newaza to be limited, and throwing was emphasized. Maeda left Japan right at the time when Newaza had begun to become popular in Judo, and before Kano began to put rules in place to limit it.
> 
> Olympic Judo also limited newaza, and every new rule they put in place limits it even further.
> 
> Gjj does teach breakfalling, and Judo throws. However, a lot more wrestling takedowns took hold in Bjj's stand up game because the Gracies found that a lot of Judo throws simply didn't work without the Gi. I'm willing to bet that Maeda came to a similar conclusion.


    ?????????????????????????????????????????????

Please explain how the first codified kata of judo is the katame no kata(forms of grappling on the ground)? Please explain Kano's dislike of groundwork and preference of throwing.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So then again that would depend on where you learn judo.  We must learn pre-war judo in my class since we spend equal time on takedown and ground work.  We learn stuff not allowed in comps leg locks ankle locks finger and wrist locks.  He even teaches strikes.



Out of curiosity, what country are you in?

You are correct, it does depend on where you learn Judo. In top tier Olympic countries like France and Japan, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Judo dojo teaching what you're learning. I recently posted up an interview with Rhonda Rousey, and she talks about how newaza is largely ignored in many Judo schools because of competition.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Out of curiosity, what country are you in?
> 
> You are correct, it does depend on where you learn Judo. In top tier Olympic countries like France and Japan, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Judo dojo teaching what you're learning. I recently posted up an interview with Rhonda Rousey, and she talks about how newaza is largely ignored in many Judo schools because of competition.




Merica. My judo teacher teaches at a college but he teaches complete judo as he was taught.  He just tells us "OK this you can't use in comps". Or "this is OK in comps". He believes Judo is a complete self defense system that also is sport but to him sport is secondary and not as important


----------



## Kframe

Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts. 

You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..  
My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all. 

Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record. 
This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing. 
Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia. 
I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts.
> 
> You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..
> My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all.
> 
> Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record.
> This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing.
> Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia.
> I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.


That sucks but that's your experience.  That's doesn't mean that you can't successfully defend yourself with a striking art as well.  It also doesn't mean that BJJ is superior to anything else.


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> That sucks but that's your experience.  That's doesn't mean that you can't successfully defend yourself with a striking art as well.  It also doesn't mean that BJJ is superior to anything else.



It does when you have a near paralyzing fear of being dominated on the ground...


----------



## Hanzou

Kframe said:


> Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts.
> 
> You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..
> My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all.
> 
> Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record.
> This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing.
> Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia.
> I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.



Considering that most people know how to fight naturally in stand up position, but don't naturally know how to fight on the ground, I think you've made a wise decision.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Considering that most people know how to fight naturally in stand up position, but don't naturally know how to fight on the ground, I think you've made a wise decision.



Most people know how to fling their fist in the air and believe they are fighting


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> It does when you have a near paralyzing fear of being dominated on the ground...



That's mental not style issue.  Bjj works for you that great its just not perfect for everyone


----------



## Kframe

just hope you don't get dominated like I did. Youll devlop that fear as well.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> just hope you don't get dominated like I did. Youll devlop that fear as well.



I don't get into fights


----------



## Kframe

IM glad you don't, dosent change the fact that trouble sometimes finds you despite you not looking for it.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> IM glad you don't, dosent change the fact that trouble sometimes finds you despite you not looking for it.



Sometimes that's why I have a gun on me at all times and I train.  But in reality its rare.  Its been over 15 years since my last fight and they all involved alcohol and too much testosterone when I was a Marine.


----------



## Kframe

In all honesty I forgot you were a cop. 

Id say one good reason to get familiar with ground fighting is the case of Zimmerman/Martine. Basic stand up and ground grappling would have gone along way to preventing his shooting.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> In all honesty I forgot you were a cop.
> 
> Id say one good reason to get familiar with ground fighting is the case of Zimmerman/Martine. Basic stand up and ground grappling would have gone along way to preventing his shooting.



Actually martin not attacking Zimmerman would have prevented the shooting but that's a different topic.  

And again i dont need BJJ to to grapple.  We have grappling in Goju.


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> ?????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Please explain how the first codified kata of judo is the katame no kata(forms of grappling on the ground)? Please explain Kano's dislike of groundwork and preference of throwing.






> Kano preferred tachi-waza (standing techniques), to ne-waza (mat work), at which he was less skillful and, thus, avoided whenever possible. Indeed, he had a tough time of it when he was forced onto the mat. To compensate for this, his assistants and students trained especially hard in ne-waza in order to beat jujitsu rivals.




http://www.judoinfo.com/kano4.htm



> Kano himself had always preferred the standing throwing techniques. He knew the importance of grappling, but his personal preference was in the more elegant and philosophical standing techniques he had learned and developed from the _Kito Ryu. This was shown when Kano systematized the important techniques of Judo in 1895 into the Gokyo no Waza, which contained only throwing techniques._


_

_http://umjudo.com/JudoHistory/HistoryEight.htm



> After 1900, Judo had begun emphasizing such grappling techniques. Maeda, who entered the Kodokan in 1897, was there during the greatest development of Judo as a grappling style. Indeed, in 1914, the high school championships introduced that year in Japan were primarily Judo grappling matches, ended by the chokes, armbars, or submission movements typical of Judo grappling. This "Kosen Judo" continues today as a relic of that era of Judo in university tournaments in Japan, as well as in Gracie and Brazilian Ju Jitsu. The trend was so strong in this direction that, *by 1926, Kano finally changed tournament rules to restrict grappling, and once again emphasize throwing techniques*.




http://umjudo.com/JudoHistory/HistoryNine.htm


----------



## Hanzou

Double post.


----------



## Spinedoc

ballen0351 said:


> Its been over 15 years since my last fight and they all involved alcohol and too much testosterone when I was a Marine.



Same here. I was a corpsman with the Marines. 2nd Recon battalion.....Hoo Rah. A lot of fights in the military. Never been afraid of being on the ground. I don't fear being in a fight but don't ever desire to be in any more. I don't carry a gun either, although I was rated in the military. 

Nice to see a fellow leatherneck here.

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons

MJS said:


> Didn't want to further sidetrack the "Is BJJ good for SD" thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.  In that thread, Steve and I were talking about sport and TMAs, and the misconceptions that some people may have, as to the effectiveness of sport fighting arts.
> 
> This is a comment that I made:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...JJ-work-in-a-real-fight?p=1610425#post1610425
> 
> I mentioned that one of the things that may make the sporting arts appear to not be effective in the eyes of some, is the lack of SD techniques that we typically see in most other arts.  I'll use Kenpo for example.  There're defenses for pretty much every attack out there: punches, grabs, chokes, kicks, weapons, etc.  Usually the sport guys say that the notion of defending yourself against multiple, weapons, etc, is a fallacy.  I commented to Steve that if in fact this is true, then technically all one really needs to work on, is pure fighting skill.
> 
> So, what are your thoughts?  Do people in the arts need preset techs. to use as a base, to defned against the things I mentioned above, or is just pure fighting skill, such as we'd see in the ring, good enough?



Mike,

I am sorry I am 41 pages late to the party in the last week. 

Your question is do people need techniques or just pure fighting skill? 

In my personal experience, and before any training, I would and did loose my temper and I would use pure strength and just crush or smash people and hurt them. Bringing violence to just end it. 

Later also before training, I would get the adrenaline dump and it was cool shiver down my body, I would almost fall into a clear space / time continuum. It was great. (Adrenaline addict anyone?) I would not tunnel vision I would not flinch up and then respond. I responded usually down the center line and usually to their throat. Once again bringing the most violence the quickest. 

After some training I learned more techniques and I used them. I did not break people as bad. I did not send as many to the hospital for making bad mistakes. Yet I reacted, and brought the violence still. Just more planned or understood. 

Still after even more training and time, I realized that this was an adrenaline addiction and not good for me. So I hesitated. I did not bring the violence. While I got hurt in the above situations. Including getting my butt handed to me many a time. Others always remembered , saw or experienced the violence and it limited it to one or two guys. When I hesitated and brought less violence I ended up spending time in the hospital or going through windows, dislocated ribs , you get the picture.  So I consciously choose to bring the violence and to end it quickly. 

I was able to do joint locks. I was able to perform techniques many a people would say do not work in a real or street fight. They worked for me because I practiced them and because I understood fighting and dealing with it. Was I afraid? Usually. Which is why the violence came out. 

So to answer your question, Nothing works. Everything works. 

Pure will to survive works. 
Pure will to destroy the enemy works. 
Working to get better with skill and using the adrenaline in a constructive manner works. (* See top tier professional athletes and also special forces, where in gun fights they are trained to still follow their control and their training - all under stress and elevated heart rate and  adrenaline. *)


So yes, someone with fighting skill can defend themselves. 
Someone with training can defend themselves as well. 

If the person does not have the drive to hurt other willing, and they can be trained and pressure tested so they respond under stress and use their training then this is how you teach people self defense. 
Now as to the sport question of sport type defending themselves. I have seen boxers break their hands as they were used to gloves. I have seen wrestlers take a guy down only to be beaten to a pulp by his friends. I have seen the reverse as well. Where the boxer picks a guy a part and the wrestler takes the guy down and submits him and walks away or hurts him. 

So as always it depends.


**** Added ****

Weapons will change everything. I know I carry trainer folding knives at seminars. I have rolled (not a great ground person) and if I can pull it I do. It always changes everything. Sometimes they just freeze in fear. Sometimes they over concentrate on the weapon giving me an opening to attack a joint. Or I just stab them as they do not even realize it is there.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kframe said:


> Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts.
> 
> You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..
> My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all.
> 
> Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record.
> This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing.
> Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia.
> I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.



Everyone has different reasons for learning their martial art and for the particular choice they make in selecting an art to practice. It is unfortunate that your experience that you had when you were younger has been able to affect you for so long. When I was in high school, a few months before I began my martial arts journey, there was this Karate student who gave me a backfist in the face when I was talking to a couple of girls. On another occasion he threw me to the ground, sat on me and smooshed my face into the grass and dirt and threatened to pound me, (of course it didn't help that I was still cracking jokes, telling him how heavy he was and generally being a smartass), eventually he let me go unharmed so I can see what you are getting at. 

I got tired of getting picked on in school, that's why I chose the art I chose. I have been knocked down in a fight and managed to get back to my feet within 5 seconds. Back in 1992  someone tried to get on top for some ground and pound (long before the term was coined), I managied to fight my way back to my feet without getting hit. The main concern I have is not being dominated on the ground, its being hit and suffering permanent brain damage or other permanent disability, that's why I work a lot on my defence. The thing that sticks with me is way back in the 1992 fight against a kickboxer I suffered a broken leg. I made the terrible mistake of trying to fight him off without hurting him (a mistake I will NEVER make again) and I let the fight go on too long. At the end of the fight I took a step backwards, slipped off the curb and fell backwards, while I was on the ground he stomped on my leg and broke it and then kicked me in the head and ribs. Until I fell backwards he was not able to hit me even once but I hit him with every strike I threw. Even though the injury is always in the back of my mind I have never let it affect the way I train. A stand up self defence art that has no ground work is like a ground based self defence art that has no standup, it doesn't make sense to me. A pure sport based martial art is another story.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Considering that most people know how to fight naturally in stand up position, but don't naturally know how to fight on the ground, I think you've made a wise decision.



What, you never seen someone get someone on the ground and start pounding away?


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> The reason I said that in many ways Gjj is more traditional than modern Judo is because Bjj was able to evolve freely without outside limitations (post-war ban, Olympic rules).
> 
> Also in my experience, Bjj as a whole tends to be quite a bit more progressive than Judo.



So... evolution and change/development is more traditional than keeping to an original context? Really? You're not actually making sense here... let's try again.



Hanzou said:


> I didn't say that Bjj is more traditional because its more progressive. I said that in many ways its more traditional than modern Judo, and at the same time its also more progressive as a whole than modern Judo. Its more traditional because it has a more direct line to pre-war Judo and it isn't influenced by Olympic rules. At the same time, its more progressive than Judo because its more open to changes in grappling, like No-Gi for example.



No.... still not making any sense. I mean, how does BJJ have a "more direct line" to pre-war Judo than Judo does? BJJ is the result of early Judo being taken from Japan, touring a number of countries (including England, from memory), being combined with elements of other wrestling forms, being taken in a different path in Brazil, given a difference emphasis, and ultimately having a different specialization entirely... but that's a more direct line to pre-war Judo than Judo, which is simply the direct descendant (hell, it's not even a descendant... it is the same thing just with a range of alterations due to changing environments)? Seriously?



Kframe said:


> Chris parker.  I didn't know that there ground work was judo. I didn't read much into there comments section.   I tend to call all ground fighting techniques BJJ by default.  I guess I should be more careful with my terminology.



Ha, not a problem. I find that a lot of people tend to make that assumption/connection these days... and the insistence in MMA/UFC that all grappling is ground work, and it's all "jiujitsu" plays no small part in that error.



Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah I know...so if we are going to play this game then lets be completely correct here since Jujutsu is a generic name and you are using an specific name, Kano-ha Jujutsu, and mixing it with the generic term to make your case.....
> 
> Then the base of Judo (aka Kano-ha Jujutsu) is Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu and the base of Brazillion Jiujitsu is Kano-ha Jujutsu which does say that generically they both have a jujutsu base but yet they still do not have the "same" base since Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu is not the same as Kano-ha Jujutsu.
> 
> Therefore they still do not share the same base since Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu was changed to get to Kano-ha Jujutsu and the beginning of BJJ is Kano-ha Jujutsu not Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; jujutsu.



Yep. But, of course, Judo isn't just based in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu... Kito Ryu plays quite a part too... especially in the nage waza and kata (Koshiki no Kata as the most obvious example).



Steve said:


> Chris, if it is ground fighting and it works, it's Bjj...  Even if it's not.  You should know that.



Sure... but by the same token, BJJ is just the watered down sporting version of the watered down kids version of a watered down sports version of the actual martial arts... 



Kframe said:


> Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts.
> 
> You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..
> My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all.
> 
> Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record.
> This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing.
> Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia.
> I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.



Okay, so you've had some bad experiences that have involved being taken to the ground. That, believe it or not, proves nothing. I've been in probably 5 or 6 fights in my time, including a group assault, and none of them involved anything close to going to ground... so whose experience is the correct one? The answer, of course, is neither. They're both just a very small sample of what could happen. If you're concerned about the ground, then yeah, I'd recommend BJJ, absolutely. But your reasoning is far more to do with your emotional response.



Kframe said:


> It does when you have a near paralyzing fear of being dominated on the ground...



Like that.



Hanzou said:


> Considering that most people know how to fight naturally in stand up position, but don't naturally know how to fight on the ground, I think you've made a wise decision.



Hmm... "most people know how to fight naturally in a stand up position"? Really? I don't think I'd agree with that... and, from memory, in the other thread, you didn't either. I seem to remember you saying that the goal of everyone in a fight is to take the other person to the ground... care to reconcile that? Oh, and no, most people don't really know how to fight in any position... standing is just the most common starting position due to our social structure... we stand in groups. Not that that means it always goes to the ground, of course...


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> What, you never seen someone get someone on the ground and start pounding away?



Of course, and that usually happens after two guys get into a clinch, and someone falls to the ground.

However, my point to Kframe was that you can pick up standup easily without much training. However, if he's going to a legit Gjj school, they'll be teaching him Judo throws, wrestling takedowns, and set ups from striking range, all while developing a strong ground game. So he shouldn't worry about being able to fight on his feet.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Of course, and that usually happens after two guys get into a clinch, and someone falls to the ground.
> 
> However, my point to Kframe was that you can pick up standup easily without much training. However, if he's going to a legit Gjj school, they'll be teaching him Judo throws, wrestling takedowns, and set ups from striking range, all while developing a strong ground game. So he shouldn't worry about being able to fight on his feet.



Sure until he meets a guy that trains not to go to the ground.  Or is at a place where going to the ground is a bad idea.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:
			
		

> No.... still not making any sense. I mean, how does BJJ have a "more direct line" to pre-war Judo than Judo does? BJJ is the result of early Judo being taken from Japan, touring a number of countries (including England, from memory), being combined with elements of other wrestling forms, being taken in a different path in Brazil, given a difference emphasis, and ultimately having a different specialization entirely... but that's a more direct line to pre-war Judo than Judo, which is simply the direct descendant (hell, it's not even a descendant... it is the same thing just with a range of alterations due to changing environments)? Seriously?




Read post #602. Judo's natural evolution was heading towards a stronger Newaza slant. Kano purposely curbed that evolution because he preferred standing throws. Olympic Judo has continued that push.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Sure until he meets a guy that trains not to go to the ground.



Its pretty hard to fight gravity.



> Or is at a place where going to the ground is a bad idea.



And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Its pretty hard to fight gravity.


I spend half my class in judo fighting gravity.  Staying on my feet.  So do high school wrestlers and football players to a lesser degree.  So don't act like a BJJ guy can just take anyone and everyone down at will.  That's just not the case and you better prepare for the guy that you cant take down



> And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.


Getting up quickly would mean you already went down.  Again someplace you don't ever want to go down no matter how fast you can get up.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> What was this thread about again?



LOL!  Hard to follow, I know.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> LOL!  Hard to follow, I know.



It flows nicely however.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> I spend half my class in judo fighting gravity.  Staying on my feet.  So do high school wrestlers and football players to a lesser degree.  So don't act like a BJJ guy can just take anyone and everyone down at will.  That's just not the case and you better prepare for the guy that you cant take down.



And I spend half my class helping gravity do its job by learning how to take people off their feet. Judoka, Football players, wrestlers, etc. have all been taken down. As a Judoka, you ought to know that there's numerous ways to throw someone down, but no one has developed a perfect method of not getting taken down. 

Because of that, its better to know what to do on the ground, instead of training to avoid getting taken to the ground. It's also better to work with natural forces than against them.



> Getting up quickly would mean you already went down.  Again someplace you don't ever want to go down no matter how fast you can get up.



Even more reason to know what to do if you ever end up there instead of attempting to avoid that fighting phase completely.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Royce Gracie has had one fight that was under a minute and that was 57 seconds vs Ken Shamrock.
> 
> 
> now do you care to talk about his 15:00, 15:00, 15:49, 36:00 or 90:00 minute fights? Or how about his fathers 3 hour, 42 minute fight?
> 
> 
> listen, just because Royce did well In a quick fashion against some fighters with little experience vs grappling or the gi does not change the philosophy of GJJ. They were not taught to pass up on a submission attempt in order to go slow, of course if your opponent makes a mistake early you capitalize on it, but you don't force it and you don't rush it. GJJ is an extremely patient martial art.
> 
> 
> listen it's ok to go "hey GJJ is an extremely effective art that can finish an opponent fast. But I didn't realize the philosophy behind the art was one of methodical patience".



Who're you addressing this to?  Me?  If so, allow me to clarify a few things:

1) I'm far from anti BJJ.  I enjoy it, I've dabbled in it, I've got some friends to actively train it.  If someone is looking for a good ground art, that is the first thing that I steer them to.

2) I'm sure in certain situations, a sport fighter is pretty capable of defending him/herself.

3) The only reason I mentioned time, is because of certain comments that were being made, which implied that the Gracies, specifically Royce, could dispatch an opponent in record time.  While I don't dispute that this has happened, the fact is that a) the vast majority of his fights have gone well past the minute mark and b) that was one of the reasons why the Gracie clan was disappointed with the turn the UFC took, once they added time limits/rounds.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> And I spend half my class helping gravity do its job by learning how to take people off their feet. Judoka, Football plaf, wrestlers, etc. have all been taken down. Because of that, its better to know what to do on the ground, instead of training to avoid getting taken to the ground. It's also better to work with natural forces than against them.


Your right nobody can stay on their feet.  Keep thinking that.  I hope it works for you.  I know it wont but good luck.


> Even more reason to know what to do if you ever end up there instead of attempting to avoid that fighting phase completely.



Like I said someplace you don't ever want to be in the ground.  Crowded bars and in a busy street being two of them.  Go out in the street in front of one of out local taxi drivers your getting run over.  These fools hit people everyweekend.  But again i live in the real world with real criminals and real fights you fighy in a nice padded cage where its one on one with a ref. to save you. So what do i know.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Because of that, its better to know what to do on the ground, instead of training to avoid getting taken to the ground. It's also better to work with natural forces than against them.
> 
> 
> Even more reason to know what to do if you ever end up there instead of  attempting to avoid that fighting phase completely.



It is better to know both, it is more important to avoid getting taken down. It is better to avoid the worst case scenario than to purposely go to it. Take it from someone who knows, it only takes a second to get stomped on.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Your right nobody can stay on their feet.  Keep thinking that.  I hope it works for you.  I know it wont but good luck.



So you're saying that Judokas have never been taken down, football players have never been tackled, and wrestlers have never been slammed to the mat?




> Like I said someplace you don't ever want to be in the ground.  Crowded bars and in a busy street being two of them.  Go out in the street in front of one of out local taxi drivers your getting run over.  These fools hit people everyweekend.  But again i live in the real world with real criminals and real fights you fighy in a nice padded cage where its one on one with a ref. to save you. So what do i know.



Okay, but what if happens in your living room? Your bed room? A sidewalk? Your front lawn? In a hallway? In a classroom? The backseat of a car? In a playground? etc. There's too many variables at play to simply have a strategy of never going to the ground. In some cases you won't have that choice. In others, it may be the only way to neutralize someone long enough for you to get away.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Sure until he meets a guy that trains not to go to the ground.  Or is at a place where going to the ground is a bad idea.



Or someone who can knock him out before he goes to the ground.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> It is better to know both, it is more important to avoid getting taken down. It is better to avoid the worst case scenario than to purposely go to it. Take it from someone who knows, it only takes a second to get stomped on.



You learn both after you learn ground fighting.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Of course, and that usually happens after two guys get into a clinch, and someone falls to the ground.
> 
> However, my point to Kframe was that you can pick up standup easily without much training. However, if he's going to a legit Gjj school, they'll be teaching him Judo throws, wrestling takedowns, and set ups from striking range, all while developing a strong ground game. So he shouldn't worry about being able to fight on his feet.



You can pick up standup easily but you can not do it well easily without much training so yeah he should be concerned about it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Its pretty hard to fight gravity.



Fighting gravity is easy, ignoring it altogether, now that's hard.





Hanzou said:


> And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.



A lot of arts will teach you that.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Of course, and that usually happens after two guys get into a clinch, and someone falls to the ground.



Isn.t that the way it goes in MMA and BJJ .


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> A lot of arts will teach you that.



If they aren't teaching you ground fighting, they aren't teaching you how to get off the ground in the fastest way possible.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> If they aren't teaching you ground fighting, they aren't teaching you how to get off the ground in the fastest way possible.



What makes you think they are not?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Judokas have never been taken down, football players have never been tackled, and wrestlers have never been slammed to the mat?


Of course they have and at the same time no they haven't.  If you put all your eggs in the take him down and sub.  Him and you cant get him down.  Well your screwed you better have a plan for dealing with someone that's standing up.


> Okay, but what if happens in your living room?


Bullet 





> Your bed room?


. Bullet. 





> A sidewalk?


 depends im going to run if i can. 





> Your front lawn?


. Im going inside then bullet 





> In a hallway?


. My hallway?  Bullet. 





> In a classroom?


. I dont go to school. 





> The backseat of a car?


. How do you gobtobthe ground in a car?  So I'm going to punch lots 





> In a playground? etc.


. With my kids your getting gun faced. 





> There's too many variables at play to simply have a strategy of never going to the ground.



Correct I train for the ground as well.  You seem to believe you will always go down and don't have a plan for when that fails

 In some cases you won't have that choice. In others, it may be the only way to neutralize someone long enough for you to get away.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MJS

Kframe said:


> Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts.
> 
> You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..
> My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all.
> 
> Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record.
> This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing.
> Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia.
> I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.



Well, you have to do what is best for you.  I wanted to get some basic ground skills because it was lacking in my training.  IMHO, I think that if one really wants to be as well rounded as they can, then knowledge of all ranges of fighting, is important.


----------



## MJS

Rich Parsons said:


> Mike,
> 
> I am sorry I am 41 pages late to the party in the last week.
> 
> Your question is do people need techniques or just pure fighting skill?
> 
> In my personal experience, and before any training, I would and did loose my temper and I would use pure strength and just crush or smash people and hurt them. Bringing violence to just end it.
> 
> Later also before training, I would get the adrenaline dump and it was cool shiver down my body, I would almost fall into a clear space / time continuum. It was great. (Adrenaline addict anyone?) I would not tunnel vision I would not flinch up and then respond. I responded usually down the center line and usually to their throat. Once again bringing the most violence the quickest.
> 
> After some training I learned more techniques and I used them. I did not break people as bad. I did not send as many to the hospital for making bad mistakes. Yet I reacted, and brought the violence still. Just more planned or understood.
> 
> Still after even more training and time, I realized that this was an adrenaline addiction and not good for me. So I hesitated. I did not bring the violence. While I got hurt in the above situations. Including getting my butt handed to me many a time. Others always remembered , saw or experienced the violence and it limited it to one or two guys. When I hesitated and brought less violence I ended up spending time in the hospital or going through windows, dislocated ribs , you get the picture.  So I consciously choose to bring the violence and to end it quickly.
> 
> I was able to do joint locks. I was able to perform techniques many a people would say do not work in a real or street fight. They worked for me because I practiced them and because I understood fighting and dealing with it. Was I afraid? Usually. Which is why the violence came out.
> 
> So to answer your question, Nothing works. Everything works.
> 
> Pure will to survive works.
> Pure will to destroy the enemy works.
> Working to get better with skill and using the adrenaline in a constructive manner works. (* See top tier professional athletes and also special forces, where in gun fights they are trained to still follow their control and their training - all under stress and elevated heart rate and  adrenaline. *)
> 
> 
> So yes, someone with fighting skill can defend themselves.
> Someone with training can defend themselves as well.
> 
> If the person does not have the drive to hurt other willing, and they can be trained and pressure tested so they respond under stress and use their training then this is how you teach people self defense.
> Now as to the sport question of sport type defending themselves. I have seen boxers break their hands as they were used to gloves. I have seen wrestlers take a guy down only to be beaten to a pulp by his friends. I have seen the reverse as well. Where the boxer picks a guy a part and the wrestler takes the guy down and submits him and walks away or hurts him.
> 
> So as always it depends.
> 
> 
> **** Added ****
> 
> Weapons will change everything. I know I carry trainer folding knives at seminars. I have rolled (not a great ground person) and if I can pull it I do. It always changes everything. Sometimes they just freeze in fear. Sometimes they over concentrate on the weapon giving me an opening to attack a joint. Or I just stab them as they do not even realize it is there.



Thanks for the reply Rich.  Nice to see a reply that actually has to do with the OP.   I figured that both cases would probably apply, but I figured it'd be good to hear from others as well.  

Thanks again!


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Of course they have and at the same time no they haven't.  If you put all your eggs in the take him down and sub.  Him and you cant get him down.  Well your screwed you better have a plan for dealing with someone that's standing up.



The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.



> Bullet . Bullet.  depends im going to run if i can. . Im going inside then bullet . My hallway?  Bullet. . I dont go to school. . How do you gobtobthe ground in a car?  So I'm going to punch lots . With my kids your getting gun faced.



And if you're unarmed? Backseat of the car is usually a rape situation. As is a bedroom, living room, etc.



> Correct I train for the ground as well.  You seem to believe you will always go down and don't have a plan for when that fails
> 
> In some cases you won't have that choice. In others, it may be the only way to neutralize someone long enough for you to get away.



As I've often said, the ground is the place where the worse things take place. If the fight remains standing, you're generally okay. You can always disengage and walk/run away if your standing. 

If someone wants to really hurt you, they will try to take YOU to the ground and control you. The ground is where people's heads are caved in, people are choked to death, people are stomped, women are raped, etc. Which is why its a good thing to know what to do if/when that happens. That's also the point I was making to Kframe. Standing up is no big deal. The ground is where you really want to know how to fight.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Its pretty hard to fight gravity.



Oddly enough, Chuck Liddell seemed to be pretty good at staying on his feet, and yes, before you say it, I know he has a grappling background.  My point is that all of his fights, stayed upright for the most part.





> And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.



I agree, but if you're in a position where going to the ground is bad in the first place, why intentionally go there?


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> It flows nicely however.



Yes, I agree.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Hanzou said:


> And I spend half my class helping gravity do its job by learning how to take people off their feet. Judoka, Football players, wrestlers, etc. have all been taken down. As a Judoka, you ought to know that there's numerous ways to throw someone down, but no one has developed a perfect method of not getting taken down.
> 
> Because of that, its better to know what to do on the ground, instead of training to avoid getting taken to the ground. It's also better to work with natural forces than against them.



Ok, there are numerous ways to take someone down, but there are numerous ways to prevent being taken down as well. No there is no perfect one size fits all reversal for every takedown, but then there is no one size fits all perfect for every situation take down either. I will disagree that it is better to know what to do on the ground than to avoid being taken down. I think it is the opposite. Both are important, but for self defense it is more important to be able to stay on your feet to look for exits or other threats closing in on you.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> What makes you think they are not?



Personal experience. Some of the stuff taught in MA schools for self defense on the ground is a joke. Also doing it once or twice a year in a seminar isn't very helpful either. It needs to be drilled and practiced, and tested consistently. Especially for women, who are more likely to not only be attacked, but be forced to be on the ground by a stronger attacker.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Er... and? Are you trying to imply that the only way anyone can win via submission is by using BJJ? Seriously? Not familiar with Judo, Kansetsu waza, Osai Komi, CaCC Wrestling, Greco-Roman, Freestyle, or any of a large number of other forms? You do realise, of course, that although there is no traditional ground fighting what are called the Ninjutsu systems, they are Japanese arts, which makes them grappling-oriented almost by definition (note here: grappling does not, nor has it ever, refer to ground fighting. That is a gross mis-application of the term by modern ground fighters)? Japanese arts aren't striking arts... they're all about catching, holding, pinning, choking, locking, throwing... and you're thinking that someone with a Japanese art background getting people to submit shows a dominance of something he hadn't trained in? Really?
> 
> I mean, let me ask you something... is this BJJ?
> 
> 
> 
> .



I realize it's tough fighting two or threes battles at once, but my post wasn't about BJJ being integrated into Ninjutsu (that's the other guy who is trying to hit you in the back of the head while I'm trying to take you to the ground!).   That post of mine was in regards to you not mentioning Scott when you mentioned Ninjitsu stepping up early on in NHB, and then also in regards to your somewhat anti grappling stance (I know your not anti) in stating the only ground fighting you teach is to get back up.    So I was just showing that yes two (somewhat) Ninjitsu guys fought early testing that art and mostly won via ground fighting.



> And, yes, Scott was a black belt under Mike... who is Bob's brother. Your point? Oh, and I'm really not the person to inform about the history of RBWI or anything related, for the record.



yeah I'm picking up on that,  was just curious to me that you left him out and added Jennum in when making your point.


----------



## Hanzou

Himura Kenshin said:


> Ok, there are numerous ways to take someone down, but there are numerous ways to prevent being taken down as well. No there is no perfect one size fits all reversal for every takedown, but then there is no one size fits all perfect for every situation take down either. I will disagree that it is better to know what to do on the ground than to avoid being taken down. I think it is the opposite. Both are important, but for self defense it is more important to be able to stay on your feet to look for exits or other threats closing in on you.



I find that argument ironic coming from a martial artist. If we could simply train ourselves to avoid a potentially dangerous situation, then why train how to fight? We train to fight "in case something happens" and our avoidance tactics fail. I've avoided plenty of fights using verbal Jiujitsu, but its good to know that I have Brazilian Jiujitsu in case that fails. The same can be said for if someone wants to take me down. Yes I have tools to keep myself on my feet, but I also have tools in case I end up off my feet.

Considering that you have Judokas, Football players, Wrestlers, and MMA fighters who all train hard to not get taken down, get taken down rather consistently shows that its far easier to get taken down than many people realize. These people are taken down by double leg takedowns, tackles, trips, and general wrestling locks and holds. These are simple moves that the general population is fully capable of learning without formal training.


----------



## TFP

Kframe said:


> Chris parker.  I didn't know that there ground work was judo. I didn't read much into there comments section.   I tend to call all ground fighting techniques BJJ by default.  I guess I should be more careful with my terminology.



God please don't do this!  Ha, as a guy with a Catch Wrestling background this is a pet pieve, lol!  CACC guys were beating up GJJ's great uncles (Judo) well before GJJ was even a thought.  Nit to mention GJJ's grandpa used to train and fight CATCH.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Hanzou said:


> If they aren't teaching you ground fighting, they aren't teaching you how to get off the ground in the fastest way possible.



I think proper ukemi will help you get off the ground faster in most cases.




Hanzou said:


> The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.



If you train diligently and consistently, then yes at some point you make a mistake and get taken down, just like some ground fighters eat a knee or get their takedown reversed. I'm sure thre are people on the forums here who have been in fights and never went to the ground. I'm not one of them, but I don't think that being in a ground fight s as inevitable and you seem to think it is.




Hanzou said:


> And if you're unarmed? Backseat of the car is usually a rape situation. As is a bedroom, living room, etc.



Or they could be robberies. I can see someone being attacked in their bed and having it resemble a ground fight with someone on top of the other, but how does one end up on his or her back in the car? All my interior vehicle defenses result around me being in the driver's seat.



Hanzou said:


> As I've often said, the ground is the place where the worse things take place. If the fight remains standing, you're generally okay.



Being on the ground with someone on top of you can be scary and terrible things can happen to you there, no one is denying that. But being stabbed on the ground is no better or worse than being stabbed while standing up, or shot, or beat with a heavy object. Being on the ground gives you less room to maneuver, so in some ways it can be a more difficult situation to defend yourself from. Fighting from your feet is no less dangerous however because even though you have more space to move in so would your attacker. I think your statement over generalizes. 





Hanzou said:


> You can always disengage and walk/run away if your standing.



Really? Are you sure you can ALWAYS disengage without there being considerable harm done to one person or the other?



Hanzou said:


> If someone wants to really hurt you, they will try to take YOU to the ground and control you. The ground is where people's heads are caved in, people are choked to death, people are stomped, women are raped, etc. Which is why its a good thing to know what to do if/when that happens. That's also the point I was making to Kframe. Standing up is no big deal. The ground is where you really want to know how to fight.



If someone really wants to hurt you they will use a weapon, and then it doesn't usually matter if you are standing or no. I also make the distinction between fighting "on the ground" and fighting "from the ground". Fighting on the ground is when the defender and at least one attacker are on the ground with one person being pinned to the floor in some way/ Fighting from the ground is where only one person is on the ground and the other is standing. The dynamics are different in these situations as you still have more freedom of movement when fighting from the ground than when fighting on the ground with someone working to restrict your movement. And again, I don't think that this automatically makes ground fighting more dangerous, as I think it depends on what was happening when on your feet.


----------



## TFP

Kframe said:


> Figured id repost this here, as it will give some details of my personal experiances that have made it really hard for me to commit to stand up TMA arts.
> 
> You want to know why im worried.  Ill tell you.. When I was younger I was in 2 fights. I lost them both thanks to no ground training..
> My fear of being on the ground touches every art I have tried.  I see a lot of good in this art, I just have hard time with my phobia of being dominated on the ground.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around a art that doesn't do any ground work at all.
> 
> Honestly do you know what its like to be in a fight get taken down and forced to eat dirt? Or choked  with a belt? I do,  DO YOU?    Hence my desire that this art work  and has a proven track record.
> This previous experience seeps into every single art I have tried. I love stand up arts, and prefer them to ground. But I also know what happens, if you don't have mastery there.  It creates a doubt in my mind as to what im doing.
> Ill train this art, either now or later. I think it is a good Stand up art..  I just need  to master ground fighting first. I need to make my phobia my strength. If im going to commit to a stand up art, I have to master ground grappling.. I have to conquer my phobia.
> I don't know if anyone here truly understands where im coming from.




I suggest you learn to wrestle.  I know that's not easy for a grown up, but defending a takedown and getting back up from a takedown is key.   Wrestling or Judo tbh!


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> I suggest you learn to wrestle.  I know that's not easy for a grown up, but defending a takedown and getting back up from a takedown is key.   Wrestling or Judo tbh!



Honestly Gjj would be better than Judo if your goal is to wrestle. Judo is too gi-dependent. Most Bjj/Gjj schools cross train with wrestling constantly. There's also no gi, which is mechanically very similar to wrestling.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.


 you keep thinking that.  You can't ALWAYS get someone down.  Well maybe your just that good but most people can't ALWAYS do anything there is no such thing as ALWAYS.


> And if you're unarmed?


That never happens I'm always armed or very close to a gun no matter where I am.  However if I were unarmed I've got a lifetime of striking arts to fall back on.



> Backseat of the car is usually a rape situation. As is a bedroom, living room, etc.


Ive never been raped and quite frankly i dont think i have to worry about that im not very pretty. But again im armed so of they want to rape me well they will catch a bullet


> As I've often said, the ground is the place where the worse things take place. If the fight remains standing, you're generally okay. You can always disengage and walk/run away if your standing.


Running and disengaging should Always been your goal.  Standing or laying and fighting it out is just stupid.  


> If someone wants to really hurt you, they will try to take YOU to the ground and control you. The ground is where people's heads are caved in, people are choked to death, people are stomped, women are raped, etc. Which is why its a good thing to know what to do if/when that happens. That's also the point I was making to Kframe. Standing up is no big deal. The ground is where you really want to know how to fight.


Ok someone watched too much tv of you believe that.  Again what do I know. I only respond to rapes and murders and assaults and know how they happen.  But again you keep thinking stand up is no big deal.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Who're you addressing this to?  Me?  If so, allow me to clarify a few things:
> 
> 1) I'm far from anti BJJ.  I enjoy it, I've dabbled in it, I've got some friends to actively train it.  If someone is looking for a good ground art, that is the first thing that I steer them to.
> 
> 2) I'm sure in certain situations, a sport fighter is pretty capable of defending him/herself.
> 
> 3) The only reason I mentioned time, is because of certain comments that were being made, which implied that the Gracies, specifically Royce, could dispatch an opponent in record time.  While I don't dispute that this has happened, the fact is that a) the vast majority of his fights have gone well past the minute mark and b) that was one of the reasons why the Gracie clan was disappointed with the turn the UFC took, once they added time limits/rounds.




Wasn't toward you at all, but thanks for replying!   My post was also in response to someone saying Royce beat everyone in under a minute to counter my claim that GJJ was a unique in the fact that it was a martial art that focused on attrition and patience.


----------



## Hanzou

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think proper ukemi will help you get off the ground faster in most cases.



Good thing Bjj teaches ukemi as well.




> Or they could be robberies. I can see someone being attacked in their bed and having it resemble a ground fight with someone on top of the other, but how does one end up on his or her back in the car? All my interior vehicle defenses result around me being in the driver's seat.



You never heard of date rape?



> Being on the ground with someone on top of you can be scary and terrible things can happen to you there, no one is denying that. But being stabbed on the ground is no better or worse than being stabbed while standing up, or shot, or beat with a heavy object. Being on the ground gives you less room to maneuver, so in some ways it can be a more difficult situation to defend yourself from. Fighting from your feet is no less dangerous however because even though you have more space to move in so would your attacker. I think your statement over generalizes.



I am generalizing, but if you're laying on the ground fighting someone, that tends to be a more serious altercation than both of you standing up exchanging blows. 




> Really? Are you sure you can ALWAYS disengage without there being considerable harm done to one person or the other?



How else would you be able to disengage and run away from a situation unless you're standing? Butt scoot?



> If someone really wants to hurt you they will use a weapon, and then it doesn't usually matter if you are standing or no.



Again I disagree. Plenty of people have been seriously hurt or even killed by the ground and pound, choked, or getting their head smacked into the concrete. That was done without weapons. If you're both standing and he has a knife on you and wants your wallet, you can throw him your wallet and run away. If he's on top of you with a knife on you, he wants to kill you. However, there's way too many variables to make this into a worthwhile discussion. My point was that things are more serious on the ground, so its a good idea to know how to fight on or from the ground.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said someplace you don't ever want to be in the ground.  Crowded bars and in a busy street being two of them.  Go out in the street in front of one of out local taxi drivers your getting run over.  These fools hit people everyweekend.  But again i live in the real world with real criminals and real fights you fighy in a nice padded cage where its one on one with a ref. to save you. So what do i know.



Slow down tough guy!  I've used BJJ in street fights many times and it has done nothing but help me.  I'm talking out front of bars, 4 on 6,  in the street, etc.  

Please don't act like the street is so much tougher than the cage, it isn't!   I have fought in both!

Damn it!  Now I sound like the tough guy.........


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.



And yet, some of us train to stay upright and put our opponents off balance. YMMV. Once you have mastered your own balance, it's actually not hard to stay on your feet in a defensive posture. Or, you use Ukemi to regain your balance if needed....Again, your opinion may be different.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Slow down tough guy!  I've used BJJ in street fights many times and it has done nothing but help me.  I'm talking out front of bars, 4 on 6,  in the street, etc.
> 
> Please don't act like the street is so much tougher than the cage, it isn't!   I have fought in both!
> 
> Damn it!  Now I sound like the tough guy.........


 by I'ts very definition the steet is tougher then the cage.  I've never seen anyone get stabbed in the "cage". I've never seen anyone's friend soccer kick you in the head in a cage.  I've never seen a ref.  On the street unless you consider me a ref.  I've never seen bouncers separate people and slam them on their faces in a cage.  But Sure ok cage is just as dangerous as the street  after you remove the refs, ring side medical staff, and the understanding that if you give up the other guy will stop


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> you keep thinking that.  You can't ALWAYS get someone down.  Well maybe your just that good but most people can't ALWAYS do anything there is no such thing as ALWAYS.



Doesn't that make Judo useless, since its entirely based on throwing someone to the ground, or taking them down?



> That never happens I'm always armed or very close to a gun no matter where I am.  However if I were unarmed I've got a lifetime of striking arts to fall back on.



Not all of us are cops.



> Ive never been raped and quite frankly i dont think i have to worry about that im not very pretty. But again im armed so of they want to rape me well they will catch a bullet



Not all of us are less than pretty male cops either. However I also happen to be a less than pretty male, so I feel your pain.



> Running and disengaging should Always been your goal.  Standing or laying and fighting it out is just stupid.



I can agree with that.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> Honestly Gjj would be better than Judo if your goal is to wrestle. Judo is too gi-dependent. Most Bjj/Gjj schools cross train with wrestling constantly. There's also no gi, which is mechanically very similar to wrestling.



It's potato/pototo tbh.  If you don't want to go to the ground wrestling is best, if you don't want to go to the ground but want to be able to throw your opponent there then Judo IMO.   If you want to know how to fight on the ground then BJJ.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Doesn't that make Judo useless, since its entirely based on throwing someone to the ground, or taking them down?


Useless as what?  A sport?  in self defense?  Real Judo like the Judo I learn also has striking, and standing joint locks.  It also teaches me NOT to get taken down by the most common ways as you already said single and double legs, tackles, and scoop and slams.  So is sport Judo great for self defense no there are better methods, is complete old school judo useless?  No at all.



> Not all of us are cops.


Dont need to be a cop to be armed.  If your state wont allow you the god given right to defend yourself get the law changed or move.  



> Not all of us are less than pretty male cops either. However I also happen to be a less than pretty male, so I feel your pain.


We teach rape prevention classes and while we do teach some ground skills we focus on standing striking soft targets and running as your 1st line of defense.

Like I said Im not downplaying the importance of knowing ground skills.  You seem to not believe you need any standing skills and thats just bad.  Your plan A may be go down and control or sub.  But you better have a plan B when you cant get him to the ground and your forced to strike


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> by I'ts very definition the steet is tougher then the cage.  I've never seen anyone get stabbed in the "cage". I've never seen anyone's friend soccer kick you in the head in a cage.  I've never seen a ref.  On the street unless you consider me a ref.  I've never seen bouncers separate people and slam them on their faces in a cage.  But Sure ok cage is just as dangerous as the street  after you remove the refs, ring side medical staff, and the understanding that if you give up the other guy will stop



All valid points!

Now take into consideration the percentage of actually "trained" fighters you are going to meet up with in the street vs. How trained your opponent is across from you in that cage.

Now take into consideration the willingness to continue the fight after you show the guy/guys in the street you know how to defend yourself and hurt them compared to your opponents in a cages willingness to continue to fight.

Yes the street is very unpredictable and dangerous, etc.   But not for the most part.   I've been in countless street fights, 1/1, group fights, outnumbered, bars, weapons, jumped, etc.   And honestly it isn't as bad as you make out to be.  Most people in the street like to act tough as long as things are going there way, and honestly most are to scared to actually jump in.

Either way, my point being don't discredit the dangers or seriousness of the cage.


----------



## TFP

Spinedoc said:


> And yet, some of us train to stay upright and put our opponents off balance. YMMV. Once you have mastered your own balance, it's actually not hard to stay on your feet in a defensive posture. Or, you use Ukemi to regain your balance if needed....Again, your opinion may be different.



Did you watch any of the early NHB/Vale Tudo fights?   Early UFC or Gracie in action tapes?   It's actually not that easy to stay standing in a fight by just "mastering your balance".   Not at all.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> All valid points!
> 
> Now take into consideration the percentage of actually "trained" fighters you are going to meet up with in the street vs. How trained your opponent is across from you in that cage.
> 
> Now take into consideration the willingness to continue the fight after you show the guy/guys in the street you know how to defend yourself and hurt them compared to your opponents in a cages willingness to continue to fight.
> 
> Yes the street is very unpredictable and dangerous, etc.   But not for the most part.   I've been in countless street fights, 1/1, group fights, outnumbered, bars, weapons, jumped, etc.   And honestly it isn't as bad as you make out to be.  Most people in the street like to act tough as long as things are going there way, and honestly most are to scared to actually jump in.
> 
> Either way, my point being don't discredit the dangers or seriousness of the cage.



Fighting in the cage is a game simple as that.  If it makes you feel like a tough guy then so be it your a tough guy but its a game none the less.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> That never happens I'm always armed or very close to a gun no matter where I am.  However if I were unarmed I've got a lifetime of striking arts to fall back on.
> 
> 
> .



Aha!:jaw-dropping:  "fall back on"!?!?!?!?!?  This must be some type of  subconscious slip, but it only proves the grapplers art is the best art, because to "fall back" would by definition, imply to.......



1. To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.
2. To drop oneself to a lower or less erect position: 
3.
a. To lose an upright or erect position suddenly.
b. To drop wounded or dead, especially in battle.


Thus you are now on the ground!!

And......

THE GROUND IS THE OCEAN.  IM THE SHARK AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWIM!






I rest my case, lock this thread up and let's move on people, my work here is done!!!!!! :rules:


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> And yet, some of us train to stay upright and put our opponents off balance. YMMV. Once you have mastered your own balance, it's actually not hard to stay on your feet in a defensive posture. Or, you use Ukemi to regain your balance if needed....Again, your opinion may be different.



There's a reason Olympic Judo banned the Morote Gari (double leg takedown), from competition. That reason is that the move made it too easy to take Judokas to the ground in competition and score an Ippon. I would say that Olympic Judo practitioners have some of the best balance and Ukemi in MA. 

If the best Judokas in the world couldn't stop the double leg takedown.......


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> There's a reason Olympic Judo banned the Morote Gari (double leg takedown), from competition. That reason is that the move made it too easy to take Judokas to the ground in competition and score an Ippon. I would say that Olympic Judo practitioners have some of the best balance and Ukemi in MA.
> 
> If the best Judokas in the world couldn't stop the double leg takedown.......



You love you tube so much there are 1000s of clips of double legs not working.  Come on man get real.


----------



## ballen0351

fall back on
phrasal verb of fall
1.
have recourse to when in difficulty.
"they normally fell back on one of three arguments"
synonyms:	resort to, turn to, look to, call on, have recourse to; rely on, depend on, lean on
"I can always fall back on my career in landscaping


Cute but you forgot the "on" part but your cute I'll give you that.



TFP said:


> Aha!:jaw-dropping:  "fall back on"!?!?!?!?!?  This must be some type of  subconscious slip, but it only proves the grapplers art is the best art, because to "fall back" would by definition, imply to.......
> 
> 
> 
> 1. To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.
> 2. To drop oneself to a lower or less erect position:
> 3.
> a. To lose an upright or erect position suddenly.
> b. To drop wounded or dead, especially in battle.
> 
> 
> Thus you are now on the ground!!
> 
> And......
> 
> THE GROUND IS THE OCEAN.  IM THE SHARK AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWIM!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case, lock this thread up and let's move on people, my work here is done!!!!!! :rules:


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Fighting in the cage is a game simple as that.  If it makes you feel like a tough guy then so be it your a tough guy but its a game none the less.



May be, but this doesn't make the skills you use in the cage any less effective and it also is a great way to prove if certain moves work or not, yes even in your "ultra dangerous" world.


I mean look at Loyoto Machida!  Footwork, avoidance, pinpoint striking, great takedown D and a knowledge of ground fighting has been proven effective by him.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> You love you tube so much there are 1000s of clips of double legs not working.  Come on man get real.



You missed my point. Even the most balanced people can and will get taken down. The IJF banning the Morote Gari is just one example.

On a side note, I wish Judo was more open to MMA influence. Bjj and MMA are already mining Judo for throws to change up the stand up game, and you're starting to see Bjj and Wrestling's transition speed being applied to Judo with no gi applications. Its creating a nasty combination that's going to change grappling, MMA, and martial arts in general once it takes hold.

Here's one example;






DLT fail to Harai Goshi.

Brings a tear to my eye.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> fall back on
> phrasal verb of fall
> 1.
> have recourse to when in difficulty.
> "they normally fell back on one of three arguments"
> synonyms:	resort to, turn to, look to, call on, have recourse to; rely on, depend on, lean on
> "I can always fall back on my career in landscaping
> 
> 
> Cute but you forgot the "on" part but your cute I'll give you that.



I may have cherry picked......


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> May be, but this doesn't make the skills you use in the cage any less effective and it also is a great way to prove if certain moves work or not, yes even in your "ultra dangerous" world.
> 
> 
> I mean look at Loyoto Machida!  Footwork, avoidance, pinpoint striking, great takedown D and a knowledge of ground fighting has been proven effective by him.



I never said the skill was less.  You need much more skill to fight in a cage and be successful.  That's not the point.  The point was the Cage has rules that limit the danger.  Both fighters are sober and agreed to fight one on one.  That's not always the case in real life.  Like I said before most street fights are nothing special.  Little push here slap there or sucker punch then a clinch until bouncers break it up.  The problem happens when its not a normal street fight.  Like I posted earlier aboit the BJJ guy that got sucker punched in the side of the head while doing a rear naked choke on another guy.  
HHere's a neat drill next time your at BJJ take a training knife and don't tell the guy your rolling with.  Pull it and start stabbing him see how they react.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You missed my point. Even the most balanced people can and will get taken down. The IJF banning the Morote Gari is just one example.
> 
> On a side note, I wish Judo was more open to MMA influence. Bjj and MMA are already mining Judo for throws to change up the stand up game, and you're starting to see Bjj and Wrestling's transition speed being applied to Judo with no gi applications. Its creating a nasty combination that's going to change grappling, MMA, and martial arts in general once it takes hold.
> 
> Here's one example;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DLT fail to Harai Goshi.
> 
> Brings a tear to my eye.



OK I give up your just wrong ok you can't ALWAYS take someone down.  You think your that good great.  Most people are not as good as you.  I've never been taken down in a fight.  I've had people try.  Double and single legs.  I've arrested a collegiate wrestler that tried to take me down.  He failed and got tased.  I've arrested BJJ guys and MMA guys that have resisted and tried to take me down.  It hasn't happened yet.  Could it sure some day but not yet.  But again you know best


----------



## Kframe

TFP I actually checked into wrestling. Sadly in my area the only thing available is Dick the Bruisers Wrestling school and that is WWE fantasy stuff. Nothing legit in that place at all. 

I have options, im not so sold on the GJJ place, they want $100 monthly on a 48week contract.  Im not a fan of either the price or the contract.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> TFP I actually checked into wrestling. Sadly in my area the only thing available is Dick the Bruisers Wrestling school and that is WWE fantasy stuff. Nothing legit in that place at all.
> 
> I have options, im not so sold on the GJJ place, they want $100 monthly on a 48week contract.  Im not a fan of either the price or the contract.



Thats cheap for around here.  The BJJ schools around here average $175 to 200 a month thats with my police discount.  Look for a Judo school.  I dont know why but Judo seems to be the cheapest cost of all MA ive seen.  Mine is $30 a month when he decides to ask for money.  Normally I try to pay and he says no no no.


----------



## Hanzou

Kframe said:


> TFP I actually checked into wrestling. Sadly in my area the only thing available is Dick the Bruisers Wrestling school and that is WWE fantasy stuff. Nothing legit in that place at all.
> 
> I have options, im not so sold on the GJJ place, they want $100 monthly on a 48week contract.  Im not a fan of either the price or the contract.



$100 a month is pretty standard for Gjj and most Bjj schools. Most average between $75-150 range unless you live in a highly populated area like LA or NYC, where it can exceed $200 a month.

If you're able to train multiple times a week, for 2+ hours, its worth the price.

Judo is definitely an option if your price conscience. However, given your age I'd be concerned about injuries from throws. Judo is very tough on the body.


----------



## ballen0351

My buddy just paid $3500 bucks for a 2 year program of MMA.  I told him he was insane but he went to 3 classes and they convinced him to drop the coin.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> My buddy just paid $3500 bucks for a 2 year program of MMA.  I told him he was insane but he went to 3 classes and they convinced him to drop the coin.



Yeah, that must have been one hell of a sales pitch. I wouldn't be dropping that much upfront for 2 years. What if something happens and you can't train? That's crazy.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that must have been one hell of a sales pitch. I wouldn't be dropping that much upfront for 2 years. What if something happens and you can't train? That's crazy.



Same thing I asked him what happens if you get hurt and are out for 6 months.  He said "That wont happen"  lol.  Oh to be 22 and stupid again I miss that mindset sometimes


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> [/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.judoinfo.com/kano4.htm   Learn something new every day. 30 years in jiu jitsu and judo, never heard this before. Probably should throw out my book collection going back to 1894.
> 
> 
> 
> [/I][/I]http://umjudo.com/JudoHistory/HistoryEight.htm
> 
> Nice. Again, please explain why the FIRST codified kata of judo is the katame no kata, developed at least 10 years before the Gokyo. Bonus points for explaining why an insignificant section of judo was codified 2 years after the formation of the Kodokan, as opposed to 13 years for the Gokyo.
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR]http://umjudo.com/JudoHistory/HistoryNine.htm


Why did Kano institute those rules? Was it because he didn't believe that ground grappling only tournaments fully explored the spirit and art of judo? Or is there some other reason you can enlighten us with?


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> Read post #602. Judo's natural evolution was heading towards a stronger Newaza slant. Kano purposely curbed that evolution because he preferred standing throws. Olympic Judo has continued that push.


 
Judo's natural evolution was being decided by a bunch of high school kids? Not the founder's vision? Seriously?


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> Why did Kano institute those rules? Was it because he didn't believe that ground grappling only tournaments fully explored the spirit and art of judo? Or is there some other reason you can enlighten us with?



Draw your own conclusions. My point was merely to show that Kano preferred throwing techniques and  the rules of Judo have towed that line at the expense of Newaza. The most recent example being the banning of Morote Gari and Kuchiki Taoshi.



frank raud said:


> Judo's natural evolution was being decided by a bunch of high school kids? Not the founder's vision? Seriously?



I guess you missed this part;



> After 1900, Judo had begun emphasizing such grappling techniques. Maeda, who entered the Kodokan in 1897, was there during the greatest development of Judo as a grappling style. Indeed, in 1914, the high school championships introduced that year in Japan were primarily Judo grappling matches, ended by the chokes, armbars, or submission movements typical of Judo grappling. This "Kosen Judo" continues today as a relic of that era of Judo in university tournaments in Japan, as well as in Gracie and Brazilian Ju Jitsu. *The trend was so strong in this direction that, by 1926, Kano finally changed tournament rules to restrict grappling, and once again emphasize throwing techniques.*




http://umjudo.com/JudoHistory/HistoryNine.htm

I respect Kano's vision, but clearly grappling and newaza was taking hold in competitive Judo. Kano decided to curb that, and reinforce the throwing techniques. If he hadn't done that, modern Judo would probably more closely resemble Gjj/Bjj.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> And the Akban organization, which have quite a number of schools. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find more Ninjutsu groups doing Bjj ground fighting.
> 
> Like I said, you have ninjutsu schools teaching and incorporating Bjj into their style.



The AKBAN organization. According to their own website they do have multiple schools, but have approximately 300 students in total. I can think over several local schools that have more students than that. I wouldn't use them as an example of how something has influenced an entire art.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> Draw your own conclusions. My point was merely to show that Kano preferred throwing techniques and  the rules of Judo have towed that line at the expense of Newaza. The most recent example being the banning of Morote Gari and Kuchiki Taoshi.
> 
> The techniques have not been banned. They cannot be used as an opening technique, but are legal to use as a followup or as a counter.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed this part;
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR]http://umjudo.com/JudoHistory/HistoryNine.htm



I did not miss it. Again please explain how judo's natural evolution should be decided by a bunch of high schools kids. Not the founder's vision. Bonus points for using your own words, not a repeat cut and paste. Why did Kano institute the rule changes?


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> _The techniques have not been banned. They cannot be used as an opening technique, but are legal to use as a followup or as a counter. _



From the IJF;



> The International Judo Federation Refereeing Commission announced one change in the rules of judo during the IJF Ordinary Congress in Rotterdam/NED, last Sunday (23rd August).All techniques below the belt line will not be allowed anymore. This includes double leg and single leg takedowns as well as fireman carry maneuvers (in most cases).
> Any athlete trying to grip the opponent´s leg will be punished with a shido (first time). If another try happens, he will be banned from the combat (hansokumake) and the victory will be given to the opponent. Only techniques using leg against leg will be allowed, or if the hand grip in the leg is the continuation of another technique tried (example: ouchigari which can develop into kataguruma).







Sounds like banning to me. 



> I did not miss it. Again please explain how judo's natural evolution should be decided by a bunch of high schools kids. Not the founder's vision. Bonus points for using your own words, not a repeat cut and paste. Why did Kano institute the rule changes?



I already did. Clearly, Newaza became the preferred method of competition, becoming extremely popular as Newaza practitioners began winning competitions over Nagewaza practitioners. Kano didn't like that so he changed the rules. Its simple, and falls in line with his preference towards standing techniques. My personal belief is that Kano didn't want Judo to become a wrestling style, and reinforcing the importance of throws over grappling achieved that goal (in his mind). The problem with this belief is that it led to decades of Judo getting tooled by wrestlers because it wouldn't adapt. That recent rule change from the IJF is yet another example of that. Russian and Mongolian Judokas were entering into the Olympics with strong wrestling backgrounds, and were dumping people with single and double leg tackdowns.

 Bjj/Gjj on the other hand adapted and freely incorporated wrestling into its system. AKA a more direct link to pre-war Judo because Gjj/Bjj's evolution was free of Kano and the IJF's interference.

Its to the point now where many Bjj instructors say that its better for a Bjj stylist to learn wrestling takedowns over Judo throws.


----------



## ballen0351

I think judo is trying to get away from the ground game now to show contrast from BJJ grappling comps.  But this is a modern thing and has nothing to do with Kano


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> I think judo is trying to get away from the ground game now to show contrast from BJJ grappling comps.  But this is a modern thing and has nothing to do with Kano



Kano was the one that got the ball rolling in 1926 with the rule change though, and I imagine that many of those IJF rules are supported by many in the Judo community because they believe that they're following Kano's wishes for Judo.

I agree that many Judoka wish to form a contrast from Bjj, however they should seriously look at what modern Bjj is doing and consider adapting some of its teaching in a similar direction. 

No gi Judo would be a wonderful start.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> I respect Kano's vision, but clearly grappling and newaza was taking hold in competitive Judo. Kano decided to curb that, and reinforce the throwing techniques. If he hadn't done that, modern Judo would probably more closely resemble Gjj/Bjj.



You don't know that. You're speculating as to what Judo would have or would not have become. Look, you like BJJ....cool. Good for you. I don't need it and the competition thing at this point in my life turns me off. TWENTY years ago, when I was in my early 20's, I might have been all over that. I'm married, have a daughter and am in a VERY, VERY different phase of my life now. As far as ground fighting, if someone manages to take me down, I wrestled long enough to know plenty of escapes and counters (High School). Also, I'm a fairly big guy and I'm pretty strong (military). I'm not scared of someone taking me down. 

You want everyone to train BJJ, but guess what, MOST of us won't. I respect the BJJ guys, heck, we have one in our Aikido dojo, trained both GJJ, and then another form of BJJ. First off, he's a helluva guy and would be first to admit that BJJ is far from a perfect art, and that it is NOT ideal for all fighting situations. It works in some. He's also trained in TKD. One of the things he's said is that the subtlety and nuance in Aikido is far beyond anything in BJJ. He also has stated he feels off balance most of the time (like myself at this point) and that a real experienced aikidoka could easily disrupt his balance and throw him down (and he's pretty experienced in BJJ arts). He's honest about his limitations and the limitations of BJJ. He's trying to train in other things. 

Honestly, you need to respect that others on here do not share your views and that they train other arts for, well, other reasons. 

Peace,

Mike


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc, you've greatly misunderstood my posts if you believe that I want everyone to train in Bjj. 

What I'd like to see is more Judo dojos shake off the IJF B.S. and adapt more to the changing landscape of modern grappling.

As for other arts like Karate, Ninjutsu, and Kung Fu, the practitioners of those styles can do whatever the heck they want.


----------



## ballen0351

Who says people don't do no GI judo.  We have 1 class every 6 weeks or so where we come in street clothes and go outside if weathers nice and practice throws and ground game like I said my judo teacher says sport is secondary in judo  We do the same for Goju as well but that's once a month sometimes more


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Who says people don't do no GI judo.  We have 1 class every 6 weeks or so where we come in street clothes and go outside if weathers nice and practice throws and ground game like I said my judo teacher says sport is secondary in judo  We do the same for Goju as well but that's once a month sometimes more



Yeah, that's what I mean. It should be done 2-3 times a week at least, and inside the dojo. Not outside every few months when you guys want to prove a point. Its should be a consistent part of your learning, like it is in Bjj.

That's just my opinion though. 

The gi-based throws sure are pretty;






However, its amazing how many throws must be eliminated w/o the gi. That's part of the reason Bjj resorted to more wrestling takedowns and throws in its evolution.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that's what I mean. It should be done 2-3 times a week at least, and inside the dojo. Not outside every few months when you guys want to prove a point. Its should be a consistent part of your learning, like it is in Bjj.
> 
> That's just my opinion though.
> 
> The gi-based throws sure are pretty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, its amazing how many throws must be eliminated w/o the gi. That's part of the reason Bjj resorted to more wrestling takedowns and throws in its evolution.


Why do we need to do it more?  There isn't much difference between a gi and no GI.  If you can throw with a GI yyou can throw without.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> Spinedoc, you've greatly misunderstood my posts if you believe that I want everyone to train in Bjj.
> 
> What I'd like to see is more Judo dojos shake off the IJF B.S. and adapt more to the changing landscape of modern grappling.
> 
> As for other arts like Karate, Ninjutsu, and Kung Fu, the practitioners of those styles can do whatever the heck they want.



So , judo should adapt by doing no gi and institute more wrestling, as well as train 2-3 times a week in street clothes, but other "traditional arts" have no need to change and can do whatever they want? Why not do BJJ or MMA, mix in a little RBSD and leave judo alone, like the other TMAs? If this were to happen, would judo than be more traditional or more progressive than BJJ, or would it be much harder to tell them apart?


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> From the IJF;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like banning to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did. Clearly, Newaza became the preferred method of competition, becoming extremely popular as Newaza practitioners began winning competitions over Nagewaza practitioners. Kano didn't like that so he changed the rules. Its simple, and falls in line with his preference towards standing techniques. My personal belief is that Kano didn't want Judo to become a wrestling style, and reinforcing the importance of throws over grappling achieved that goal (in his mind). The problem with this belief is that it led to decades of Judo getting tooled by wrestlers because it wouldn't adapt. That recent rule change from the IJF is yet another example of that. Russian and Mongolian Judokas were entering into the Olympics with strong wrestling backgrounds, and were dumping people with single and double leg tackdowns.
> 
> Bjj/Gjj on the other hand adapted and freely incorporated wrestling into its system. AKA a more direct link to pre-war Judo because Gjj/Bjj's evolution was free of Kano and the IJF's interference.
> 
> Its to the point now where many Bjj instructors say that its better for a Bjj stylist to learn wrestling takedowns over Judo throws.



Kosen judo is predominantly ground grappling. Kano was the founder, spiritual guide, visionary who got to decide exactly what course HIS martial art and vision took. He did not believe that focussing on newaza only was sufficient for the development and education of judoka. He believed that a portion of training should be devoted to kata, another portion to nagwaza and another portion to randori, including newaza. Kosen judo does not fit those parameters. Rules were instituted(as they often are) to ensure the founder's vision was respected.


----------



## K-man

What at a smorgasbord. 




Hanzou said:


> Of course, and that usually happens after two guys get into a clinch, and someone falls to the ground.
> 
> 
> Like *Ballen*, I train not to go to the ground. If someone falls to the ground, chances are it's my opponent.
> 
> 
> However, my point to Kframe was that you can pick up standup easily without much training. However, if he's going to a legit Gjj school, they'll be teaching him Judo throws, wrestling takedowns, and set ups from striking range, all while developing a strong ground game. So he shouldn't worry about being able to fight on his feet.
> 
> 
> Here's me still training standup after all these years and still learning. I must be a very slow learner.






Hanzou said:


> Read post #602. Judo's natural evolution was heading towards a stronger Newaza slant. Kano purposely curbed that evolution because he preferred standing throws. Olympic Judo has continued that push.


Not sure that the answer had anything to do with the question! Still, why would Kano prefer standing throws? Could it be in RBSD judo you don't want to automatically go to the ground?


Hanzou said:


> Its pretty hard to fight gravity.
> 
> 
> Thank God, it happens every time I fly.
> 
> 
> And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.
> 
> 
> No. Many styles will teach you how to quickly regain your feet. For me regaining my feet is top of mind. For BJJ it's not. You do what you train when under pressure.






Hanzou said:


> And I spend half my class helping gravity do its job by learning how to take people off their feet. Judoka, Football players, wrestlers, etc. have all been taken down. As a Judoka, you ought to know that there's numerous ways to throw someone down, but no one has developed a perfect method of not getting taken down.
> 
> 
> And I spend a lot of time learning how to put my opponent on the ground.
> 
> 
> Because of that, its better to know what to do on the ground, instead of training to avoid getting taken to the ground. It's also better to work with natural forces than against them.
> 
> 
> Most arts teach enough groundwork to be competent on the ground except against a specialist grappler. I know enough on the ground to feel comfortable. As far as I'm concerned working with natural forces is using my opponent's momentum to redirect him to my advantage.
> 
> 
> Even more reason to know what to do if you ever end up there instead of attempting to avoid that fighting phase completely.
> 
> 
> All RBSD art avoids going to the ground if possible. None of them avoid or dismiss ground fighting.






Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Judokas have never been taken down, football players have never been tackled, and wrestlers have never been slammed to the mat?
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone said that at all.





Hanzou said:


> Okay, but what if happens in your living room? Your bed room? A sidewalk? Your front lawn? In a hallway? In a classroom? The backseat of a car? In a playground? etc. There's too many variables at play to simply have a strategy of never going to the ground. In some cases you won't have that choice. In others, it may be the only way to neutralize someone long enough for you to get away.





Nobody is advocating a strategy of never going to the ground. Just that going to the ground in a real life situation should never be the number one go to strategy.




Hanzou said:


> If they aren't teaching you ground fighting, they aren't teaching you how to get off the ground in the fastest way possible.




That is patently untrue. In Aikido we train constantly to regain your feet. In Systema we train to regain our feet. Same in Krav and I teach it in Goju. None of those arts train to stay on the ground. I would have thought that the arts that specifically train to regain your feet might be better than those that advocate mainly ground fighting.




Hanzou said:


> The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.
> 
> 
> For me, except in Aikido, the main time I get taken to the ground is when someone grabs my gi. That is unlikely to occur on the street.
> 
> 
> And if you're unarmed? Backseat of the car is usually a rape situation. As is a bedroom, living room, etc.
> 
> 
> Unlike *Ballen*, I don't have a gun and feel no need to have a gun. In my car, well I think that totally unlikely and in my bedroom or living room I have two German Shepherds to assist.
> 
> 
> As I've often said, the ground is the place where the worse things take place. If the fight remains standing, you're generally okay. You can always disengage and walk/run away if your standing.
> 
> 
> Once again, patently untrue. I can have you in multiple holds that you won't walk away from, even with your BJJ skills.
> 
> 
> If someone wants to really hurt you, they will try to take YOU to the ground and control you.
> 
> 
> Again, not true. If I really wanted to hurt someone I would do it from a standing position.
> 
> 
> The ground is where people's heads are caved in, people are choked to death, people are stomped, women are raped, etc.
> 
> 
> Exactly, which makes a pretty strong arguement for not make the ground your main objective. Isn't that ironic!





Hanzou said:


> Which is why its a good thing to know what to do if/when that happens. That's also the point I was making to Kframe. Standing up is no big deal. The ground is where you really want to know how to fight.
> 
> 
> Absolute garbage! Standing up fighting is real big deal! The ground is secondary. Important but not where most people want to be.







			
				Hanzou
Personal experience. Some of the stuff taught in MA schools for self defense on the ground is a joke. Also doing it once or twice a year in a seminar isn't very helpful either. It needs to be drilled and practiced said:
			
		

> Can't help but style bash can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that argument ironic coming from a martial artist. If we could simply train ourselves to avoid a potentially dangerous situation, then why train how to fight? We train to fight "in case something happens" and our avoidance tactics fail. I've avoided plenty of fights using verbal Jiujitsu, but its good to know that I have Brazilian Jiujitsu in case that fails. The same can be said for if someone wants to take me down. Yes I have tools to keep myself on my feet, but I also have tools in case I end up off my feet.
> 
> 
> Ironic? Not really if you understand the meaning of irony.  For reality based self defence avoiding conflict is number one. If you can avoid conflict there will be no issue. Once you engage all the unknown variables come into play. You don't always know who you are fighting or how many you are fighting. If you hurt someone you could be charged with anything up as far as murder or if you are the one hurt you could end up paralysed for the rest of your life. Training to fight is fine for sport. Training to firstly avoid the fight is best for RBSD.
> 
> 
> Considering that you have Judokas, Football players, Wrestlers, and MMA fighters who all train hard to not get taken down, get taken down rather consistently shows that its far easier to get taken down than many people realize. These people are taken down by double leg takedowns, tackles, trips, and general wrestling locks and holds. These are simple moves that the general population is fully capable of learning without formal training.
> 
> 
> Judo players, wrestlers and MMA fighters all expect to go to the ground. Footballers, if they go to the ground get up and keep playing. As for those moves being simple? Maybe not so simple that to be effective you don't have to train them.
> 
> 
> In 1935 Kano received the Asahi Prize for outstanding contributions in the fields of art, science and sports. Three years later he went to an IOC meeting in Cairo and succeeded in getting Tokyo nominated for the site of the 1940 Olympics at which Judo was to be included as one of the events for the first time.
> 
> 
> Now this is not so cut and dry. I can find multiple references to a Martial Art being included but only one source that is quoted by all others to suggest that art was Judo. When you consider that Kano wasn't keen to have Judo included, why was it going to be Judo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Gjj would be better than Judo if your goal is to wrestle. Judo is too gi-dependent. Most Bjj/Gjj schools cross train with wrestling constantly. There's also no gi, which is mechanically very similar to wrestling.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




			
				Hanzou
Personal experience. Some of the stuff taught in MA schools for self defense on the ground is a joke. Also doing it once or twice a year in a seminar isn't very helpful either. It needs to be drilled and practiced said:
			
		

> That's a pretty short sighted statement. None of my training involves using the gi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing Bjj teaches ukemi as well.
> 
> 
> Really? Did BJJ get that from Ninjutsu, Jujutsu, Aikido or Karate?
> 
> 
> You never heard of date rape?
> 
> 
> Is that 'Sport' or 'TMA'?
> 
> 
> I am generalizing, but if you're laying on the ground fighting someone, that tends to be a more serious altercation than both of you standing up exchanging blows.
> 
> 
> If you say so! I can't really see the difference.
> 
> 
> How else would you be able to disengage and run away from a situation unless you're standing? Butt scoot?
> 
> 
> ???? If you are locked up it might be hard to run away whether you are on the ground or standing.
> 
> 
> Again I disagree. Plenty of people have been seriously hurt or even killed by the ground and pound, choked, or getting their head smacked into the concrete. That was done without weapons. If you're both standing and he has a knife on you and wants your wallet, you can throw him your wallet and run away. If he's on top of you with a knife on you, he wants to kill you. However, there's way too many variables to make this into a worthwhile discussion. My point was that things are more serious on the ground, so its a good idea to know how to fight on or from the ground.
> 
> 
> If being on the ground is so bad, perhaps you should train more to avoid being there. Your statement here is a true example of 'ironic'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that make Judo useless, since its entirely based on throwing someone to the ground, or taking them down?
> 
> That is not what *Bal**len* was saying at all. He was saying that you don't always succeed in the takedown. If you miss a takedown in Judo or MMA you get to have another go. If you miss it in a street fight you might be in big trouble.
> 
> Not all of us are less than pretty male cops either. However I also happen to be a less than pretty male, so I feel your pain.
> 
> From your avatar, I think you are very pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason Olympic Judo banned the Morote Gari (double leg takedown), from competition. That reason is that the move made it too easy to take Judokas to the ground in competition and score an Ippon. I would say that Olympic Judo practitioners have some of the best balance and Ukemi in MA.
> 
> Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
> 
> If the best Judokas in the world couldn't stop the double leg takedown.......
> 
> Or this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed my point. Even the most balanced people can and will get taken down. The IJF banning the Morote Gari is just one example.
> 
> Sometimes, but I disagree with you IJF hypothesis unless you have some evidence.
> 
> 
> On a side note, I wish Judo was more open to MMA influence. Bjj and MMA are already mining Judo for throws to change up the stand up game, and you're starting to see Bjj and Wrestling's transition speed being applied to Judo with no gi applications. Its creating a nasty combination that's going to change grappling, MMA, and martial arts in general once it takes hold.
> 
> So, as a result Judo should change! Really?
> 
> Here's one example;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And leaves himself wide open to a downward elbow strike to the spine in a real situation.
> 
> DLT fail to Harai Goshi.
> 
> 
> Brings a tear to my eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that must have been one hell of a sales pitch. I wouldn't be dropping that much upfront for 2 years. What if something happens and you can't train? That's crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Aikido training is $200 a month. Sometimes you have to pay to get top instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Draw your own conclusions. My point was merely to show that Kano preferred throwing techniques and  the rules of Judo have towed that line at the expense of Newaza. The most recent example being the banning of Morote Gari and Kuchiki Taoshi.
> 
> Or maybe he didn't want a sport that was boring!
> 
> I respect Kano's vision, but clearly grappling and newaza was taking hold in competitive Judo. Kano decided to curb that, and reinforce the throwing techniques. If he hadn't done that, modern Judo would probably more closely resemble Gjj/Bjj.
> 
> Martial Judo more resembles MMA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kano was the one that got the ball rolling in 1926 with the rule change though, and I imagine that many of those IJF rules are supported by many in the Judo community because they believe that they're following Kano's wishes for Judo.
> 
> As a sport!
> 
> I agree that many Judoka wish to form a contrast from Bjj, however they should seriously look at what modern Bjj is doing and consider adapting some of its teaching in a similar direction.
> 
> Rubbish! Judo is Judo, BJJ is BJJ. If we all took our MA and taught BJJ we would have none of the other arts, or is that what you are suggesting?
> 
> No gi Judo would be a wonderful start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spinedoc, you've greatly misunderstood my posts if you believe that I want everyone to train in Bjj.
> 
> It's easy to see how such a misunderstanding could occur.
> 
> What I'd like to see is more Judo dojos shake off the IJF B.S. and adapt more to the changing landscape of modern grappling.
> 
> Sort of more like BJJ?
> 
> As for other arts like Karate, Ninjutsu, and Kung Fu, the practitioners of those styles can do whatever the heck they want.
> 
> We will, but I appreciate your permission!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what I mean. It should be done 2-3 times a week at least, and inside the dojo. Not outside every few months when you guys want to prove a point. Its should be a consistent part of your learning, like it is in Bjj.
> 
> Of course, but how does that fit in with the people who can only train once or twice a week. You know, the vast majority.
> 
> That's just my opinion though.
> 
> Perfectly unbiased as always!
> 
> The gi-based throws sure are pretty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, its amazing how many throws must be eliminated w/o the gi. That's part of the reason Bjj resorted to more wrestling takedowns and throws in its evolution.
> 
> We are indeed fortunate that in everything I train we didn't go down that track.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hanzou*, may I applaud your choice of Avatar. From henceforth I shall recognise you as the Little Prince.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> Kosen judo is predominantly ground grappling. Kano was the founder, spiritual guide, visionary who got to decide exactly what course HIS martial art and vision took. He did not believe that focussing on newaza only was sufficient for the development and education of judoka. He believed that a portion of training should be devoted to kata, another portion to nagwaza and another portion to randori, including newaza. Kosen judo does not fit those parameters. Rules were instituted(as they often are) to ensure the founder's vision was respected.



I'm well aware of that.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> THE GROUND IS THE OCEAN.  IM THE SHARK AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWIM!



I think you will find that sharks are pretty useless on dry land so why jump in the water?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Personal experience. Some of the stuff taught in MA schools for self defense on the ground is a joke. Also doing it once or twice a year in a seminar isn't very helpful either. It needs to be drilled and practiced, and tested consistently. Especially for women, who are more likely to not only be attacked, but be forced to be on the ground by a stronger attacker.





Hanzou said:


> Honestly Gjj would be better than Judo if your goal is to wrestle. Judo  is too gi-dependent. Most Bjj/Gjj schools cross train with wrestling  constantly. There's also no gi, which is mechanically very similar to  wrestling.




An example of both ground defence being a joke and being too gi-dependent.






BJJ against multiple attackers


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Also doing it once or twice a year in a seminar isn't very helpful either. It needs to be drilled and practiced, and tested consistently.



Twice a year is never enough, that is why ground defences are taught on a regular basis, no more or less than the defence to any other hold.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I am generalizing, but if you're laying on the ground fighting someone, that tends to be a more serious altercation than both of you standing up exchanging blows.



That is just a matter of opinion and circumstance, most of the fights that I have seen that involve both combatants being on the ground have resulted in no more than some harmless unskilled wrestling.



Hanzou said:


> My point was that things are more serious on the ground,



Just ask the many people who have been killed by a one punch knocout as to what is more serious, no wait you can't - they're dead. Again it is dependent on circumstances.


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> An example of both ground defence being a joke and being too gi-dependent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJJ against multiple attackers


If that was simple knife defence, I wouldn't want to try the more complex one.

(I think you've double posted the video)


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> An example of both ground defence being a joke and being too gi-dependent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJJ against multiple attackers



Oh my....:eye-popping:  See, this proves the point (no pun intended ) that I was making earlier.  Why the hell would you intentionally go to the ground in this situation?


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> An example of both ground defence being a joke and being too gi-dependent.




http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/femal...rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/


----------



## ballen0351

Seems Dubai Is not a safe place for woman

http://m.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/courts/female-kickboxer-beat-up-would-be-dubai-rapist


----------



## RTKDCMB

K-man said:


> If that was simple knife defence, I wouldn't want to try the more complex one.
> 
> (I think you've double posted the video)



This was the one I meant to post.

BJJ against multiple attackers;


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/femal...rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/



Good on her and serves him right, but notice that she removed the threat of the knife *before *she wrestled him to the ground.


----------



## RTKDCMB

MJS said:


> Oh my....:eye-popping:  See, this proves the point (no pun intended ) that I was making earlier.  Why the hell would you intentionally go to the ground in this situation?



His first mistake was before he went to the ground by sticking his head and neck out closer to the knife. Also why would you let go of the knife holding hand once you managed to grab it to hold it off with your foot?


----------



## Spinedoc

RTKDCMB said:


> This was the one I meant to post.
> 
> BJJ against multiple attackers;



Well, yep, that's sorta what I imagined would happen. LOL.


----------



## Spinedoc

RTKDCMB said:


> His first mistake was before he went to the ground by sticking his head and neck out closer to the knife. Also why would you let go of the knife holding hand once you managed to grab it to hold it off with your foot?




Agreed, he would have been stabbed about 5 times trying to do that maneuver.

Mike


----------



## RTKDCMB

Spinedoc said:


> Agreed, he would have been stabbed about 5 times trying to do that maneuver.
> 
> Mike



At least.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> This was the one I meant to post.
> 
> BJJ against multiple attackers;



Thats awesome.  "Stop, stop!"


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Good on her and serves him right, but notice that she removed the threat of the knife *before *she wrestled him to the ground.


Is anyone trying to say you should grapple a guy with a knife?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Is anyone trying to say you should grapple a guy with a knife?



Watch the other video.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Watch the other video.



yeah I saw that, comical at best.  I meant anyone in this thread suggesting it.


----------



## TFP

Also, has anyone in this thread actually been in a knife fight or knife attack?  Have you seen a knife fight or knife attack?

outside of work of course.:wink2:


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I spend half my class in judo fighting gravity.  Staying on my feet.  So do high school wrestlers and football players to a lesser degree.  So don't act like a BJJ guy can just take anyone and everyone down at will.  That's just not the case and you better prepare for the guy that you cant take down


Yea, verily.



> Getting up quickly would mean you already went down.  Again someplace you don't ever want to go down no matter how fast you can get up.


Horsefeathers.  Most places people "fight" are relatively free of broken glass, HIV needles, and lava, and there are plenty of reasons one might deliberately choose to go to newaza.  One reason might be that you're better at newaza.  Another is that you're getting your butt kicked standing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

RTKDCMB said:


> Isn.t that the way it goes in MMA and BJJ .


Clinches seem to happen with fair regularity when one fighter is losing the standup fight badly.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Of course they have and at the same time no they haven't.  If you put all your eggs in the take him down and sub.  Him and you cant get him down.  Well your screwed you better have a plan for dealing with someone that's standing up.
> 
> Bullet . Bullet.  depends im going to run if i can. . Im going inside then bullet . My hallway?  Bullet. . I dont go to school. . How do you gobtobthe ground in a car?  So I'm going to punch lots . With my kids your getting gun faced.


Bullet bullet bullet bullet???  Damn.  You'd better be damn sure that you can convince the DA and potential jury that some guy wrestling with you on the ground represented Deadly Force to you and an *immediate*, *inescapable *threat.  And this is coming from a huge 2A supporter and NRA Certified RSO.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> An example of both ground defence being a joke and being too gi-dependent.


Whoa.  Hold on.  There is a difference between saying that intentionally fighting on the ground is a bad idea in self defence, and saying that it is a joke.  I start to take things personally when you call my style a joke.  





> BJJ against multiple attackers


Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble?  I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers.  Agreed.  But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble.  The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.  

For a bunch of guys complaining that the thread has drifted to become focused on BJJ, you guys seem to be going out of your way to focus on BJJ.   How it became BJJ vs Judo, I don't know.  But, the fact is, both are "sports" and both are "traditional martial arts."  In my opinion, this should more properly be a conversation about the pros/cons of styles like BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Kyokushin Karate and TKD as opposed to styles with zero sport elements, such as Taijutsu, jujutsu, Goju Ryu or any number of styles.  

Hell, let's talk pros and cons of san shou vs wing chun.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> God please don't do this!  Ha, as a guy with a Catch Wrestling background this is a pet pieve, lol!  CACC guys were beating up GJJ's great uncles (Judo) well before GJJ was even a thought.  Nit to mention GJJ's grandpa used to train and fight CATCH.


And CaCC guys were getting beaten up by Judo guys too.  CaCC guys considered Judo/Jui-Jitsu as just another style of wrestling and, if early 19th C. CaCC legends and writers are to be believed, one that was OK and worth adding to the standard set of CaCC "tricks."  

Martin "Farmer" Burns repeatedly describes Juido/Jui-Jitsu as merely "tricky Japanese wrestling" and George "The Russian Lion" Hackenschmidt specifically recommends in his book on CaCC that wrestlers learn a bit of Jui-Jitsu.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It's also better to work with natural forces than against them.



When striking you use natural forces all the time - its called physics.


----------



## Steve

lklawson said:


> And CaCC guys were getting beaten up by Judo guys too.  CaCC guys considered Judo/Jui-Jitsu as just another style of wrestling and, if early 19th C. CaCC legends and writers are to be believed, one that was OK and worth adding to the standard set of CaCC "tricks."
> 
> Martin "Farmer" Burns repeatedly describes Juido/Jui-Jitsu as merely "tricky Japanese wrestling" and George "The Russian Lion" Hackenschmidt specifically recommends in his book on CaCC that wrestlers learn a bit of Jui-Jitsu.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Catch wrestling is just grumpy no-gi BJJ.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Is anyone trying to say you should grapple a guy with a knife?



Not specifically but our good friend Hanzou seems to be of the  opinion that it is always best to go to the ground. Others have said  that it is not the preferable option and there are many situations where  it is a very bad idea and this was one of them.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Hold on.  There is a difference between saying that intentionally fighting on the ground is a bad idea in self defence, and saying that it is a joke.  I start to take things personally when you call my style a joke.



Personally, I don't think BJJ is a joke.  I have said that intentionally going down may be a bad idea in certain situations.  



> Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble?  I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers.  Agreed.  But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble.  The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.



IMHO, multi man attacks are a PITA, regardless of the art one trains.  I've seen some good multi man stuff and some that was less desirable..lol.  I also feel that it's something that needs to be drilled, with specific things, worked on.  



> For a bunch of guys complaining that the thread has drifted to become focused on BJJ, you guys seem to be going out of your way to focus on BJJ.   How it became BJJ vs Judo, I don't know.  But, the fact is, both are "sports" and both are "traditional martial arts."  In my opinion, this should more properly be a conversation about the pros/cons of styles like BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Kyokushin Karate and TKD as opposed to styles with zero sport elements, such as Taijutsu, jujutsu, Goju Ryu or any number of styles.
> 
> Hell, let's talk pros and cons of san shou vs wing chun.



I was one that was complaining about the drift.  Sure, some drift will happen, and that's fine.  I felt that I was pretty specific in what I was looking to talk about, however, unfortunately, the thread turned into a repeat of the "Is BJJ good for SD?" thread.

Oh well.....nobody can say the debate here hasn't been interesting.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Hold on.  There is a difference between saying that intentionally fighting on the ground is a bad idea in self defence, and saying that it is a joke.  I start to take things personally when you call my style a joke.



Ok, just to be clear I do not think of any style as a joke (poor choice of words on my part), so I apologize if that is the impression you got from my comment, that was certainly not my intent. I was merely pointing out that, although the practitioner obviously had skill, the choice of technique and strategy in that video was a bit silly. The comment was in response to Hanzou saying that what passed for ground defence in many martial arts was a joke and another one about Judo being too gi-dependent so I pointed out, as an example, that any art can have things that are, shall we say, not thought out well. I could mention a Taekwondo technique that I found equally silly against a downward stab where the defender ignored the knife completely, turned his back on it and went straight to an arm lock on the opposite hand.  



Steve said:


> Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble?



No dispute there.



Steve said:


> I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers.  Agreed.  But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble.  The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.



Absolutely. The guy in the second video obviously knows enough to know that grappling multiple armed opponents is a bad idea enough to make a funny video about it



Steve said:


> In my opinion, this should more properly be a conversation about the pros/cons of styles like BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Kyokushin Karate and TKD as opposed to styles with zero sport elements, such as Taijutsu, jujutsu, Goju Ryu or any number of styles.



That would be more in the spirit of the thread but I suspect that it wont stay there for long.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Personally, I don't think BJJ is a joke.  I have said that intentionally going down may be a bad idea in certain situations.


Frankly, I don't think most people here think it's a joke.  What I was getting at is that the rhetoric tends to creep toward the extreme, until people are caught writing things that don't accurately represent their opinion.  





> IMHO, multi man attacks are a PITA, regardless of the art one trains.  I've seen some good multi man stuff and some that was less desirable..lol.  I also feel that it's something that needs to be drilled, with specific things, worked on.
> 
> I was one that was complaining about the drift.  Sure, some drift will happen, and that's fine.  I felt that I was pretty specific in what I was looking to talk about, however, unfortunately, the thread turned into a repeat of the "Is BJJ good for SD?" thread.
> 
> Oh well.....nobody can say the debate here hasn't been interesting.


I'd be much more interested in a discussion about the merits of sport and competition.  

I think san shou is great to watch, and the guys who compete seem to have a well rounded striking game.  Do any of the CMA guys here have any problems with it?  Do you think it teaches bad habits?  Good habits?   

What about shuai jiao?  Good?  Bad?  Is there a way to develop the skills without competition?  Does anyone think that cross training with Judo would be beneficial?  What about with arts that are NOT sport oriented?


----------



## RTKDCMB

MJS said:


> the thread turned into a repeat of the "Is BJJ good for SD?" thread.



There I was thinking it was becoming a repeat of the TMA versus MMA thread.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> There's a reason Olympic Judo banned the Morote Gari (double leg takedown), from competition. That reason is that the move made it too easy to take Judokas to the ground in competition and score an Ippon.


That's certainly not what the Committee claims.

But, FWIW, most Judoka I know agree with you.

Oh, and it wasn't banned, per se.  Attacks to the leg with the hand are disallowed as a primary attack.  Which effectively bans the double.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> and I imagine that many of those IJF rules are supported by many in the Judo community because they believe that they're following Kano's wishes for Judo.


You'd imagine wrong.  They're wildly unpopular.  Frankly, I'm shocked that they still stand.  I know some judges that refuse to enforce them in small, local, comps.

I also know competitors who've been shido'ed or DQed for the rules and you can guess how popular the rule is for them.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Bullet bullet bullet bullet???  Damn.  You'd better be damn sure that you can convince the DA and potential jury that some guy wrestling with you on the ground represented Deadly Force to you and an *immediate*, *inescapable *threat.  And this is coming from a huge 2A supporter and NRA Certified RSO.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



In his scenario I used a gun only in my home.  I believe he said in my bedroom in my living room in my hallway. You break into my home with the intent to harm me or my family you get a bullet.  The other scenario was someone trying to rape me.  Again legal force is justified to prevent a rape.  Other scenarios out in public didn't involve a bullet.  Hey but don't let the actual conversation get in the way of your cherry picking to serve your agenda.


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> This was the one I meant to post.
> 
> BJJ against multiple attackers;


Mmm! That went well!


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Is anyone trying to say you should grapple a guy with a knife?


HELL, YES!  There are several key elements to knife defense, one is to stay out of range (good luck), another is to fight with a superior weapon (sword vs knife, etc.), but a third, and absolutely *STANDARD* for unarmed defense against a knife, is to *capture *and *control *the weapon bearing limb.  Another word for "capture and control" is "grapple."  Yes, it might, or might not, involve striking, either as setup, distraction, finish, or something in between, but "capture and control" is one of the paramount components.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Good on her and serves him right, but notice that she removed the threat of the knife *before *she wrestled him to the ground.



I think anyone would if they could. If they can't, then you work with what you got.

My point was more to show Bjj working in an actual SD situation with a knife. Remove the weapon from the equation, then neutralize the opponent using ground control.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> In his scenario I used a gun only in my home.  I believe he said in my bedroom in my living room in my hallway. You break into my home with the intent to harm me or my family you get a bullet.  The other scenario was someone trying to rape me.  Again legal force is justified to prevent a rape.  Other scenarios out in public didn't involve a bullet.


And I'm saying that, unless you've got a Castle Doctrine in your State, simply breaking into your home and wrestling with you isn't an Affirmative Defense for use of Deadly Force.  And I still mean exactly what I said.



> Hey but don't let the actual conversation get in the way of your cherry picking to serve your agenda.


Don't get pissy.  I agree with a lot of your points.  But automatically running to Deadly Force is simply not the only, or best, option.  Your decision loop needs to include more than "bullet" or "bullet" or you'll end up on trial.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> I'd be much more interested in a discussion about the merits of sport and competition. [/b]
> 
> I think san shou is great to watch, and the guys who compete seem to have a well rounded striking game.  Do any of the CMA guys here have any problems with it?  Do you think it teaches bad habits?  Good habits?
> 
> What about shuai jiao?  Good?  Bad?  Is there a way to develop the skills without competition?  Does anyone think that cross training with Judo would be beneficial?  What about with arts that are NOT sport oriented?



Well, let's do it then!  I think some of the main things are obvious, ie: the conditioning, the training methods, etc.  When a sport fighter learns something, they use what Matt T. calls the "I Method".  I think that some non sporting arts, tend to not be as 'alive', for lack of better words, with the way certain things are trained.  I may be wrong in saying that, but I'm just going on what I've see in my area.  

You mentioned x-training Judo.  I'm all for training any ground based art.  Of course, nothing says that one has to devote years and years learning the ins and outs, which is fine of course, but at the very least, learn some basics.  It just may save your life.   And nothing says that methods from each (sport and TMA) can't be geared for each other.  

Can skills be developed w/o training?  I'd say yes.  Sparring in/out of class with training partners, and just testing yourself in general.  For example...lets say that I wanted to pressure test one of the stick disarms from Arnis.  Start off slow and gradually build up more and more speed and resistance, until your training partner is swinging with the intent that he's really trying to whack you in the head, the arm, the leg, etc.  That's a great way to see what works and what doesn't.  Funny how when the speed is kicked up a bit, certain things go out the window..lol.  Of course, safety should also be present.  A padded stick, eye protection, etc. can all be used.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Hold on.  There is a difference between saying that intentionally fighting on the ground is a bad idea in self defence, and saying that it is a joke.
> 
> I think you can blame the Little Prince for that. There is hardly a style he hadn't called a joke in one or other of the threads he had taken down his hole.
> 
> I start to take things personally when you call my style a joke.  Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble?  I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers.  Agreed.  But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble.  The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.
> 
> For a bunch of guys complaining that the thread has drifted to become focused on BJJ, you guys seem to be going out of your way to focus on BJJ.   How it became BJJ vs Judo, I don't know.  But, the fact is, both are "sports" and both are "traditional martial arts."  In my opinion, this should more properly be a conversation about the pros/cons of styles like BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Kyokushin Karate and TKD as opposed to styles with zero sport elements, such as Taijutsu, jujutsu, Goju Ryu or any number of styles.
> 
> Hell, let's talk pros and cons of san shou vs wing chun.


I don't think it should be a conversation about any style against another as such, or pros and cons that end up style bashing. It was meant to be a discussion about sport and TMA if I can remember back that far.

The fact that *RTKDCMB* has unearthed a couple of videos showing less than optimal technique or outcome, after all having stupid videos posted demonstrating how ineffective our chose arts are, is pleasant relief.
:asian:


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> There I was thinking it was becoming a repeat of the TMA versus MMA thread.



LOL...yup, that too!


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> And I'm saying that, unless you've got a Castle Doctrine in your State, simply breaking into your home and wrestling with you isn't an Affirmative Defense for use of Deadly Force.  And I still mean exactly what I said.
> 
> Don't get pissy.  I agree with a lot of your points.  But automatically running to Deadly Force is simply not the only, or best, option.  Your decision loop needs to include more than "bullet" or "bullet" or you'll end up on trial.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


What other reason would someone break Into my home?  Im a cop everyone knows im a cop.  So you break in and physically engage me well your intent is to do me or my family harm.  Ill take a trial over the alternative I have enough documented cases of death threats to justify it.
Besides it not shoot first. Its "stop!" "Dont move" wife call 911.  You refuse my orders and come at me.  Bullet.  You run away I'm good leave we will catch you.


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> When striking you use natural forces all the time - its called physics.


Until it becomes less agricultural then it involves biology.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> What other reason would someone break Into my home?


Your TV.

Simple burglaries and interrupted burglaries are still more common than home invasions, despite the rise of the latter.



> Besides it not shoot first. Its "stop!" "Dont move" wife call 911.  You refuse my orders and come at me.  Bullet.  You run away I'm good leave we will catch you.


Which isn't anywhere close to what you said or implied.  I agree with a more nuanced escalation of force and am glad it isn't truly "bullet" as you initially implied.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> I don't think it should be a conversation about any style against another as such, or pros and cons that end up style bashing. It was meant to be a discussion about sport and TMA if I can remember back that far.



You'd be correct.  I just figured since the thread was already off track....but I'm willing to keep it on the OP, which really should be the first choice.



> The fact that *RTKDCMB* has unearthed a couple of videos showing less than optimal technique or outcome, after all having stupid videos posted demonstrating how ineffective our chose arts are, is pleasant relief.
> :asian:



I agree!




> I think you can blame the Little Prince for that.



:lol:  The Little Prince!! LOL! LOL! LOL!




> There is hardly a style he hadn't called a joke in one or other of the threads he had taken down his hole.



Agreed!!


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I think you can blame the Little Prince for that. There is hardly a style he hadn't called a joke in one or other of the threads he had taken down his hole.



Really? Where?


----------



## TFP

Steve said:


> Catch wrestling is just grumpy no-gi BJJ.


Figured I'd throw Catch out there to really get this thread going.:2xbird:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble?  I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers.  Agreed.  But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble.  The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.


This is an interesting comment and one that could be worthy of its own thread which I will start.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Your TV.
> 
> Simple burglaries and interrupted burglaries are still more common than home invasions, despite the rise of the latter.
> 
> Which isn't anywhere close to what you said or implied.  I agree with a more nuanced escalation of force and am glad it isn't truly "bullet" as you initially implied.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Its the internet I didn't know I needed to spell out the use of force scale to you.  So sorry.  

I stand by my post.  Break into my house to cause me or my family harm and well BULLET.............


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Figured I'd throw Catch out there to really get this thread going.:2xbird:


Which CaCC?  U.S. based Collar and Elbow (it continued on the ground after a non-decisive throw)?  Lose Wrestling? Carnival Wrestling?  19th C. "Pro" wrestling?  Gotch style (I like it because of his "Famous Toe Holds")?  Hackenschmidt style (kinda meh)?  Toombs and Hitchcock style?

My favorite is Leonard's 1897 CaCC manual because of all the locks & chokes and because of the significance of the date.

View attachment $293207_243405702367854_3953141_n.jpg

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Its the internet I didn't know I needed to spell out the use of force scale to you.  So sorry.


That's exactly why you need to be specific.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> That's exactly why you need to be specific.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Ok I figured most were smart enough to realize what I ment.  Sorry I'll try harder for you next time


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Ok I figured most were smart enough to realize what I ment.  Sorry I'll try harder for you next time


Again, I'm not your enemy here.  I didn't piss in your wheaties.

All I can go by is what you write.  I've found that making assumptions about whether or not someone might have intended some post to include some sort of "other" (such as a use of force scale) is a sure way to cause problems.

Now, do you really want to keep being a dick?


----------



## K-man

lklawson said:


> Again, I'm not your enemy here.  I didn't piss in your wheaties.
> 
> All I can go by is what you write.  I've found that making assumptions about whether or not someone might have intended some post to include some sort of "other" (such as a use of force scale) is a sure way to cause problems.
> 
> Now, do you really want to keep being a dick?


Ouch!
Yame!

You are the good guys!


----------



## lklawson

K-man said:


> Ouch!
> Yame!
> 
> You are the good guys!


OK, I get ya.  I digress.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

Come on guys...let's take a deep breath and relax with the names.  We're at 50 pages.  Let's see if we can go another 50!


----------



## CNida

Are we really surprised that this thread got the way it did? Anything with "modern vs traditional" or "MMA vs TMA" is bound to be a battle.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Grenadier

Y'all can discuss this matter in a CIVILIZED manner.  You are given some leeway when it comes to attacking the message, but attacking the one bearing the message isn't allowed.  Period.  

There were staff member warnings placed in this thread.  I suggest that everyone who wants to keep this discussion going on, abide by those warnings.  


That being said...

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Keep this discussion on topic and civil.  Further disruptions will result in the issuance of infraction penalties.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Well, let's do it then!  I think some of the main things are obvious, ie: the conditioning, the training methods, etc.  When a sport fighter learns something, they use what Matt T. calls the "I Method".  I think that some non sporting arts, tend to not be as 'alive', for lack of better words, with the way certain things are trained.  I may be wrong in saying that, but I'm just going on what I've see in my area.


Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound.  While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable.  I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it.  There's room for kata and drills. 



> You mentioned x-training Judo.  I'm all for training any ground based art.  Of course, nothing says that one has to devote years and years learning the ins and outs, which is fine of course, but at the very least, learn some basics.  It just may save your life.   And nothing says that methods from each (sport and TMA) can't be geared for each other.


This really depends upon one's goals in training.  Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense.  I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context.  In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you.  I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply.  I don't get into fights.  As I said earlier, I am boring.  I don't drink to excess.  I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang.  I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.  

If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.  

For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application.  Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.  


> Can skills be developed w/o training?  I'd say yes.  Sparring in/out of class with training partners, and just testing yourself in general.  For example...lets say that I wanted to pressure test one of the stick disarms from Arnis.  Start off slow and gradually build up more and more speed and resistance, until your training partner is swinging with the intent that he's really trying to whack you in the head, the arm, the leg, etc.  That's a great way to see what works and what doesn't.  Funny how when the speed is kicked up a bit, certain things go out the window..lol.  Of course, safety should also be present.  A padded stick, eye protection, etc. can all be used.


As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this.  There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport.  My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS."  Yeah?  Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly.  Are you?  If you've never done it, how do you know? 

Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass.  He does the same armbar technique I do.  Am I a badass?  I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass.  And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close.  Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique.  The technique is sound.  It is effective.  The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?  

And how can one answer that question?  By executing technique in context.  Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde?  I don't know.  Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict?  I don't know.  I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.

Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways?  Yes.  I know that I can.  Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy?  Yes.  I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.



K-man said:


> I don't think it should be a conversation about any style against another as such, or pros and cons that end up style bashing. It was meant to be a discussion about sport and TMA if I can remember back that far.


I'd like to see it get back there.  A much more constructive conversation in my mind. 


> The fact that *RTKDCMB* has unearthed a couple of videos showing less than optimal technique or outcome, after all having stupid videos posted demonstrating how ineffective our chose arts are, is pleasant relief.
> :asian:


While the knife technique was questionable, you guys do understand that the multiple attacker video was tongue in cheek.  Right? 


> lklawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why you need to be specific.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I've said the same thing in other threads.  It's not hard to be specific and would really help prevent a lot of needless misunderstanding around here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> I think you will find that sharks are pretty useless on dry land so why jump in the water?


Unless it's the dreaded Land Shark.


----------



## ballen0351

> While the knife technique was questionable, you guys do understand that the multiple attacker video was tongue in cheek. Right



So what is a typical BJJ reaction to more than one assailant?


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> And CaCC guys were getting beaten up by Judo guys too.  CaCC guys considered Judo/Jui-Jitsu as just another style of wrestling and, if early 19th C. CaCC legends and writers are to be believed, one that was OK and worth adding to the standard set of CaCC "tricks."
> 
> Martin "Farmer" Burns repeatedly describes Juido/Jui-Jitsu as merely "tricky Japanese wrestling" and George "The Russian Lion" Hackenschmidt specifically recommends in his book on CaCC that wrestlers learn a bit of Jui-Jitsu.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yes of course and non of that was BJJ, my post was in response to someone saying they view all grappling as BJJ.


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Which CaCC?
> 
> 
> View attachment 18467




Hell, all of it is awesome IMO!   I'm partial to the Carnival years and then the North American Pancrase fighters who brought it back from Japan and ruled the MMA world with it!


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Again, I'm not your enemy here.  I didn't piss in your wheaties.
> 
> All I can go by is what you write.  I've found that making assumptions about whether or not someone might have intended some post to include some sort of "other" (such as a use of force scale) is a sure way to cause problems.
> 
> Now, do you really want to keep being a dick?



No peaceful sword at th end of this post........  Feathers = ruffled?:boxing:


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> So what is a typical BJJ reaction to more than one assailant?


I was hoping that that might be part of the other thread. Anything of value will be lost in this train wreck.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> I was hoping that that might be part of the other thread. Anything of value will be lost in this train wreck.



Good point


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Really? Where?


Mate you've hijacked three threads so far. Why do you think so many people are upset with you? I have called literally dozens of your posts. If you settled down and stopped posting opinions as facts, stopped telling us that BJJ was the answer to everything and if you don't study BJJ you may as well pack up your toys and go home, you would find a whole different ball game like we enjoyed before you joined MT.  If you have a day to spare, reread your posts. You will find what I have described not far in, say page 2, then 3,4,5,6 etc up to and including page 50. Now, I must admit I might be a bit down on the grey matter having been belted across the ears too many times over too many years but I don't often need to be told something twice let alone twenty five times, especially when we agree with your main point.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound.  While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable.  I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it.  There's room for kata and drills.
> 
> Once again, it depends on the purpose for which you train kata. In terms of karate, if you are into sport and competition then that is what kata is for you. If you are into RBSD then kata is an integral part of your practical training.
> 
> This really depends upon one's goals in training.  Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense.  I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context.  In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you.  I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply.  I don't get into fights.  As I said earlier, I am boring.  I don't drink to excess.  I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang.  I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.
> 
> If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.
> 
> All my training is directed at self defence, not that I expect to use it that way. When I read about the kata being fighting systems I am absolutely hooked on exploring what that means. I have started way too late in life to explore all the Goju kata but the ones I am immersed in are incredible. The understanding of the men that constructed those systems is beyond my imagination. Some people enjoy cryptic crosswords, some people play chess. I'm happy tinkering with kata.
> 
> For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application.  Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.
> 
> When you are young and strong, training for sport and competition is fine. As you get older that is far less attractive. Most of my friends from years ago have stopped training because sport is not an option and because all their training was in the sporting direction, they gave it away. Reality based training does all the sporting stuff but so much more. Obviously that is a little different for BJJ as you really just have the techniques.
> 
> As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this.  There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport.  My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS."  Yeah?  Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly.  Are you?  If you've never done it, how do you know?
> 
> I think we all know in reality. If you are pressure testing your techniques and your partner taps out you can be pretty sure that that technique will work in the real world. The difference is not if the techniques are effective but if you have more techniques at your disposal in the TMAs than in the sport based systems.
> 
> Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass.  He does the same armbar technique I do.  Am I a badass?  I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass.  And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close.  Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique.  The technique is sound.  It is effective.  The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?
> 
> Surely that is why we all keep training.
> 
> And how can one answer that question?  By executing technique in context.  Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde?  I don't know.  Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict?  I don't know.  I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.
> 
> But if someone tries to give you a hard time, are you confident in your ability to handle that situation? If so your training has been invaluable.
> 
> Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways?  Yes.  I know that I can.  Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy?  Yes.  I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.


And it is in context we should all be training. Whether that is a sporting context or a RB context is up to the individual.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

> The understanding of the men that constructed those systems is beyond my imagination



YES!!  When I think of the way these guys mastered the physiology of the human body and skeletal structure I'm amazed.


----------



## RTKDCMB

lklawson said:


> Your TV.
> 
> Simple burglaries and interrupted burglaries are still more common than home invasions, despite the rise of the latter.



The hard part is figuring out whether they are breaking into your home to harm you or steal your stuff or if they have come to steal your stuff but decide to harm you when they discover someone is home.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> And it is in context we should all be training. Whether that is a sporting context or a RB context is up to the individual.
> :asian:


K-man, I'd respond to your specific points, but the way you post makes it almost impossible to quote you, as you embedded your own words into mine.  Suffice to say, I'm not sure you understood me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

I find it easier to copy and paste the quote markers in the square brackets around each separate section I want to respond to.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> While the knife technique was questionable, you guys do understand that the multiple attacker video was tongue in cheek.  Right?



I do, what gave it away was everyone laughing in the video.


----------



## Hanzou

Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;

http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/08/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-1.html

Some interesting tidbits;



> The net effect of this is that aikido gives you far less margin for error. If you bungle a wrist lock (_nikkajo/nikkyo_) or elbow lock (_ikkajo/ikkyo_) very often you will be well and truly screwed. Many aikido schools really neglect the idea of transitions between moves and, in particular, recovering from failed submission attempts. Second, if you do botch your control you can't retreat back to a relatively safe position and try again. That's a pretty big issue.
> 
> Body control, on the other hand, is a key aspect of Brazilian jiu-jitsu -- you dominate your opponent by achieving and maintaining superior position while seeking a submission. Even if you fail a submission attempt, there's a good chance you haven't lost your position and can thus go for another submission relatively quickly and safely. The downside is that maintaining this dominant position often requires a loss in mobility (i.e. you have to be on the ground).






> Let me give a concrete example using various aikido joint locking techniques designed to control an aggressor. Probably the most iconic control in aikido is the _nikkyo/nikkajo_ wrist lock. This wrist lock is typically applied in the standing position, and it requires a compliant opponent to some degree. To remove resistance you're taught to use_atemi_ or some other _kuzushi_ like unbalancing technique, allowing you to execute the technique.
> 
> The problem with _nikkyo_ is simple -- you can't apply it partially. You either have it or you don't. This means if you botch it or go a little too light then _uke_ will be able to fight back trivially. The reversal from this technique is simple (pushing back against the technique) and easy to execute even under duress.
> 
> Brazilian jiu-jitsu submission techniques typically do not require the opponent to stop resisting. In fact, most of the techniques are designed to work against a fully resisting opponent (something that BJJ has in common with judo, wrestling, sambo, and other sport-oriented fighting arts). So even if you screw up and miss an arm bar or Kimura, there's a good chance you can try again or switch to something else without being in too much danger.
> 
> This simply isn't the case with _aikido_. If you mess up a _nikkyo_ or_sankyo_ or s_hiho-nage_, you're in trouble. Sometimes you're in _deep_trouble.
> 
> Submission-as-control is a very dangerous prospect, which is why it's so hard to use _aikido_ effectively unless you're amazingly talented and experienced. Brazilian jiu-jitsu's foundation of position-then-submission philosophically offers a lot more safety and reliability in an actual confrontation.




On multiple attackers:




> So in effect the ground fighting arts that incorporate throws are going to be more useful all around than throwing arts that don't have any ground fighting, even (especially!) against multiple attackers. And that's ignoring the whole "live training against a resisting opponent" element. The logic behind _aikido's_ belief that it is superior against multiple opponents is based on its focus on throws and standing submissions -- but many other arts have effective throws and standing submissions as well. And those other arts have solid ground games as well.
> 
> Finally, a key part of _aikido_'s curriculum is its standing submissions (_hiji-shime_, _nikkyo_, _sankyo_) -- which don't work very well when facing multiple opponents either since maintaining control of one opponent prevents your hands from being used to defend against other opponents. So it's not like _aikido_'s repertoire is theoretically ideal against multiple attackers either.




http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/09/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-3.html


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;
> 
> Some interesting tidbits;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The net effect of this is that aikido gives you far less margin for error. If you bungle a wrist lock (nikkajo/nikkyo) or elbow lock (ikkajo/ikkyo) very often you will be well and truly screwed. Many aikido schools really neglect the idea of transitions between moves and, in particular, recovering from failed submission attempts. Second, if you do botch your control you can't retreat back to a relatively safe position and try again. That's a pretty big issue.
> 
> If you read the comments following the blog there's some interesting reading, however .. I don't agree that there is less margin for error in Aikido. What I have said in the past is that it takes a long time before Aikido becomes second nature. At that stage you transition between techniques seamlessly. So you are not screwed at all. If nikyo is not going to work you flow into Ude Osse and so on. I think the blog is from someone who had not trained for long.
> 
> 
> 
> Body control, on the other hand, is a key aspect of Brazilian jiu-jitsu -- you dominate your opponent by achieving and maintaining superior position while seeking a submission. Even if you fail a submission attempt, there's a good chance you haven't lost your position and can thus go for another submission relatively quickly and safely. The downside is that maintaining this dominant position often requires a loss in mobility (i.e. you have to be on the ground).
> 
> Here is a major difference. If something is not working in Aikido you don't force it. You disengage or move around the clash. However, on the ground is a different scenario. Here it is very similar to the principles of BJJ in that you relax and let your opponent tire. You can still apply your locks and holds on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give a concrete example using various aikido joint locking techniques designed to control an aggressor. Probably the most iconic control in aikido is the nikkyo/nikkajo wrist lock. This wrist lock is typically applied in the standing position, and it requires a compliant opponent to some degree. To remove resistance you're taught to useatemi or some other kuzushi like unbalancing technique, allowing you to execute the technique.
> 
> Once again this is definitely not true. No aikido techniques require a compliant partner. That would make a mockery of the whole system. If you can't apply a technique it is you failing, not the technique. However, trying to apply techniques with strength in aikido will not work against a strong opponent. You have to use 'soft' technique and this is what takes so long to master. For what it's worth, most of Aikido's locks and holds are present in Goju karate if you know where to look and this requires the soft part of Goju to make them work too. Sure we have atemi available as do all martial arts and this will facilitate the application of locks. Those that have been on MT for a while will attest that I have always claimed Aikido should be tested against total resistance as well as being able to receive as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with nikkyo is simple -- you can't apply it partially. You either have it or you don't. This means if you botch it or go a little too light then uke will be able to fight back trivially. The reversal from this technique is simple (pushing back against the technique) and easy to execute even under duress.
> 
> Except that against a skilled Aikidoka your reversal can put you straight into an armbar.  Which is of course going to cause even more duress!
> 
> 
> 
> Brazilian jiu-jitsu submission techniques typically do not require the opponent to stop resisting.
> 
> LOL! What sort of martial artist needs you to stop resisting to make a technique work. An incompetent one!
> 
> In fact, most of the techniques are designed to work against a fully resisting opponent (something that BJJ has in common with judo, wrestling, sambo, and other sport-oriented fighting arts). So even if you screw up and miss an arm bar or Kimura, there's a good chance you can try again or switch to something else without being in too much danger.
> 
> 
> This simply isn't the case with aikido. If you mess up a nikkyo orsankyo or shiho-nage, you're in trouble. Some times you're in deep trouble.
> 
> This is total garbage. All aikido techniques are designed to work against total resistance which is as I train them twice a week, every week and teach all the time to my karate students. This person obviously cannot apply the techniques so blames the system for his own failings.
> 
> 
> 
> Submission-as-control is a very dangerous prospect, which is why it's so hard to use aikido effectively unless you're amazingly talented and experienced. Brazilian jiu-jitsu's foundation of position-then-submission philosophically offers a lot more safety and reliability in an actual confrontation.
> 
> Here I can agree. You do need experience to use Aikido effectively. But even here the similarity with BJJ jumps out. It takes roughly 10 years to master BJJ, as in black belt, and I would suggest it is at least the same for Aikido.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On multiple attackers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect the ground fighting arts that incorporate throws are going to be more useful all around than throwing arts that don't have any ground fighting, even (especially!) against multiple attackers. And that's ignoring the whole "live training against a resisting opponent" element. The logic behind aikido's belief that it is superior against multiple opponents is based on its focus on throws and standing submissions -- but many other arts have effective throws and standing submissions as well. And those other arts have solid ground games as well.
> 
> Aikido trains to avoid going to the ground unnecessarily. Against multiple attackers this is even more the case. To suggest that aikido is just working on throws and standing submissions is once again totally false. In fact if you forget ukemi which is trained for totally different reasons, Aikido has very few 'throws'. There are numerous takedowns and as these are occurring there is the opportunity for all manner of strikes. Some of the simple takedowns turn into neck breaks or chokes if you really want to ratchet it up. And, to say you need a solid ground game against multiple attackers is just not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, a key part of aikido's curriculum is its standing submissions (hiji-shime, nikkyo, sankyo) -- which don't work very well when facing multiple opponents either since maintaining control of one opponent prevents your hands from being used to defend against other opponents. So it's not like aikido's repertoire is theoretically ideal against multiple attackers either.
> 
> Again demonstrating total lack of understanding of the techniques and ignorance of Aikido in general. In a real fight there are normally no submissions, particularly against multiple opponents. Ok, let's forget hiji shimi because it normally needs a bit of help to make it work but sankyo is bread and butter. It is not only for submission but a transition that enables you to dominate and dispose of an attacker. It is my favourite 'go to' in knife defence and possibly the most user friendly of all the Aikido techniques. Nikyo is not something you go out of your way to apply. It is like an apple that falls into your lap. If it's there you grab it. But all those techniques just give you the fraction of a second required to strike or knee your attacker. They are definitely not holds that you apply and maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the blog stated how long the guy studied Aikido but I would suggest not for long.
:asian:


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Yes of course and non of that was BJJ, my post was in response to someone saying they view all grappling as BJJ.


Sure.  I just wanted to point out that in the early Judo/JuiJitsu - CaCC melting pot, there was a lot of stuff going both directions.  When Tani went on the Wrestling Circuit in the beer halls, he was remarkably successful against CaCC wrestlers.  Of course, he insisted they were Judogi jackets and the doofuses agreed.  But he's still hit them with Tomoe Nage and throws that they weren't familiar with.

It was a really interesting time in the evolution of CaCC and British/European JuiJitsu.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Hell, all of it is awesome IMO!   I'm partial to the Carnival years and then the North American Pancrase fighters who brought it back from Japan and ruled the MMA world with it!


The evolution of Carnival CaCC is equally fascinating but a lot less well documented.  Lots of really variable rule sets.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> No peaceful sword at th end of this post........  Feathers = ruffled?:boxing:


I digress.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

RTKDCMB said:


> The hard part is figuring out whether they are breaking into your home to harm you or steal your stuff or if they have come to steal your stuff but decide to harm you when they discover someone is home.


I don't disagree at all.

While it's a simple fact of statistics that more of them are interested in "just" stealing your stuff and not particularly interested in hurting you, it's not like the ones that are willing to do both wear a sign or anything.  The legal problems start when you assume the one and don't have an appropriate legal standing, such as Castle Doctrine or a threat that passes the Reasonable Man sniff nest, to use Deadly Force.  

Now, while it's generally true that LEO are given a wider birth on that aforementioned Reasonable Man sniff test, it's still simple not right, nor legal, to run immediately to Deadly Force.  Which is why I'm glad that he clarified that it wasn't his actual position after all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;


Being yudansha in both Aikido and Judo and with a solid background in pre-Marquis Boxing with grappling and throws of the time, along with a bit of work in C&E and CaCC, I don't particularly disagree on most of it.  I'm just wondering what it has to do with anything?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound.  While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable.  I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it.  There's room for kata and drills.



I agree.  As for the kata...as I've mentioned in the past, pretty much every art I've trained in, has had kata.  More times than not, unfortunately, I found that most people doing kata, had zero idea as to what they were doing.  IMHO, I feel that this is a serious dis-service to their training.  Why?  Because I feel that there should be some reason behind what it is that we're doing.  Saying, "Because that's the way it's done!" to a student, when they ask a question, is BS, IMO.  Sure, ok, but like I said, there must be a reason as to WHY it's done that way.  Look at how many people, some of which have been involved in this thread as well as similar ones, that talk negative about kata.  I'd say the main reason is because they don't understand it.  I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to teach a student something, I want them to understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.  



> This really depends upon one's goals in training.  Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense.  I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context.  In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you.  I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply.  I don't get into fights.  As I said earlier, I am boring.  I don't drink to excess.  I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang.  I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.
> 
> If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.
> 
> For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application.  Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.



LOL, well, neither of us should really be surprised as to the drift.  Likewise, I don't drink, I don't hang in bad areas, I don't look for trouble, fights, etc, to prove that I'm a badass.  But, that said, it seems to me, that despite the reports that people always tend to link, to prove a point, fact is, crime is still out there, and nowadays, it seems like it's on the rise, probably due to the obvious...the wonderful economy that we have.  I want to know that should the need to defend myself, or someone I'm with, arise, I want to be capable of standing a good chance of surviving.  

I do agree with you on your last paragraph.  I'm sure if I went down to one of the MMA/sport oriented gyms in my area, even if I wasn't interested in competing, I'd most likely get good application of techs, as well as a good arena for applying said things.  



> As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this.  There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport.  My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS."  Yeah?  Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly.  Are you?  If you've never done it, how do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass.  He does the same armbar technique I do.  Am I a badass?  I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass.  And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close.  Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique.  The technique is sound.  It is effective.  The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?
> 
> And how can one answer that question?  By executing technique in context.  Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde?  I don't know.  Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict?  I don't know.  I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.
> 
> Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways?  Yes.  I know that I can.  Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy?  Yes.  I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.



I agree 100% Steve, and I apologize if my post made you think differently.   I certainly wasn't hinting at there not being rules.  My point with the padded stick, was geared more towards sparring.  I like to take a specific thing, and drill it slow, which we know will work the majority of the time.  Yet, take that same thing and apply it to sparring, and we tend to see that most things go out the window, unless a) some modifications are made or b) people train in a sparring setting, where things are going to be moving faster.  Does this mean that even though I put on an old t-shirt, grabbed the magic marker and did my knife techs quicker, more alive, or whatever word we want to use, that should I find myself at the ATM with some guy trying to mug me with a blade, that I won't get cut or worse?  Of course not.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> I don't disagree at all.
> 
> While it's a simple fact of statistics that more of them are interested in "just" stealing your stuff and not particularly interested in hurting you, it's not like the ones that are willing to do both wear a sign or anything.  The legal problems start when you assume the one and don't have an appropriate legal standing, such as Castle Doctrine or a threat that passes the Reasonable Man sniff nest, to use Deadly Force.
> 
> Now, while it's generally true that LEO are given a wider birth on that aforementioned Reasonable Man sniff test, it's still simple not right, nor legal, to run immediately to Deadly Force.  Which is why I'm glad that he clarified that it wasn't his actual position after all.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


No that is my position.   Break in my house to cause me or my family harm and there is a good chance your not leaving alive.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> No that is my position.   Break in my house to cause me or my family harm and there is a good chance your not leaving alive.



The moral of the story is don't break into people's houses, you don't know who will be waiting for you.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I'm not sure if the blog stated how long the guy studied Aikido but I would suggest not for long.
> :asian:


http://www.roydeanacademy.com/blog/comments/the_sister_arts_of_brazilian_jiu_jitsu

Roy Dean is a black belt in BJJ (and producer of some EXCELLENT instructional videos), and is also a black belt in Judo and Aikikai Aikido.  If anyone's interested, his blog is full of insight into all of the various arts, but the article above specifically addresses his opinions about how each overlaps with the others.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> No that is my position.   Break in my house *to cause me or my family harm* and there is a good chance your not leaving alive.


And this is the part that is at the core of the issue.  If he's just there swiping your VCR it's not OK to perforate him because he's not there to cause anybody any physical harm.  In the absence of something like the Castle Doctrine, there has to be an articulable reason to believe that deadly force was justified.  "Bullet" is simply not the first or only option.  Which is why, again, I'm glad that you clarified that your actual position was more nuanced than it first appeared.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;
> 
> http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/08/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-1.html
> 
> Some interesting tidbits;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On multiple attackers:
> 
> 
> 
> http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/09/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-3.html



Interesting blog.  I'm no authority on Aikido, so I can't really comment on much.  However, I am quite familiar with joint locks, and of course, anything done without resistance is going to work.  I've worked with people who I swear have rubber joints, or an iron grip, so it seems like no matter what you do, everything is going down the tubes.  However, where there's a will there's a way, and usually there're some things that either you're doing wrong or things that you can do to help with the application.  

I do agree though, with adding some pressure.  I mean, if each time you train, your training partner places his hands on your shoulders, rather than your neck, for a choke, or stops his punch so far from target that you don't even have to move, well, what's going to happen when you get someone who really chokes or really punches?  Odds are, you're going to be in for quite the surprise. 

As for falling back on certain things...well, as I said, I don't know much about Aikido, so I don't know the extent of their ground work, ie: ground grappling, but if there is none, then the guy is going to either be totally screwed or he'll have to fight hard to get back up.  My point is...he apparently had a Judo background, so of course, he's going to fall back on that.  I really didn't take that as a shot at the effectiveness of Aikido.  I think it's safe to say that many people have their 'bread and butter' moves that they tend to fall back on.  It could be a fav. technique against a punch, or a fav. submission in BJJ that they always do from the mount.  

As for the multiples..well, as it's been said, it's going to be hard no matter what art you train.  





Don't hang me, but I went to the evil YT to pluck a clip of Aikido and multiples.  Is it the best thing out there?  No, and I never said it was, I'm posting an example.  What I see here is an effort to stack the opponents, as well as no fancy tech, but instead, something to offbalance or takedown 1, while moving onto the next.

Edit--this was posted by K-Man




> Here is a major difference. If something is not working in Aikido you don't force it. You disengage or move around the clash. However, on the ground is a different scenario. Here it is very similar to the principles of BJJ in that you relax and let your opponent tire. You can still apply your locks and holds on the ground.



Regarding what I mentioned in my post about joint locks.  We have a few different series of joint locks, that we drill, flowing from one to the next to the next and so forth.  The drill isn't meant to actually go from 1 to the next, but instead to provide you with different options.  As K-Man said..if something isn't working, simply move onto something else.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> And this is the part that is at the core of the issue.  If he's just there swiping your VCR it's not OK to perforate him because he's not there to cause anybody any physical harm.  In the absence of something like the Castle Doctrine, there has to be an articulable reason to believe that deadly force was justified.  "Bullet" is simply not the first or only option.  Which is why, again, I'm glad that you clarified that your actual position was more nuanced than it first appeared.



And again if you were following along with the discussion we were talking about defending yourself.  His question was how do you defend yourself in the following places.  Then he rattled off a bunch.  If all your doing is stealing my VCR I have no need to defend myself.  Since I've actually used deadly force in the past I don't really need a lesson but thanks


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Sure.  I just wanted to point out that in the early Judo/JuiJitsu - CaCC melting pot, there was a lot of stuff going both directions.  When Tani went on the Wrestling Circuit in the beer halls, he was remarkably successful against CaCC wrestlers.  Of course, he insisted they were Judogi jackets and the doofuses agreed.  But he's still hit them with Tomoe Nage and throws that they weren't familiar with.
> 
> It was a really interesting time in the evolution of CaCC and British/European JuiJitsu.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




If you have any links or book suggestions regarding Catch info and history, please post em!


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> And again if you were following along with the discussion we were talking about defending yourself.  His question was how do you defend yourself in the following places.  Then he rattled off a bunch.  If all your doing is stealing my VCR I have no need to defend myself.  Since I've actually used deadly force in the past I don't really need a lesson but thanks


I'm not trying to "give a lesson," I'm articulating the logic of my position.  I assumed, as a LEO, you have some understanding of the subject, however, that said, I suspect that you've known some LEOs who, well, didn't.

I'm in the Dayton, Ohio area.  If you've followed the DoJ "interests" in the area, I'm sure you'll know exactly what I mean when I write that I simply can't assume that just because a person is a cop that they know this, that, or the other thing.

Again, this isn't an attack on you.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> If you have any links or book suggestions regarding Catch info and history, please post em!


Follow my lulu link in my .sig.  I've republished a fair number of antique CaCC books.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, this just keeps going...



Hanzou said:


> Read post #602. Judo's natural evolution was heading towards a stronger Newaza slant. Kano purposely curbed that evolution because he preferred standing throws. Olympic Judo has continued that push.



Er... that really didn't have anything to do with what I asked, you know... Besides everything, I was asking how a system, removed from Judo and it's development, is closer to Judo than Judo is... your ideas on what Judo should be, where it was going etc are really irrelevant, you realise. Judo is Judo... have you considered that the move towards ne waza was actually seen as moving too far from what Judo should be, which is why there was a move back towards nage waza? Besides which, one reason for Kosen Judo having a greater focus on ne waza over nage waza is that it's less risky for the high school kids... less impact and all that, less risk of injury from a bad fall and all that... so the idea that BJJ is so uber-deadly because it focuses on the ground I find rather amusing... as I said, a watered down sports version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sports version of the actual serious skills... ha! (For anyone unsure, that is said semi-seriously, but mainly tongue in cheek).



Hanzou said:


> Its pretty hard to fight gravity.



Actually, to get into the whole physics thing, no, it isn't. It's ridiculously easy to fight gravity. Gravity is stupidly weak....



Hanzou said:


> And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.



While I did learn a good way to get back up from BJJ, it's not the only place to teach it, nor is it the quickest possible (but it is a good, safe method).



Hanzou said:


> If they aren't teaching you ground fighting, they aren't teaching you how to get off the ground in the fastest way possible.



And that's garbage. The only thing you can say is that, if they aren't teaching ground fighting, they aren't teaching ground fighting. For the record, I don't really teach ground fighting either... tactically, I just don't agree with it at all. I do teach ground escapes, reversals of position, and defence, but that's about it. Very, very occasionally I'll go through some methods of holding someone down/pin/lock them up on the ground... but really nothing like what I learnt in BJJ.



Hanzou said:


> The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.



"Always" is a dangerous word to use... 



Hanzou said:


> As I've often said, the ground is the place where the worse things take place. If the fight remains standing, you're generally okay. You can always disengage and walk/run away if your standing.



Hmm, no, not sure that I'd agree that the ground is the place where the worse (worst?) things take place... not by a long shot. The other two sentences are simply dripping with ignorance... 



Hanzou said:


> If someone wants to really hurt you, they will try to take YOU to the ground and control you. The ground is where people's heads are caved in, people are choked to death, people are stomped, women are raped, etc. Which is why its a good thing to know what to do if/when that happens. That's also the point I was making to Kframe. Standing up is no big deal. The ground is where you really want to know how to fight.



The only one I would agree with is the "where women are raped" (although, not necessarily true either...), the rest, no. Your point to Kframe is based in a heavy bias and believing in propaganda, without really understanding the realities that you're discussing.



TFP said:


> I realize it's tough fighting two or threes battles at once, but my post wasn't about BJJ being integrated into Ninjutsu (that's the other guy who is trying to hit you in the back of the head while I'm trying to take you to the ground!).   That post of mine was in regards to you not mentioning Scott when you mentioned Ninjitsu stepping up early on in NHB, and then also in regards to your somewhat anti grappling stance (I know your not anti) in stating the only ground fighting you teach is to get back up.    So I was just showing that yes two (somewhat) Ninjitsu guys fought early testing that art and mostly won via ground fighting.



You misunderstood. I was picking you up on your comments that, when presented with someone with a Ninjutsu (not "ninjitsu") background, he won via submission (in capitals, no less), implying that he was using BJJ. I pointed out that Japanese arts are grappling based (not groundfighting, grappling... there is a major difference between the two), so it's not surprising that he'd have that in his skill set, and it meant nothing in regards to the "superiority of BJJ".



TFP said:


> yeah I'm picking up on that,  was just curious to me that you left him out and added Jennum in when making your point.



Actually, I don't think I mentioned anyone by name... mainly as I don't really care about the UFC, early or current, as the early ones were little more than barely disguised advertisements for the Gracies and publicity stunts, and the current/modern form is an approach I have no interest in as it is completely removed from my needs with regards to martial arts, and I couldn't remember them. Once you mentioned them, they came back, but at the time, couldn't for the life of me bring them to the fore of my memory.



TFP said:


> I suggest you learn to wrestle.  I know that's not easy for a grown up, but defending a takedown and getting back up from a takedown is key.   Wrestling or Judo tbh!



This I agree with.



Hanzou said:


> Honestly Gjj would be better than Judo if your goal is to wrestle. Judo is too gi-dependent. Most Bjj/Gjj schools cross train with wrestling constantly. There's also no gi, which is mechanically very similar to wrestling.



This is more mindless peddling of an agenda.



TFP said:


> It's potato/pototo tbh.  If you don't want to go to the ground wrestling is best, if you don't want to go to the ground but want to be able to throw your opponent there then Judo IMO.   If you want to know how to fight on the ground then BJJ.



And I agree with this again.



TFP said:


> All valid points!
> 
> Now take into consideration the percentage of actually "trained" fighters you are going to meet up with in the street vs. How trained your opponent is across from you in that cage.
> 
> Now take into consideration the willingness to continue the fight after you show the guy/guys in the street you know how to defend yourself and hurt them compared to your opponents in a cages willingness to continue to fight.
> 
> Yes the street is very unpredictable and dangerous, etc.   But not for the most part.   I've been in countless street fights, 1/1, group fights, outnumbered, bars, weapons, jumped, etc.   And honestly it isn't as bad as you make out to be.  Most people in the street like to act tough as long as things are going there way, and honestly most are to scared to actually jump in.
> 
> Either way, my point being don't discredit the dangers or seriousness of the cage.



Look, to be frank, this is a completely flawed argument. The idea that trained fighters, in a controlled, professional (or, at least, monitored and controlled) environment are more dangerous is patently incorrect in the first place.. it's going to be a much safer situation, as the other guy isn't trying to injure, maim, kill, or otherwise seriously mess you up... he's trying to win a match. If he can do that with a submission, he will... but he won't aim to break your arm with it. It might happen, but more likely if you don't follow the procedures and tap, rather than just because the other guy's dangerous. Similarly, if he can win with a knockout, he will... but he won't continue to stomp your head once your out. Will he be skilled? Sure! Does that make him dangerous? In his context, yep. But, in that context of a professional fight, he's not going to jeopardise his livelihood on over-aggressively injuring people.

From there, we get to the great fallacy of "the street". Too often I see it described as it is here... as if there is one type of "street", and one type of "street assault"... there are many, many forms. Broadly speaking, there is social and asocial violence... they have their own set of rules and traits... and it looks like you've primarily only really encountered the social form (which, frankly, is often the safer of the two broad groups, but shouldn't be mistaken as the only one). 



TFP said:


> Aha!:jaw-dropping:  "fall back on"!?!?!?!?!?  This must be some type of  subconscious slip, but it only proves the grapplers art is the best art, because to "fall back" would by definition, imply to.......
> 
> 
> 
> 1. To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.
> 2. To drop oneself to a lower or less erect position:
> 3.
> a. To lose an upright or erect position suddenly.
> b. To drop wounded or dead, especially in battle.
> 
> 
> Thus you are now on the ground!!
> 
> And......
> 
> THE GROUND IS THE OCEAN.  IM THE SHARK AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWIM!
> I rest my case, lock this thread up and let's move on people, my work here is done!!!!!! :rules:



You rest your case? On a misreading of someone's comments, leading to a false association, and a cliche that doesn't even work? Leaving off the fact that you've provided a definition for the wrong thing, I'll just say this:

The ground is not the ocean.

You're not a shark.

Some people carry harpoons.



TFP said:


> May be, but this doesn't make the skills you use in the cage any less effective and it also is a great way to prove if certain moves work or not, yes even in your "ultra dangerous" world.
> 
> I mean look at Loyoto Machida!  Footwork, avoidance, pinpoint striking, great takedown D and a knowledge of ground fighting has been proven effective by him.



No, that's a false assessment. "Moves" that "work" in the cage (in an MMA match) only proves that they have the ability to work in an MMA match... nothing else. Machida has simply proven that what he does can work there. That's not taking anything away from him, it's not even saying that such things can't work outside of an MMA match, but to say that it proves something it's not even trying to is stretching things a bit far.



Hanzou said:


> You missed my point. Even the most balanced people can and will get taken down. The IJF banning the Morote Gari is just one example.
> 
> On a side note, I wish Judo was more open to MMA influence. Bjj and MMA are already mining Judo for throws to change up the stand up game, and you're starting to see Bjj and Wrestling's transition speed being applied to Judo with no gi applications. Its creating a nasty combination that's going to change grappling, MMA, and martial arts in general once it takes hold.
> 
> Here's one example;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DLT fail to Harai Goshi.
> 
> Brings a tear to my eye.



That is plainly awful. Simply standing up from a sprawl like that? Really? Looks to me that that would only really be possible if the other guy let you up... and the throw is too muscled, poorly positioned, has a desperate lack of balance, and he's lucky not to land badly himself. But, more than anything else, this entire sequence looks like it's only real chance at working is if the guy you were trying it on didn't do anything to prevent it, as seen here.

To deal with your side note, though, get over yourself. Judo is Judo, not MMA, not BJJ. Wanting Judo to not be Judo because you think you've found something "better" is arrogant, misguided, and plainly disrespectful of what Judo is.



Hanzou said:


> I respect Kano's vision, but clearly grappling and newaza was taking hold in competitive Judo. Kano decided to curb that, and reinforce the throwing techniques. If he hadn't done that, modern Judo would probably more closely resemble Gjj/Bjj.



How the hell can you say you respect Kano's vision, then follow it by saying you wish Judo wasn't following it?



Hanzou said:


> Spinedoc, you've greatly misunderstood my posts if you believe that I want everyone to train in Bjj.
> 
> What I'd like to see is more Judo dojos shake off the IJF B.S. and adapt more to the changing landscape of modern grappling.
> 
> As for other arts like Karate, Ninjutsu, and Kung Fu, the practitioners of those styles can do whatever the heck they want.



You might not like this, but there is no need for any art to change to be like any other. Each art has it's own context... just because an art is unarmed doesn't mean it's automatically for the same context as other unarmed arts... nor does it mean that it's supposed to be about self defence at all (despite the marketing rhetoric).



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that's what I mean. It should be done 2-3 times a week at least, and inside the dojo. Not outside every few months when you guys want to prove a point. Its should be a consistent part of your learning, like it is in Bjj.
> 
> That's just my opinion though.
> 
> The gi-based throws sure are pretty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, its amazing how many throws must be eliminated w/o the gi. That's part of the reason Bjj resorted to more wrestling takedowns and throws in its evolution.



Hmm, my version of Tai Otoshi is a bit nastier than that... maybe not so pretty, though! As for the rest, who the hell are you to say how any other art should practice anything? Seriously, I want an answer to that. Who on earth are you to think you have better answers when you don't even know what the aim/emphasis of another art is? Do you think I should train ground fighting without a go 2-3 times a week? Cause, if the answer is yes, you have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.



TFP said:


> Is anyone trying to say you should grapple a guy with a knife?





lklawson said:


> HELL, YES! There are several key elements to knife defense, one is to stay out of range (good luck), another is to fight with a superior weapon (sword vs knife, etc.), but a third, and absolutely *STANDARD* for unarmed defense against a knife, is to *capture *and *control *the weapon bearing limb. Another word for "capture and control" is "grapple." Yes, it might, or might not, involve striking, either as setup, distraction, finish, or something in between, but "capture and control" is one of the paramount components.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Kirk has replied with precisely what I would say... other than to clarify (again!) that grappling does not, and has not ever, mean "ground fighting". Other than that, what Kirk said! Whenever we study knife defence, we almost exclusively focus on controlling the weapon arm. I often point out to my guys that, once a weapons involved, there are three possible scenarios... they have control of the weapon; you have control of the weapon; no-one has control of the weapon. The first one is to be avoided as much as possible, the third one still has some danger (depending on who can get to it first), the second one is the only safe approach... and it's not possible without grappling (capture and control).



Steve said:


> Whoa.  Hold on.  There is a difference between saying that intentionally fighting on the ground is a bad idea in self defence, and saying that it is a joke.  I start to take things personally when you call my style a joke.  Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble?  I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers.  Agreed.  But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble.  The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.


 
To be fair, it wasn't the multiple opponent's video that was labeled a "joke", it was the knife defence one... and, reading through the comments on the clip (I didn't have sound on), they seemed to agree. There were comments such as "You know, someone's going to think you're serious here", "very funny!", and so on... while the group attack one was plainly a joke clip, the knife defence one seems to have been intended as one as well. If not, well... perhaps it should have been. As far as "any style against multiple attackers", you know, I'd be putting my money on my own system, if it came to it... trouble? Sure. It's not a high-return situation. But not the in the way you're seeming to imply here. 



Steve said:


> For a bunch of guys complaining that the thread has drifted to become focused on BJJ, you guys seem to be going out of your way to focus on BJJ.   How it became BJJ vs Judo, I don't know.  But, the fact is, both are "sports" and both are "traditional martial arts."  In my opinion, this should more properly be a conversation about the pros/cons of styles like BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Kyokushin Karate and TKD as opposed to styles with zero sport elements, such as Taijutsu, jujutsu, Goju Ryu or any number of styles.
> 
> Hell, let's talk pros and cons of san shou vs wing chun.



Style versus style isn't the way to go. Training methods versus training methods, on the other hand, could be a better idea.



Steve said:


> Frankly, I don't think most people here think it's a joke.  What I was getting at is that the rhetoric tends to creep toward the extreme, until people are caught writing things that don't accurately represent their opinion.  I'd be much more interested in a discussion about the merits of sport and competition.
> 
> I think san shou is great to watch, and the guys who compete seem to have a well rounded striking game.  Do any of the CMA guys here have any problems with it?  Do you think it teaches bad habits?  Good habits?
> 
> What about shuai jiao?  Good?  Bad?  Is there a way to develop the skills without competition?  Does anyone think that cross training with Judo would be beneficial?  What about with arts that are NOT sport oriented?



Again, stylistic conversations will miss the actual point, I feel, which would be much more in line with your concept of "a discussion about the merits of sport and competition".



MJS said:


> Well, let's do it then!  I think some of the main things are obvious, ie: the conditioning, the training methods, etc.  When a sport fighter learns something, they use what Matt T. calls the "I Method".  I think that some non sporting arts, tend to not be as 'alive', for lack of better words, with the way certain things are trained.  I may be wrong in saying that, but I'm just going on what I've see in my area.


 
The biggest problem I have with Matt and his "alive" mantra (and his "I Method", when it comes to that) is that it's really nothing new... in fact, I'd class it as new language (marketing speak) for a base-level, overly simplified, and unsophisticated approach to what's been done for centuries. His rhetoric against traditional systems comes largely from not recognizing their actual training methodology (by and large, a lot of it fits with his ideas, just in a more sophisticated and, bluntly, efficient manner). 



MJS said:


> You mentioned x-training Judo.  I'm all for training any ground based art.  Of course, nothing says that one has to devote years and years learning the ins and outs, which is fine of course, but at the very least, learn some basics.  It just may save your life.   And nothing says that methods from each (sport and TMA) can't be geared for each other.


 
Hmm, that wouldn't be my reason for training Judo... it'd be more to do with the comfort of being that close to an opponent more than anything else. Of course, there's a lot more I like about Judo, but that'd be the bigger benefit I'd see from cross-training in it. 



MJS said:


> Can skills be developed w/o training?  I'd say yes.  Sparring in/out of class with training partners, and just testing yourself in general.  For example...lets say that I wanted to pressure test one of the stick disarms from Arnis.  Start off slow and gradually build up more and more speed and resistance, until your training partner is swinging with the intent that he's really trying to whack you in the head, the arm, the leg, etc.  That's a great way to see what works and what doesn't.  Funny how when the speed is kicked up a bit, certain things go out the window..lol.  Of course, safety should also be present.  A padded stick, eye protection, etc. can all be used.



I'd say skills (specific, deliberate skill-sets and methods) can be developed/trained far more effectively and efficiently without competition, or sparring by and large.



Steve said:


> Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound.  While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable.  I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it.  There's room for kata and drills.



I agree with pretty much this entire statement, Steve... but, uh... why would you think that kata aren't "alive"? Same with drills, for that matter? 



Steve said:


> This really depends upon one's goals in training.  Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense.  I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context.  In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you.  I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply.  I don't get into fights.  As I said earlier, I am boring.  I don't drink to excess.  I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang.  I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.
> 
> If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.


 
I don't know that I'd call it questionable... I'd equate it to training a pilot to do an emergency crash, or doing first aid and CPR training, really. Are you going to need to use it every week? I'd seriously hope not! But it doesn't mean it's questionable having it as a training method. 



Steve said:


> For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application.  Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.



Except... that's only for sporting context, Steve. I'm not arguing about the benefits you're mentioning (keeping focused etc), but mistaking one context for another doesn't really help things.



Steve said:


> As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this.  There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport.  My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS."  Yeah?  Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly.  Are you?  If you've never done it, how do you know?



Well, I have "done it for real"... but that's not the point. We've covered this before, mate, and you simply wouldn't listen to anything you were told. But, to try to cover it quickly, scenario training and drilling, proper understanding of reality and actual violence, a good frame of reference and ability to differentiate good from questionable, being able to understand the context you're training for (and sticking to that), and so on. 



Steve said:


> Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass.  He does the same armbar technique I do.  Am I a badass?  I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass.  And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close.  Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique.  The technique is sound.  It is effective.  The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?


 
You don't think that the technique makes the badass, though, right? 



Steve said:


> And how can one answer that question?  By executing technique in context.  Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde?  I don't know.  Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict?  I don't know.  I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.



Yeah... you're really focusing on the wrong thing entirely. It's not the techniques, it's the methodology, and everything that surrounds it.



Steve said:


> Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways?  Yes.  I know that I can.  Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy?  Yes.  I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.



You keep mentioning context, but at the same time are denying the actual context you're trying to address. Hmm.


----------



## Spinedoc

K-man said:


> I'm not sure if the blog stated how long the guy studied Aikido but I would suggest not for long.
> :asian:



Agree with this. We train resistance. In fact, one of the senior students who is my usual partner, will usually resist any of my techniques. The reason being that it teaches you to get the technique right. Not sloppy. Sloppy means I can't move him. But when I get it right, I'm usually barely exerting any energy, and he is flying. 

Now, my left jaw is a little sore from last nights practice. Iriminage from a chest punch.....I lost my balance forward while punching into my partner and he leveled me. LOL....


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> I'm not trying to "give a lesson," I'm articulating the logic of my position.  I assumed, as a LEO, you have some understanding of the subject, however, that said, I suspect that you've known some LEOs who, well, didn't.
> 
> I'm in the Dayton, Ohio area.  If you've followed the DoJ "interests" in the area, I'm sure you'll know exactly what I mean when I write that I simply can't assume that just because a person is a cop that they know this, that, or the other thing.
> 
> Again, this isn't an attack on you.



I guess I just assumed since this is a discussion in self defense that people understood to defend oneself there needs to be a threat or its not defense


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I guess I just assumed since this is a discussion in self defense that people understood to defend oneself there needs to be a threat or its not defense


I would hope so but, sadly, experience tells me that a lot of people have no idea what "self defense" is or when deadly force may or may not be actually justified.  Frankly, to be honest with you, there are a lot of idiots out there and they seem drawn to internet forums like flies to crap.


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Follow my lulu link in my .sig.  I've republished a fair number of antique CaCC books.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Will do, thanks!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

MJS said:


> ... fact is, crime is still out there, and nowadays, it seems like it's on the rise, probably due to the obvious...the wonderful economy that we have.  I want to know that should the need to defend myself, or someone I'm with, arise, I want to be capable of standing a good chance of surviving.



Just a side note, but violent crimes rates in the US have been on a fairly consistent downward trend since the early 90s.  The per capita rate of violent crimes in 2012 was roughly half what it was in 1992.  I only bring this up because there seems to be a tendency by some members of the martial arts community to imagine rampaging gangs of bloodthirsty predators who can only be warded off by our art of choice waiting outside the door.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> The biggest problem I have with Matt and his "alive" mantra (and his "I Method", when it comes to that) is that it's really nothing new... in fact, I'd class it as new language (marketing speak) for a base-level, overly simplified, and unsophisticated approach to what's been done for centuries. His rhetoric against traditional systems comes largely from not recognizing their actual training methodology (by and large, a lot of it fits with his ideas, just in a more sophisticated and, bluntly, efficient manner).



You're probably right Chris.  The thing is, and again, I can only speak for what I have personally seen, but for something that's supposedly been done for centuries, there're a lot of people that must not have received that message, as I've seen more than my share of static statues, you know, people that stand there, holding their arm out, while the defender blasts away with 10+ moves.  Hell, I see it in Kenpo, an art that I've trained in for 20+yrs.  Sad, I know, but it's true.  





> Hmm, that wouldn't be my reason for training Judo... it'd be more to do with the comfort of being that close to an opponent more than anything else. Of course, there's a lot more I like about Judo, but that'd be the bigger benefit I'd see from cross-training in it.



Thus why I said any ground based art.  In BJJ you're going to be just as close to an opponent.  





> I'd say skills (specific, deliberate skill-sets and methods) can be developed/trained far more effectively and efficiently without competition, or sparring by and large.



True, and I've touched on that in other posts.  While I used to compete quite a bit, then stopped and only recently began again, and even now, it's not a lot, I did mention that there are other ways to 'test' yourself, outside of tournaments.  My point is simple:  regardless of the method used, if you're not feeling some sort of pressure, if the intensity isn't there, then the goal isn't being reached.


----------



## MJS

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just a side note, but violent crimes rates in the US have been on a fairly consistent downward trend since the early 90s.  The per capita rate of violent crimes in 2012 was roughly half what it was in 1992.  I only bring this up because there seems to be a tendency by some members of the martial arts community to imagine rampaging gangs of bloodthirsty predators who can only be warded off by our art of choice waiting outside the door.



That's interesting, because it seems like every time I turn on the local news, I'm hearing about a shooting in one of the larger cities here.  I didn't mean to imply there were bloodthirsty gangs roaming the streets..lol...but when you pick up the paper, when you turn on the tv, well, that speaks for itself.  

New Haven PD.  These are stats from Aug 12 and Aug 13
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Police/2013_Statistics.asp

Hartford PD
http://www.hartford.gov/police/crime-statistics/2013-crime-statistics

So yes, some things have gone down, some have gone up, some stay the same.  Personally, the things that have gone down, I don't see huge differences.  To clarify...if in '12 there were 30 cars stolen and in '13 there were 25, well, sure auto theft went down, but not by much.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Well, I have "done it for real"... but that's not the point. We've covered this before, mate, and you simply wouldn't listen to anything you were told. But, to try to cover it quickly, scenario training and drilling, proper understanding of reality and actual violence, a good frame of reference and ability to differentiate good from questionable, being able to understand the context you're training for (and sticking to that), and so on.
> 
> You don't think that the technique makes the badass, though, right?
> 
> Yeah... you're really focusing on the wrong thing entirely. It's not the techniques, it's the methodology, and everything that surrounds it.
> 
> You keep mentioning context, but at the same time are denying the actual context you're trying to address. Hmm.


Rather than go through the entire thing again, we had what I remember as a very interesting discussion on this topic.  While it's clear that I still disagree with your opinion, I appreciate that you're using the pilot metaphor I put forth in the linked thread below.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...quot-for-something-that-you-never-actually-do

The question at hand now is the same as in the thread above.  Can someone learn how to do something without ever actually doing it?  Yes.  Can someone become an expert?  I believe not.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

MJS said:


> That's interesting, because it seems like every time I turn on the local news, I'm hearing about a shooting in one of the larger cities here.  I didn't mean to imply there were bloodthirsty gangs roaming the streets..lol...but when you pick up the paper, when you turn on the tv, well, that speaks for itself.



Yeah, this is one of the problems with relying too much on the television for news - it's heavily biased towards the sensational, the unusual, and the immediate.  "Gruesome murder last night" gets attention.  "No murders last night" does not.  "Murders have dropped 50% over the last 20 years" requires too long of an attention span for reporters focused on the next exciting headline.


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> That's interesting, because it seems like every time I turn on the local news, I'm hearing about a shooting in one of the larger cities here.  I didn't mean to imply there were bloodthirsty gangs roaming the streets..lol...but when you pick up the paper, when you turn on the tv, well, that speaks for itself.


Try reading a 19th Century newspaper some time.  The Times from the mid-to-late 1800's, for instance.  Murders, and violence in general, was so common, so accepted, that they often didn't make the front page.  Just another night of criminals bashing in the skulls of innocent citizens.  Ho hum...

Hell, a lot of times heinous murder didn't even make it to the newspapers!  I came across a story not long ago detailing how a cop found an infant  body in the sewer.  The body was delivered to the M.E. who noted that  the infant was aged 3 days at time of death and all the sex organs had  been "removed and retained" then the body sewn up with a brick inside to  sink it.   He concluded that cause of death was a "still birth."

Huh?

Yeah, an obvious kidnapping, murder, and sexual mutilation of an infant was dismissed as still birth.

Welcome to 1885.  http://www.hfg.org/hfg_review/4/adler-gallant.htm

The fact where we're at the point now where we get to freak out over murders, well *that* speaks for itself.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, this is one of the problems with relying too much on the television for news - it's heavily biased towards the sensational, the unusual, and the immediate.  "Gruesome murder last night" gets attention.  "No murders last night" does not.  "Murders have dropped 50% over the last 20 years" requires too long of an attention span for reporters focused on the next exciting headline.



No murders last night would be big news here.  But saying don't prepare for something because its rare is not a good approach.  With that approach there is no reason to worry about self defense at all since the chance of every being a victim of any violent crime is pretty low


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Try reading a 19th Century newspaper some time.  The Times from the mid-to-late 1800's, for instance.  Murders, and violence in general, was so common, so accepted, that they often didn't make the front page.  Just another night of criminals bashing in the skulls of innocent citizens.  Ho hum...
> 
> Hell, a lot of times heinous murder didn't even make it to the newspapers!  I came across a story not long ago detailing how a cop found an infant  body in the sewer.  The body was delivered to the M.E. who noted that  the infant was aged 3 days at time of death and all the sex organs had  been "removed and retained" then the body sewn up with a brick inside to  sink it.   He concluded that cause of death was a "still birth."
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Yeah, an obvious kidnapping, murder, and sexual mutilation of an infant was dismissed as still birth.
> 
> Welcome to 1885.  http://www.hfg.org/hfg_review/4/adler-gallant.htm
> 
> The fact where we're at the point now where we get to freak out over murders, well *that* speaks for itself.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Still happens today.  I know a case in a neighboring county guy was shot twice in the head with a shot gun and was ruled a suicide


----------



## MJS

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, this is one of the problems with relying too much on the television for news - it's heavily biased towards the sensational, the unusual, and the immediate.  "Gruesome murder last night" gets attention.  "No murders last night" does not.  "Murders have dropped 50% over the last 20 years" requires too long of an attention span for reporters focused on the next exciting headline.





lklawson said:


> Try reading a 19th Century newspaper some time.  The Times from the mid-to-late 1800's, for instance.  Murders, and violence in general, was so common, so accepted, that they often didn't make the front page.  Just another night of criminals bashing in the skulls of innocent citizens.  Ho hum...
> 
> Hell, a lot of times heinous murder didn't even make it to the newspapers!  I came across a story not long ago detailing how a cop found an infant  body in the sewer.  The body was delivered to the M.E. who noted that  the infant was aged 3 days at time of death and all the sex organs had  been "removed and retained" then the body sewn up with a brick inside to  sink it.   He concluded that cause of death was a "still birth."
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Yeah, an obvious kidnapping, murder, and sexual mutilation of an infant was dismissed as still birth.
> 
> Welcome to 1885.  http://www.hfg.org/hfg_review/4/adler-gallant.htm
> 
> The fact where we're at the point now where we get to freak out over murders, well *that* speaks for itself.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I agree that the 'hot topic' is what sells.  Of course, not every crime that happens, is reported in the paper or on the 6 o'clock news.  I'm always reading various things that are sent out to various PDs, regarding homes that were broken into, car break ins, etc.  Home invasions still happen, as well as street robberies.  

I don't freak out over murder...I simply shake my head. Sure, on face value it's a horrible thing, but when you dig a little and actually find out the reasoning behind it...well, that's the stuff I  shake my head at.  

Anyways, this is probably stuff for another topic.  No sense in taking this one off any further than it is..lol.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> You misunderstood. I was picking you up on your comments that, when presented with someone with a Ninjutsu (not "ninjitsu") background, he won via submission (in capitals, no less), implying that he was using BJJ. I pointed out that Japanese arts are grappling based (not groundfighting, grappling... there is a major difference between the two), so it's not surprising that he'd have that in his skill set, and it meant nothing in regards to the "superiority of BJJ".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I don't know how clearer to make it!  It's written right in The post you quoted........  I didn't bring up the submissions wins to claim BJJ was used!!!!!  Clearly it wouldn't of been BJJ since it was so early in the UFC's.

i brought it up to counter your claim of ground fighting not being part if Ninjutsu and your idea that you don't teach ground fighting because it isn't part if Ninjutsu.

you said Ninjutsu fighters did step up and show there skills, which they did.  I was just pointing out that those Ninjutsu fighters were winning with ground fighting........ Something you see as somewhat useless.



> Actually, I don't think I mentioned anyone by name... mainly as I don't really care about the UFC, early or current, as the early ones were little more than barely disguised advertisements for the Gracies and publicity stunts, and the current/modern form is an approach I have no interest in as it is completely removed from my needs with regards to martial arts, and I couldn't remember them. Once you mentioned them, they came back, but at the time, couldn't for the life of me bring them to the fore of my memory.



publicity stunts, huh?  More like an open challenge!   There was nothing sneaky about it.  A simple challenge to the status quo, and people stepped up to the challenge and results came from that.


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> I don't freak out over murder


Sorry.  I didn't intend to imply that you did (though re-reading what I wrote really seems to come off that way).  I intended the statement "freak out" to be more of a generalization of the current Dirty Laundry news cycle and concomitant general public response.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

Is there a list anywhere of who actually took this Gracie challenge?  Besides a few random poor quality clips on YouTube?


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Is there a list anywhere of who actually took this Gracie challenge?  Besides a few random poor quality clips on YouTube?



Just for the hell of it, I tried google but got no results, other than articles talking about the challenge, but no names as to who took it.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Just for the hell of it, I tried google but got no results, other than articles talking about the challenge, but no names as to who took it.



I can't either.  I was looking for any legit fighters that took it an lost.  Not guys from Duluth or reno that claimed to be black belts in different arts


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I can't either.  I was looking for any legit fighters that took it an lost.  Not guys from Duluth or reno that claimed to be black belts in different arts


What do you consider a "legitimate fighter?"


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> What do you consider a "legitimate fighter?"



I don't know.  The Gracie's are the top of the BJJ game did they fight any in the top other arts.  The best TKD guys thebest Judo guys or Okinawian karate guys .  Back in the 50s some of the best and brightest Okinawian Karate guys in the modern area were in their prime where any of them challenged?  All I see in these tapes are small dojo owners from So. Cal. With no real detail of who they are or even where they were trained


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> The question at hand now is the same as in the thread above.  Can someone learn how to do something without ever actually doing it?  Yes.  Can someone become an expert?  I believe not.



Chances are if you can do a triangle choke during sparring or a competition, you have a higher chance of pulling it off in a self defense situation.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I don't know.  The Gracie's are the top of the BJJ game did they fight any in the top other arts.  The best TKD guys thebest Judo guys or Okinawian karate guys .  Back in the 50s some of the best and brightest Okinawian Karate guys in the modern area were in their prime where any of them challenged?  All I see in these tapes are small dojo owners from So. Cal. With no real detail of who they are or even where they were trained


OK, I'm not trying to be a wanker here, I'm just trying to nail down a definition of what counts as a "legitimate fighter."  I'm getting kinda a mish-mash mix of various "Sport Fighters" (such as Judoka) and high level TMA guys.  What counts?  Is it people with a verifiable "sport fighting" record such as Golden Glove boxers or Judoka?  Is it guys with a history of going out and picking "street fights" in order to "test out" their stuff (which was, apparently also common in Judo at one time).  Is it LEO or CO?  I mean, really, what counts?

Again, not to be a wang, but it's kinda sounding like "the definition of porn."

As to the issue of only local guys showing up, well... um... What else would you expect?  I have a friend who's making a name for his crew in WMA and Irish MA, following a sort of home-grown "alive testing" development of stick fighting.  He's of Irish extraction and his "Family System" is, essentially, just bashing each other with sticks and, over time, finding out what seems to work and what doesn't.  His style looks a little like a cross between Jo-Jutsu (when held at one end), Hutton's "Great Stick," and some of the FMA 5' stick material.  It's all well and good and seems to work well, at least for them.  But some years back the gent issued, literally, a World Wide Challenge for Stick Fighting Champion.  Being, essentially, a nobody at that time, well, nobody showed up except for his crew and a few locals who were interested in cross-testing against other material.  When he later on issued a statement about who had taken the title, he was, well, politely, it was met with some skepticism.  Back when the Gracies were doing these challenges (they still are, ims) who would be willing to fly from New York, for instance, just to take some apparent blow-hard up on his "come fight me" challenge?  Heck, you still occasionally see some blow-hard issue a "come fight me" challenge on some forums and they get exactly the same response; laughter.  So, honestly, why would anyone, much less a "legitimate fighter," work up much effort to travel any respectable distance to take the Gracie Challenge?  No one on the national stage even cared until UFC 1.  Whether UFC 1 was "a work," a "marketing stunt," or an honest style-vs-style test, it was, undeniably, pure genius.  Suddenly people who weren't local to a Gracie academy actually cared about the Gracie Challenge but now they had the UFC as a venue to "test" and the motivation for making the effort was money (the Purse).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> _Here I can agree. You do need experience to use Aikido effectively. But even here the similarity with BJJ jumps out. It takes roughly 10 years to master BJJ, as in black belt, and I would suggest it is at least the same for Aikido._


_


Using effectively and mastery are two different things. I could effectively use Bjj about 6 months into training. By the time I was a blue belt, I was pretty confident that I could do most of the stuff I was taught if in a situation. Most Bjj schools allow students to teach other students by Purple belt, and you can reach purple in about 5-6 years of practice.

What this guy is talking about is using Aikido period. 

Would it be fair to say that the issue is lack of sparring in Aikido?_


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> I can't either.  I was looking for any legit fighters that took it an lost.  Not guys from Duluth or reno that claimed to be black belts in different arts




Well if they claim to be a black belt in an art and got there asses handed to them you would think the main players in that art would speak up if they were infact not a BB in that art.

now to the second part, the  "legit fighter" question.....  For one, if you do indeed have a BB in a certain art that should imply that you are infact a "legit fighter".  Or at least that is what it used to mean!!!  Now if you do have a BB in an art and get your *** handed to you then that speaks volumes about that art, IMO.   I can tell you this, most all BJJ BB are infact harasses and can defend themselves well, why?   Because the Jiu-Jutsu community polices it's self very well!   No McDojo ********.

And this is what the Gracie Challenge set out to disprove, the legitimacy of the arts.


i have states before that I believe part of the reaso the Geaciea did so well is because they were all a family of trained fighters, unlike your normal __________ insert art here BB.

but they did challenge a lot of top guys once moving to the stats.  But many wouldn't step up to the challenge.  

Gene Lebell
 Benny the Jet
boztepe (who eventually sent one of his top students)
Schultz (wrestler)

some of these guys went to "spar" (Benny & Schultz), now Shultz was down for whatever, but Benny was not and would not step up to an official challenge.

to act like they did not attempt to fight legit comp is silly!   They openly challenged all arts in open letters and adds in the top martial arts magazines of the time.  You cannot discredit them because certain people would not fight them.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Well, I have "done it for real"... but that's not the point. *We've covered this before, mate, and you simply wouldn't listen to anything you were told.* But, to try to cover it quickly, scenario training and drilling, proper understanding of reality and actual violence, a good frame of reference and ability to differentiate good from questionable, being able to understand the context you're training for (and sticking to that), and so on.


Forgive me for reading too fast.  I just noticed the bolded part, which I think bears particular attention.  I listen, and granted, as is the case here, I don't always catch things the first time through.  But I do read posts more than once and I go out of my way to not just read, but to _understand _what you mean.   

What I don't do, necessarily, is agree with your _*opinions.*_  If anyone fails to listen, it's you, Chris.  You don't discuss anything.  You don't debate or engage in conversation.  Rather, you lecture and teach, and you confuse your opinions with fact.  Overall, it makes conversation with you very tedious.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> _Would it be fair to say that the issue is lack of sparring in Aikido?_


No.  There are several styles of Aikido that "spar."  Of particular note is Tomiki Aikido which, due to the style's founder being a Judoka, instituted a competition system.

What I've found to be the problem with most people who have difficulty making Aikido "work" is that it's not really appropriate to what they are hoping to achieve at the moment.  When I began Aikido, I was told that it is a "Masters art" and that it had been common in the beginning for masters of other arts to seek instruction in Aikido.  It was also claimed that, early on, Ueshiba would only accept students who had experience in another martial art.  I nearly broke my arm patting myself on the back for being smart enough to skip all that other stuff and get on straight to Aikido.  The problem is that Aikido is about "blending energy" and high level "push pull" balance stuff.  It represents maybe 5% of what might happen in a fight.  A really talented and well trained Aikidoka can often force the fight into that 5% place, but it's not where it naturally "lives."  The reason that Aikido is a "Masters art" is because Aikido is algebra to other art's basic arithmetic.  Aikido is university level Creative Writing 201 to other art's basic High School grammar and spelling.  If you don't already have a solid "base" in some pressure tested foundational system, it's going to be really hard (though not impossible by any means) to "make Aikido work."  I've often heard that "high level Aikido strongly resembles high level Judo."  That's because, at a certain level, Judoka get a really good feel for Uke's movement, distance, cadence, and balance, and can get kuzushi seemingly effortlessly; which is, basically, what Aikido is all about.  The reason that Ueshiba had a preference for experienced martial artists was because he knew they already had the requisite "martial vocabulary" to make true use of his concepts and system.

Now, I know that all of my Aikido friends are going to disagree and will list various reasons why I'm wrong.  That's OK.  But this is coming from someone with experience in Aikido and other systems as well.  I wish I'd done Judo before Aikido.  A lot of Aikido would have made more sense sooner.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I don't know.  The Gracie's are the top of the BJJ game did they fight any in the top other arts.  The best TKD guys thebest Judo guys or Okinawian karate guys .  Back in the 50s some of the best and brightest Okinawian Karate guys in the modern area were in their prime where any of them challenged?  All I see in these tapes are small dojo owners from So. Cal. With no real detail of who they are or even where they were trained


Challenge fights were big at that time.  Helio Gracie engaged in many well publicized fights that you can find with a little google-fu.  Here's a quick link to some:  http://cjjusa.com/helio-graciesome-of-his-fight-stories/

Following Helio, Carlson Gracie was taking on all challengers.  After Carlson Gracie, it was Rickson and then Royce.  Most of them engaged in NHB/Vale Tudo matches, but if you google these guys you'll find plenty of accounts of matches against boxers and martial artists of all kinds.   Fun to read, if you're into those things.

Also, if you're interested in a one stop, comprehensive account of the history of BJJ, there's nothing better than Slideyfoot's blog:  http://www.slideyfoot.com/1982/06/history-of-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-bjj.html


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Chances are if you can do a triangle choke during sparring or a competition, you have a higher chance of pulling it off in a self defense situation.


Hanzou, I agree.  But remember that this pre-supposes that you want to be able to do a triangle choke in a self defense situation.   Pulling off the triangle choke in a competition won't help you avoid a take down.  It won't help you with your striking.


----------



## Kframe

lklawson said:


> I don't disagree at all.
> 
> While it's a simple fact of statistics that more of them are interested in "just" stealing your stuff and not particularly interested in hurting you, it's not like the ones that are willing to do both wear a sign or anything.  The legal problems start when you assume the one and don't have an appropriate legal standing, such as Castle Doctrine or a threat that passes the Reasonable Man sniff nest, to use Deadly Force.
> 
> Now, while it's generally true that LEO are given a wider birth on that aforementioned Reasonable Man sniff test, it's still simple not right, nor legal, to run immediately to Deadly Force.  Which is why I'm glad that he clarified that it wasn't his actual position after all.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Thought I would add this. In my state, according to the law, breaking and entering is considered a Forcible felony. Under Our Castle doctrine we can use deadly force on forcible felonies.  Accordingly we get more then occasional reports of burglars getting Shot by homeowners and homeowners not getting charged.  Moral of the story don't break in to peoples homes, when they are home, in my area.


----------



## Kframe

Kman you mentioned that if you cant apply a aikido tech it is you that failed. My question is, can you expand on that?   There is bound to be a time when you try to apply  a tech, that you think is appropriate to that time and for what ever reason it fails. Say your opponent is REALLY strong and just uses his muscle to resist it.     Your comment makes it sound as if you  don't pull off any maneuver that you intended in that moment you are failure.      I think there is a difference between a tech not working and being a failure. 

I am not finding the right words for this, so I hope you can decipher my insanity and clear the water.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> OK, I'm not trying to be a wanker here, I'm just trying to nail down a definition of what counts as a "legitimate fighter."  I'm getting kinda a mish-mash mix of various "Sport Fighters" (such as Judoka) and high level TMA guys.  What counts?  Is it people with a verifiable "sport fighting" record such as Golden Glove boxers or Judoka?  Is it guys with a history of going out and picking "street fights" in order to "test out" their stuff (which was, apparently also common in Judo at one time).  Is it LEO or CO?  I mean, really, what counts?


Like I said the Gracies are considered the upper level of BJJ.  Did they ever fight upper level guys in other arts.  I dont know about other arts but in my art back in the 40s, 50s and 60s guys like Morio Higaonna, Eiichi Miyazato, Hirokazu Kanazawa ect were alive and kicking (pun intended).  These challenges keep getting shown as "proof" that BJJ is the greatest since sliced bread maybe they should have challenged top level competition of other arts?  And again maybe they did I dont know much about the Gracie challenge matches which is why I asked the question


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Well if they claim to be a black belt in an art and got there asses handed to them you would think the main players in that art would speak up if they were infact not a BB in that art.
> 
> now to the second part, the  "legit fighter" question.....  For one, if you do indeed have a BB in a certain art that should imply that you are infact a "legit fighter".  Or at least that is what it used to mean!!!  Now if you do have a BB in an art and get your *** handed to you then that speaks volumes about that art, IMO.   I can tell you this, most all BJJ BB are infact harasses and can defend themselves well, why?   Because the Jiu-Jutsu community polices it's self very well!   No McDojo ********.
> 
> And this is what the Gracie Challenge set out to disprove, the legitimacy of the arts.
> 
> 
> i have states before that I believe part of the reaso the Geaciea did so well is because they were all a family of trained fighters, unlike your normal __________ insert art here BB.
> 
> but they did challenge a lot of top guys once moving to the stats.  But many wouldn't step up to the challenge.
> 
> Gene Lebell
> Benny the Jet
> boztepe (who eventually sent one of his top students)
> Schultz (wrestler)
> 
> some of these guys went to "spar" (Benny & Schultz), now Shultz was down for whatever, but Benny was not and would not step up to an official challenge.
> 
> to act like they did not attempt to fight legit comp is silly!   They openly challenged all arts in open letters and adds in the top martial arts magazines of the time.  You cannot discredit them because certain people would not fight them.



Oh come on there are plenty of guys running around claiming to be blackbelts that have questionable training history. Including in BJJ.  I see it all the time on Bullshido Oh so an so opened a BJJ school he has no training or he sucks or look at this nonsense lets all go get him.  Of course nobody ever does get him but they are out there.  Also with the growth in popularity you will def start seeing BJJ Mc Dojos popping up.  There is one near me that just opened with a Blue belt as the head teacher hes a TKD black belt but he teaches BJJ/MMA as a blue belt.


----------



## Kframe

MJS said:


> You're probably right Chris.  The thing is, and again, I can only speak for what I have personally seen, but for something that's supposedly been done for centuries, there're a lot of people that must not have received that message, as I've seen more than my share of static statues, you know, people that stand there, holding their arm out, while the defender blasts away with 10+ moves.  Hell, I see it in Kenpo, an art that I've trained in for 20+yrs.  Sad, I know, but it's true.




I was hoping someone would mention this. Chris parker, Im hoping you can help me here.  I was on the Akban webpage and was watching some clips.  In one of them the tori does a take down off of a punch that the attaker just left his arm out. The question is why do some of the kata have the attacker leaving there arms out. I see it in more then a few clips.  I cant find the clip, ill keep searching, but why in so many kata do they leave there arms just hanging out?


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> I was hoping someone would mention this. Chris parker, Im hoping you can help me here.  I was on the Akban webpage and was watching some clips.  In one of them the tori does a take down off of a punch that the attaker just left his arm out. The question is why do some of the kata have the attacker leaving there arms out. I see it in more then a few clips.  I cant find the clip, ill keep searching, but why in so many kata do they leave there arms just hanging out?


Kata is normally done alone so I think your looking at the Bunkai  but to answer your question
Practice, training, learning.  No different then when learning to do say a triangle or Arm bar the training partner doesnt resist he allows the move to happen.  When people are sparing you dont see that.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Hanzou, I agree.  But remember that this pre-supposes that you want to be able to do a triangle choke in a self defense situation.   Pulling off the triangle choke in a competition won't help you avoid a take down.  It won't help you with your striking.



Yes, but its a fantastic choke from Guard, and fairly easy to apply under pressure.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Oh come on there are plenty of guys running around claiming to be blackbelts that have questionable training history. Including in BJJ.  I see it all the time on Bullshido Oh so an so opened a BJJ school he has no training or he sucks or look at this nonsense lets all go get him.  Of course nobody ever does get him but they are out there.  Also with the growth in popularity you will def start seeing BJJ Mc Dojos popping up.  There is one near me that just opened with a Blue belt as the head teacher hes a TKD black belt but he teaches BJJ/MMA as a blue belt.



The difference being that Bjj frauds tend to get exposed fairly quickly due to the nature of Bjj. If there are nearby Bjj schools, people will stop in to check out the new Bjj school on the block, and that almost always requires a roll. In our school for example, we had a Gracie barra guy stop by and roll with us because he was in town, and needed to keep himself sharp. All of the senior students and our head instructor was happy to roll with him. When he left, he left, he friended us all on Facebook and told us how awesome our school was.

There's also state and regional competitions to consider. If your school is Bjj and isn't participating in local, state, or regional competitions! people think something is up.


----------



## Kframe

Here is the Kata I was talking about. 



 Notice how he hangs his arm out to be thrown.


----------



## Spinedoc

lklawson said:


> No.  There are several styles of Aikido that "spar."  Of particular note is Tomiki Aikido which, due to the style's founder being a Judoka, instituted a competition system.
> 
> What I've found to be the problem with most people who have difficulty making Aikido "work" is that it's not really appropriate to what they are hoping to achieve at the moment.  When I began Aikido, I was told that it is a "Masters art" and that it had been common in the beginning for masters of other arts to seek instruction in Aikido.  It was also claimed that, early on, Ueshiba would only accept students who had experience in another martial art.  I nearly broke my arm patting myself on the back for being smart enough to skip all that other stuff and get on straight to Aikido.  The problem is that Aikido is about "blending energy" and high level "push pull" balance stuff.  It represents maybe 5% of what might happen in a fight.  A really talented and well trained Aikidoka can often force the fight into that 5% place, but it's not where it naturally "lives."  The reason that Aikido is a "Masters art" is because Aikido is algebra to other art's basic arithmetic.  Aikido is university level Creative Writing 201 to other art's basic High School grammar and spelling.  If you don't already have a solid "base" in some pressure tested foundational system, it's going to be really hard (though not impossible by any means) to "make Aikido work."  I've often heard that "high level Aikido strongly resembles high level Judo."  That's because, at a certain level, Judoka get a really good feel for Uke's movement, distance, cadence, and balance, and can get kuzushi seemingly effortlessly; which is, basically, what Aikido is all about.  The reason that Ueshiba had a preference for experienced martial artists was because he knew they already had the requisite "martial vocabulary" to make true use of his concepts and system.
> 
> Now, I know that all of my Aikido friends are going to disagree and will list various reasons why I'm wrong.  That's OK.  But this is coming from someone with experience in Aikido and other systems as well.  I wish I'd done Judo before Aikido.  A lot of Aikido would have made more sense sooner.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




No disagreement from me. Aikido is difficult to master.....Two Aikidoka I train with have been doing it for 8 and 9 years respectively. Neither is Shodan. Our Sensei has been training for 14 years. 

It's an art with so much subtlety and nuance. Slight small movements. Watching a real good Aikidoka will look like they aren't even trying or doing anything. But they are, it's just fast and subtle. This is why I like it. YMMV.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kframe said:


> Here is the Kata I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how he hangs his arm out to be thrown.



I think it's obvious that this is slow speed work. Otherwise, the separate block then arm wrap then takedown wouldn't occur. The block/arm wrap/takedown is a fairly standard counter to a forward stepping punch in lots of arts. What is shown in that video is a perfectly valid way to teach the technique.


----------



## Kframe

Ballen, I was talking about the paired kata that the Traditional Japanese arts do.


----------



## Kframe

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it's obvious that this is slow speed work. Otherwise, the separate block then arm wrap then takedown wouldn't occur. The block/arm wrap/takedown is a fairly standard counter to a forward stepping punch in lots of arts. What is shown in that video is a perfectly valid way to teach the technique.



Im assuming you mean that the block/wrap/takedown would be one seamless movement, not broken up with a pause?


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Oh come on there are plenty of guys running around claiming to be blackbelts that have questionable training history. Including in BJJ.  I see it all the time on Bullshido Oh so an so opened a BJJ school he has no training or he sucks or look at this nonsense lets all go get him.  Of course nobody ever does get him but they are out there.  Also with the growth in popularity you will def start seeing BJJ Mc Dojos popping up.  There is one near me that just opened with a Blue belt as the head teacher hes a TKD black belt but he teaches BJJ/MMA as a blue belt.



Interesting you ignored the list of names I mentioned.  

They also tried to get  Dennis Alexio (kickboxing) and Spinks (boxing) for UFC 1
Gerard Gordeau, a Dutch savateur, karateka, and mixed martial artist. He is the 1991 World Champion Savate and holder of the Dutch Champion Kyokushin Karate title for 8 consecutive years

Here is a fight between a young/green Royce Gracie and a Kung Fu/Aikido Black Belt who was  a legit fighter and went into a successful career in MMA, his name is Jason Delucia.



[yt]VN6PvPCrStI&feature[/yt]

Ken Shamrock was also the King Pancrase and a top Catch a wrestler of the time when he and Royce fought in UFC 1


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kframe said:


> Im assuming you mean that the block/wrap/takedown would be one seamless movement, not broken up with a pause?



Absolutely. When teaching or learning a new technique, it's helpful to slow it down and even to break it down into fragments. 

An example. In this video, Kwonkicker breaks down the roundkick into 4 separate steps. But you certainly won't see 4 separate steps when the kick is executed at speed.






I've used that block/wrap/down you go technique on any number of people in the ER. It's very effective, but it certainly isn't done in steps, as it is in the video you've posted.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> _
> Using effectively and mastery are two different things. I could effectively use Bjj about 6 months into training. By the time I was a blue belt, I was pretty confident that I could do most of the stuff I was taught if in a situation. Most Bjj schools allow students to teach other students by Purple belt, and you can reach purple in about 5-6 years of practice.
> 
> What this guy is talking about is using Aikido period.
> 
> Would it be fair to say that the issue is lack of sparring in Aikido?_


For me it was a little different. I had a bit of grappling skill before starting Aikido. It certainly took me more than a year to be able to begin using it effectively and it was about four years before I could make enough work to begin teaching it. That has absolutely nothing to do with sparring. We are testing it against full resistance constantly.

I have friends who have been studying Aikido for more than 10 years who can't make it work against resistance. That is not that Aikido doesn't work, I know it does. What it means is that the practitioner has not attained sufficient skill level to make it work. But then again, Ueshiba himself said aikido is 70% atemi and many Aikido schools don't teach atemi. Go figure! It is said that Aikido is the thinking martial artists martial art and that description had merit. The blog guy is used to his BJJ and if he is Yudansa in Aikido then I would say that he may well have wasted a number of years of training. Mastery in Aikido? About 30 to 40 years I'd reckon conservatively and only then if along your journey you have enjoyed top level instruction.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

lklawson said:


> What I've found to be the problem with most people who have difficulty making Aikido "work" is that it's not really appropriate to what they are hoping to achieve at the moment.  When I began Aikido, I was told that it is a "Masters art" and that it had been common in the beginning for masters of other arts to seek instruction in Aikido.  It was also claimed that, early on, Ueshiba would only accept students who had experience in another martial art.  I nearly broke my arm patting myself on the back for being smart enough to skip all that other stuff and get on straight to Aikido.  The problem is that Aikido is about "blending energy" and high level "push pull" balance stuff.  It represents maybe 5% of what might happen in a fight.  A really talented and well trained Aikidoka can often force the fight into that 5% place, but it's not where it naturally "lives."  The reason that Aikido is a "Masters art" is because Aikido is algebra to other art's basic arithmetic.  Aikido is university level Creative Writing 201 to other art's basic High School grammar and spelling.  If you don't already have a solid "base" in some pressure tested foundational system, it's going to be really hard (though not impossible by any means) to "make Aikido work."  I've often heard that "high level Aikido strongly resembles high level Judo."  That's because, at a certain level, Judoka get a really good feel for Uke's movement, distance, cadence, and balance, and can get kuzushi seemingly effortlessly; which is, basically, what Aikido is all about.  The reason that Ueshiba had a preference for experienced martial artists was because he knew they already had the requisite "martial vocabulary" to make true use of his concepts and system.
> 
> Now, I know that all of my Aikido friends are going to disagree and will list various reasons why I'm wrong.  That's OK.  But this is coming from someone with experience in Aikido and other systems as well.  I wish I'd done Judo before Aikido.  A lot of Aikido would have made more sense sooner.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I only read this after replying to *Hanzou*. It is gold!
:asian:


----------



## jks9199

TFP said:


> but they did challenge a lot of top guys once moving to the stats.  But many wouldn't step up to the challenge.
> 
> Gene Lebell
> Benny the Jet
> boztepe (who eventually sent one of his top students)
> Schultz (wrestler)
> 
> some of these guys went to "spar" (Benny & Schultz), now Shultz was down for whatever, but Benny was not and would not step up to an official challenge.
> 
> to act like they did not attempt to fight legit comp is silly!   They openly challenged all arts in open letters and adds in the top martial arts magazines of the time.  You cannot discredit them because certain people would not fight them.



OK -- a lot of them had nothing to gain and a lot too lose.  Let's look at Benny Urquidez...  I can't find out exactly when it was, but I'll presume it was at the high point of Urquidez's fame.  He's acting, he's a pro fighter... and he's supposed to take this challenge?  What's he win?  Is it worth the loss?  Especially with the Gracies writing the rules?  But then, accounts of who backed out seem to vary...  

The Gracie Challenge was a great and well used bit of marketing.  But it's not all that many have made it out to be.  There's a fair bit of evidence it was never really a wide open $100,000 to beat a Gracie, for example.  And they frequently insisted on rule sets or settings that greatly favored them...


----------



## K-man

Kframe said:


> Kman you mentioned that if you cant apply a aikido tech it is you that failed. My question is, can you expand on that?   There is bound to be a time when you try to apply  a tech, that you think is appropriate to that time and for what ever reason it fails. Say your opponent is REALLY strong and just uses his muscle to resist it.     Your comment makes it sound as if you  don't pull off any maneuver that you intended in that moment you are failure.      I think there is a difference between a tech not working and being a failure.
> 
> I am not finding the right words for this, so I hope you can decipher my insanity and clear the water.


Your question is actually all embracing and can be answered in different ways. Any technique in any martial art can fail. That is not the fault of the technique or the style or necessarily the practitioner. However if a practitioner makes the observation that basically all the techniques don't work, I would suggest it is the practitioner at fault. An example is one that the blogger used. He used what we call ikkyo or first technique as an example of what doesn't work. Now I know it works because my teacher can make it work on me every time (and he is the only one who can). I can make it work on some people, not others. Now the blogger can't make it work, even as a black belt, so he blames the technique. Let's say at this stage it is not 100% effective for me either, again as a black belt. The difference is I know the technique does work but it is me that hasn't sufficient skill yet to make it work consistently.

Basically Aikido relies on circumventing your opponent's strength. Sometimes for one reason or other that may not be possible to do and complete a particular technique. If you continue with the technique and try to overcome your opponent's strength with your strength you might prevail or you might not. That physical scenario is not what Aikido is about. If we use an example of an arm bar where I have my opponent bent forward but resisting the takedown with strength, I have a several of options. I can try to bullock my way through, I can change my direction which might work or might still be physically stopped or I can allow my opponent to stand up which then puts him in perfect position to apply nikyo with very little effort. So my first technique failed but led straight into the second.

A lot of Aikido fails because the person tries to apply a particular technique. At a higher level, martial arts don't work that way. You work with what you are given, not what you think you should do. The skill is taking what ever is offered and turning it to your advantage without any great effort. So, if for example we are facing off and I determine I am going to use kote gaeshi then I am chasing you looking to apply a technique. I probably have a 1% chance of pulling that off even if it was appropriate. In this scenario you would say the technique failed. Slight change in scenario, as we are grappling I find my left hand grasping your right wrist, a slight turn and I have kote gaeshi with no effort and no delay. I just took the opportunity presented.

I'm still not sure I have answered your question.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Kata is normally done alone so I think your looking at the Bunkai  but to answer your question
> Practice, training, learning.  No different then when learning to do say a triangle or Arm bar the training partner doesnt resist he allows the move to happen.  When people are sparing you dont see that.


In karate kata is one person but in a number of arts the kata is two man and basically has the application in the kata, unlike karate. I'm pretty sure *Kframe* is referring to a Ninjutsu kata which is two man.
:asian:


----------



## jks9199

ballen0351 said:


> Kata is normally done alone so I think your looking at the Bunkai  but to answer your question
> Practice, training, learning.  No different then when learning to do say a triangle or Arm bar the training partner doesnt resist he allows the move to happen.  When people are sparing you dont see that.



I think kata is too broad a term to say it's normally done alone.  In many traditional Japanese arts -- especially but not exclusively koryu arts -- kata is a paired exercise.  There's apparently some argument that even the Okinawan forms were really meant as paired exercises that became solo drills when taken to Japan.  I don't know about that... but I wouldn't be surprised.

And I'm going to use this as a chance to talk about methods again...  Lots of people out there do drills, paired kata, or whatever you call it and never leave the beginner level.  In the beginner level, you feed the person a softball of an attack, and they respond with the prescribed actions.  But that's not really where you should stop.  As the practice continues, the attacks should speed up, they should move out of that softball, and eventually, the person feeding the attack should be reversing or taking advantage of any errors by the receiver.  Let me try to break that down a bit...

Let's say I have a new student walk in.  After a class or a few classes on the basics, I introduce a functional technique sequence of evade/block/counter-strike.  When I first introduce it, we walk it in the air with nobody in front of us.  Then I feed him a slow, easy punch, exactly to where he expects it.  As his competence and comfort grows (and this might take several lessons!), I speed things up.  Instead of an easy jab that I leave hanging, I retract the punch.  Maybe I step in deeper.  Or I throw a kick instead of a punch.  Maybe I add another punch if he doesn't really evade or blocks poorly.  Or I hit him if he stands there after the technique is done...  In time, that simple drill should look a lot like free sparring, and an outsider walking in may not even know we're not free sparring.


----------



## Kframe

Kman you answered a lot of my questions. Thanks!


----------



## TFP

These are all over YouTube, also the full Gracie in Action tapes are on YouTube, volumes 1 & 2.

Here is a fight between a young/green Royce Gracie and a Kung Fu/Aikido Black Belt who was  a legit fighter and went into a successful career in MMA, his name is Jason Delucia.



[yt]VN6PvPCrStI&feature[/yt]


Scot Conway Kempo Karate BB under Sam Kuoha.  He wrote an article in Black Belt Magazine in 1992.
[yt]xP6fUrqbBTA&feature[/yt]

Wrestlers with submission skills
[yt]QqKV3jZWJJA&desktop[/yt]

for those saying the Gracies were the best who fought bums, they were respectful and were good judges of people's level.  Here the same two two guys who came to except the challenge and found to be not qualified enough wound up fighting a 16yr old BB.
[yt]KPPHxGtxztA&feature[/yt]


TKD BB
[yt]tDmwyIh4ryQ&feature[/yt]

King of Pancrase and top Catch Wrestler Ken Shamorck
[yt]UJWjo3dGcyA&feature[/yt]


Vs world champion wrestler
[yt]Fngsgye5cg4&desktop[/yt]


----------



## TFP

jks9199 said:


> OK -- a lot of them had nothing to gain and a lot too lose.  Let's look at Benny Urquidez...  I can't find out exactly when it was, but I'll presume it was at the high point of Urquidez's fame.  He's acting, he's a pro fighter... and he's supposed to take this challenge?  What's he win?  Is it worth the loss?  Especially with the Gracies writing the rules?  But then, accounts of who backed out seem to vary...
> 
> The Gracie Challenge was a great and well used bit of marketing.  But it's not all that many have made it out to be.  There's a fair bit of evidence it was never really a wide open $100,000 to beat a Gracie, for example.  And they frequently insisted on rule sets or settings that greatly favored them...





Well this is very convenient........ You ask for names, I give some of who they challenged and who said no,  so how do the Gracies win with you?   

I mean in one breath it's they didn't fight anyone good and then in the second breath it's good fighters had nothing to gain.

Simple fact is there are plenty of examples of the Gracies challenging everyone, plenty of examples of the Gracies beating BB after BB and little to no examples of anyone beating the Gracies. :hmmm:


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Ballen, I was talking about the paired kata that the Traditional Japanese arts do.



Difference in terminology we don't call that Kata.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Interesting you ignored the list of names I mentioned.
> 
> They also tried to get  Dennis Alexio (kickboxing) and Spinks (boxing) for UFC 1
> Gerard Gordeau, a Dutch savateur, karateka, and mixed martial artist. He is the 1991 World Champion Savate and holder of the Dutch Champion Kyokushin Karate title for 8 consecutive years
> 
> Here is a fight between a young/green Royce Gracie and a Kung Fu/Aikido Black Belt who was  a legit fighter and went into a successful career in MMA, his name is Jason Delucia.
> 
> 
> 
> [yt]VN6PvPCrStI&feature[/yt]
> 
> Ken Shamrock was also the King Pancrase and a top Catch a wrestler of the time when he and Royce fought in UFC 1



I didn't ignore your list.  Your list didn't answer my question.  I didn't ask who refused the challenge I asked who took it.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> little to no examples of anyone beating the Gracies. :hmmm:



I posted a list before of plenty of people that beat the Gracies


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Well if they claim to be a black belt in an art and got there asses handed to them you would think the main players in that art would speak up if they were infact not a BB in that art.



If you were a master in an ar that had 30 000 students would you know what each one (or those pretending to be) was up to?

Why should a top martial artist in an art care if some random black belt decides to take what he has learned and take up a challenge that doesn't mean anything to them? 

If they are sent to represent their art then sure but if they are only representing themselves and get the butts handed to them then its only their reputation on the line, not the art's. Your assuming the top players, as you call them,are even aware of the challenge at all let alone that its taking place with someone claiming to be a black belt in their art or even that its taking place at all.

And why oh why, in all things sane and reasonable, would the head of a style send an everyday run of the mill black belt to challenge the top martial artists of a style that is looking to discredit all other martial arts?


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> Difference in terminology we don't call that Kata.



LOL I know, but just because someone says the word kata, does not mean that he/she is always talking about karate kata.   TBH I guess I should specify what im talking about.


----------



## jks9199

TFP said:


> Well this is very convenient........ You ask for names, I give some of who they challenged and who said no,  so how do the Gracies win with you?
> 
> I mean in one breath it's they didn't fight anyone good and then in the second breath it's good fighters had nothing to gain.
> 
> Simple fact is there are plenty of examples of the Gracies challenging everyone, plenty of examples of the Gracies beating BB after BB and little to no examples of anyone beating the Gracies. :hmmm:


You're reading selectively.  The Gracies challenged plenty of folks -- but they also generally got to set a lot of the terms.  I used Benny Urquidez as one example.  There are mixed accounts of who backed out.  But he had a lot to lose -- and damn little to win.  Was it worth it for him to fight them, on their terms?   The Gracies have marketed the hell out of BJJ.  And they've seized every opportunity to promote it further.  And I don't blame them!  That's how they make their living!  They've done a lot of good things along the way, too, including opening people's eyes to the ground.  But they were never the only ones playing there, nor is BJJ the ultimate ground fighting approach.  Nor is the ground where you want to be every time!

But here's the deal:  The simple truth is that THERE IS NO ULTIMATE MARTIAL ART.  (Though I may have to sleep with one eye open if Chiun comes looking for me for decrying Sinanju.)  In the end, it comes down to the practitioner in question and their training.  Styles don't win fights, fighters win fights.  Nobody has said that the Gracies aren't good fighters.  Nobody has said that BJJ doesn't have it's place in the pantheon of martial arts.  But so do striking styles, stand up grappling styles, and more.  You don't seem to get it when people say that; I don't know what it'll take to get you to understand the words.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> LOL I know, but just because someone says the word kata, does not mean that he/she is always talking about karate kata.   TBH I guess I should specify what im talking about.


Which is why I just try to use normal English on here too many styles


----------



## jks9199

Let me throw a comparison in here...

About 25 years or so ago, a group of about a dozen black belts challenged Steven Seagal because he'd run off at the mouth, and they took exception.  The challengers included Bob Wall (who instigated the challenge), Bill Wallace, Allen Steen, and several others.  (In their defense, I kind of suspect that some of pretty much just said "yep, I'd fight him" when Bob Wall asked...)  Now, Seagal never took them up on the challenge.  Why the hell would he?  Best case -- he fights 12 guys who, while well known in MA circles, were pretty minor celebrities.  He wins, and they look silly, and he's dropped to their level.  But there's always the chance he gets hurt (even if he wins) or collects a few scars... and he was (at the time) pulling decent money and headlines as a star.  And if he loses, to even one or two?  There goes his credibility, huh?  So the challenge was a win-win for the challengers, who got press, and got to "stand up for what's right" and a lose-lose for him.  

Look -- like I said, BJJ is a really good ground fighting approach.  They've done some good stuff in the Gracie Combatives program, too, and they responded and adapted to the shortcomings when they first trotted it out.  But that doesn't make it some sort of ultimate art.  There are three broad categories of fighting actions: blows (kicks, punches, elbows, etc), holds (chokes, locks, etc), and throws (which include trips, sweeps, takedowns and other ways of arranging a person to encounter the ground against their will).  BJJ is mostly holds, with some throws, and a little bit of blows.   Boxing is about the opposite, nearly all blows, some holds, and pretty much no throws.  (I'm sticking with modern boxing, not pre-Marquis of Queensberry rules).  Lots of other arts hit different balances.  Hanzou, can you open your mind enough to accept the idea?  I'm pretty confident several of us here on MT have more time training in the martial arts than you have walking the Earth.  We've seen things come & go...


----------



## TFP

jks9199 said:


> .  Nobody has said that the Gracies aren't good fighters.  Nobody has said that BJJ doesn't have it's place in the pantheon of martial arts.  But so do striking styles, stand up grappling styles, and more.  You don't seem to get it when people say that; I don't know what it'll take to get you to understand the words.



Can you give me some examples that show I don't think standup styles have a place in fighting arts?  Because I know that as far as style vs style goes that BJJ is the best, dies not mean that I don't respect other arts, it just means that BJJ is the most dominant.   With that said I fully understand BJJ as a whole has some serious flaws.



> nor is BJJ the ultimate ground fighting approach



Now this I am curious about...... Please explain.


----------



## TFP

jks9199 said:


> Let me throw a comparison in here...
> 
> About 25 years or so ago, a group of about a dozen black belts challenged Steven Seagal because he'd run off at the mouth, and they took exception.  The challengers included Bob Wall (who instigated the challenge), Bill Wallace, Allen Steen, and several others.  (In their defense, I kind of suspect that some of pretty much just said "yep, I'd fight him" when Bob Wall asked...)  Now, Seagal never took them up on the challenge.  Why the hell would he?  Best case -- he fights 12 guys who, while well known in MA circles, were pretty minor celebrities.  He wins, and they look silly, and he's dropped to their level.  But there's always the chance he gets hurt (even if he wins) or collects a few scars... and he was (at the time) pulling decent money and headlines as a star.  And if he loses, to even one or two?  There goes his credibility, huh?  So the challenge was a win-win for the challengers, who got press, and got to "stand up for what's right" and a lose-lose for him.



Or...........  He was scared and knew his "art" would nit stand up and he had most likely never, ever, been in a real fight except when Lebbel choked his *** out for ****ing with stunt men.

Also interesting these noble martial artist decided to defend there arts honor by challenging this actor to a fight....... Guess they didn't hear of this Gracie challenge.:wink1:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Or...........  He was scared and knew his "art" would nit stand up and he had most likely never, ever, been in a real fight except when Lebbel choked his *** out for ****ing with stunt men.


Yes Im sure thats what it was:bs1:


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Because I know that as far as style vs style goes that BJJ is the best, dies not mean that I don't respect other arts, it just means that BJJ is the most dominant.


If this was true how come the Israeli Defence Force teach Krav to their troops? How come the Russians teach Sambo or Systema to theirs? How come none of the World's military forces have taken on BJJ exclusively to train their Special forces? Wouldn't the military guys want the best for their troops? 
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Because I know that as far as style vs style goes that BJJ is the best,


Except when they loose right?


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> d little to no examples of anyone beating the Gracies. :hmmm:


HMMMMMM
The following men beat a Gracie 

Masahiko Kimura
Frank Shamrock
Melvin Manhoef
Akihiro Gono
Allan Goes
Kazuhiro Nakamura
Takanori Gomi
Carlos Newton
Shungo Oyama
Dan Henderson
Kiyoshi Tamura
Dustin Hezelett
Shungo Oyama
B.J. Penn
Matt Hughes
Harold Howard
Hideo Tokoro
Norifumi Yakamoto
Genki Sudo
Tokimitsu Ishizawa
Kazushi Sakuraba AKA the Gracie Hunter beat 4 different Gracies


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> Or...........  He was scared and knew his "art" would nit stand up and he had most likely never, ever, been in a real fight except when Lebbel choked his *** out for ****ing with stunt men.
> 
> Also interesting these noble martial artist decided to defend there arts honor by challenging this actor to a fight....... Guess they didn't hear of this Gracie challenge.:wink1:



As far as Aikido and BJJ.....thought you might enjoy this...

[video=youtube_share;0UwD4Y3dCpY]http://youtu.be/0UwD4Y3dCpY[/video]






Mike


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> As far as Aikido and BJJ.....thought you might enjoy this...
> 
> [video=youtube_share;0UwD4Y3dCpY]http://youtu.be/0UwD4Y3dCpY[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike



That was a strange vid. I've never seen any Bjj practitioner fight like that, much less an instructor. :lol:

However, it was cool seeing some applicable Aikido outside of the typical demonstration stuff.


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> Hanzou, can you open your mind enough to accept the idea?  I'm pretty confident several of us here on MT have more time training in the martial arts than you have walking the Earth.  We've seen things come & go...



As I've always stated, my issue is more with training methods than anything else. That Aikido vid that Spinedoc for example was very impressive, showcasing a nice mixing of Aikido locks with grappling. However, how many Aikido dojos train like that? My guess would be not many. 

You could even make a nice competition-based Aikido style from what was shown in that vid. 

Will that ever happen? Nope.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> , how many Aikido dojos train like that? My guess would be not many.
> 
> .


How would you know?  How many Aikido dojos have you been in?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> How would you know?  How many Aikido dojos have you been in?



Several, and none of them resembled what that guy was doing.

Then again, the Bjj guy didn't resemble any Bjj I've ever seen either.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> As I've always stated, my issue is more with training methods than anything else. That Aikido vid that Spinedoc for example was very impressive, showcasing a nice mixing of Aikido locks with grappling. However, how many Aikido dojos train like that? My guess would be not many.
> 
> You could even make a nice competition-based Aikido style from what was shown in that vid.
> 
> Will that ever happen? Nope.


Six techniques and that was very impressive! That was plain normal! What do you think we do at training ... drink coffee all night? Every single one of those techniques are in our Goju as well, plus a whole lot more. You have no idea of what good schools teach so why be so surprised when someone demonstrates a small number of the techniques we regularly train?
:idunno:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> That was a strange vid. I've never seen any Bjj practitioner fight like that, much less an instructor. :lol:
> 
> However, it was cool seeing some applicable Aikido outside of the typical demonstration stuff.



Oh but then he must have not been a real BJJ guy because he didn't own the other guy easily. No wait the Aikido guy must have done some BJJ because he was using ground fighting, or [insert any counter to the argument as to why a traditional martial art did not beat a BJJ stylist]


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Several, and none of them resembled what that guy was doing.
> 
> Then again, the Bjj guy didn't resemble any Bjj I've ever seen either.



By being in a dojo I ment attended regularly and learned from.  I'm not sure why ur so shocked by things in a style when you have zero experience in that style. You act like because you didn't see it in the 20 min you visited a school then it doesn't exist.


----------



## Chris Parker

TFP said:


> I don't know how clearer to make it!  It's written right in The post you quoted........  I didn't bring up the submissions wins to claim BJJ was used!!!!!  Clearly it wouldn't of been BJJ since it was so early in the UFC's.
> 
> i brought it up to counter your claim of ground fighting not being part if Ninjutsu and your idea that you don't teach ground fighting because it isn't part if Ninjutsu.
> 
> you said Ninjutsu fighters did step up and show there skills, which they did.  I was just pointing out that those Ninjutsu fighters were winning with ground fighting........ Something you see as somewhat useless.



Hmm, perhaps you should go back a bit, then... The comment was made that no-one from a range of backgrounds, including ninjutsu, had "stepped up to the challenge". I pointed out some who had, and you came back with "he won by SUBMISSION!!!", going on to point out the stats on how many successes came in that form. I pointed out that that didn't mean anything about the validity/dominance of BJJ, as Japanese arts are based in grappling/locking/pinning methods (where do you think the Brazilians got them from, hmm?), they were just being applied in that instance on the ground. That said, it also didn't mean anything with regards to there being ground fighting (as seen in BJJ) in Ninjutsu... as there isn't any. If a BJJ practitioner is a naturally skilled striker, and keeps knocking people out with a jab, does that mean there is boxing in BJJ?

Oh, and for the record, ground fighting in a competitive environment (say, an MMA match) where it's allowed, is fine, and far from useless... it's less of a benefit to what we do, though, and is thoroughly besides any point for our traditional material. You really need to understand that there is no "one context fits all" in martial arts... just because something works in a competition doesn't mean anything other than it works in that competition format.



TFP said:


> publicity stunts, huh?  More like an open challenge!   There was nothing sneaky about it.  A simple challenge to the status quo, and people stepped up to the challenge and results came from that.



Bluntly, yes. It was called the "Ultimate Fighting Championship" so that Gracie JiuJitsu (I really hate mis-spelling that word...) would be called the "Ultimate" martial art, and Royce could be called the "Ultimate" fighter. It was only meant to be a one off, it was set up by the Gracies, the environment was far more generous/beneficial to the grapplers than the strikers, the opponents were selected (in part at least) by the Gracies, there was an award presentation with a cheque to Helio in the middle of the damn thing! The Gracies wanted publicity (their other big strength besides ground work is their marketing, Kirk is right, it was genius) for the schools they were setting up in LA, so they brought their challenge matches/Vale Tudo concepts to the US in the form of a Pay-per-View. And, really, let's not forget that the entire design of the thing was pretty much matching what the Gracies were already quite experienced in, while most, if not all, of the other competitors were really going in blind. There is little more the Gracies could have done to stack things in their favour, really. It was an ad. A violent one, but just an ad.



Hanzou said:


> Chances are if you can do a triangle choke during sparring or a competition, you have a higher chance of pulling it off in a self defense situation.



Higher chance, okay. Thing is, should you go for it at all? Honestly, it's quite an odd choice for any self defence situation, and would be one of the last things I'd suggest or rely on, as it keeps you on your back, with someone on top of you, tying up your limbs... not a good position to deliberately put yourself in.



Hanzou said:


> Yes, but its a fantastic choke from Guard, and fairly easy to apply under pressure.



In competition, okay. Self defence? Far from advisable.



Hanzou said:


> _Using effectively and mastery are two different things. I could effectively use Bjj about 6 months into training. By the time I was a blue belt, I was pretty confident that I could do most of the stuff I was taught if in a situation. Most Bjj schools allow students to teach other students by Purple belt, and you can reach purple in about 5-6 years of practice.
> 
> What this guy is talking about is using Aikido period.
> 
> Would it be fair to say that the issue is lack of sparring in Aikido?_



No, it's not fair to say that, many Aikido dojo do spar, just not in an MMA format. Tomiki/Shudokan Aikido is quite known for it, but most others have a form of training referred to as randori (not the same as Judo randori), which can be described as a form of sparring. 

You're coming up against another of your poor interpretation of martial arts here, by the way. You're thinking a black belt in one art equals a black belt in another... and that's just simply not the case. For instance, you talk here about a purple belt being able to teach others, which is in about 5-6 years... it's not uncommon for that timing to be a shodan (black belt) in Aikido... so you're talking about potentially similar skill-sets in different arts. But that still doesn't mean the same skills, or the applicability in the same contexts. An Aikidoka with 5-6 years experience is probably also able to teach others... and is potentially a shodan....but hasn't trained for BJJ or MMA competition. Are you going to say that just because the context of both the training and intented application is different to yours, it's not valid? Seriously, get over yourself.



TFP said:


> Well if they claim to be a black belt in an art and got there asses handed to them you would think the main players in that art would speak up if they were infact not a BB in that art.



I could hand a BJJ blackbelt their *** pretty damn easily, you realise... if we restrict it to striking, or weapons.. or tennis. The idea that other martial arts black belts couldn't beat a BJJ guy or a Gracie in a challenge set up by the BJJ guy/Gracie, following the rules of the BJJ/Gracie guy, who had most likely prepared (at least mentally for the idea of issuing the challenge), whereas the "challengee" would have it come up out of the blue, means that they aren't "a real black belt" in that art is ludicrous. 

Let me ask you, do you know what a black belt, or really, any rank in an art means? It means you've gotten to a particular level of understanding and skill within that art itself... nothing to do with anything outside of it. Hell, let's have some fun... I'm not an Iai black belt, but if you find yourself here, I'll have a sword, you have your BJJ, and we'll see what happens, yeah? Oh, but if I win, then it means that BJJ is useless, and shouldn't be trained by anyone... right? Seriously, you really, really, really need to get the idea of "different contexts and different needs/requirements for different arts". BJJ's context and approach is not the only one... in fact, it's not one that particularly impresses me, as I found it completely useless for my personal ideal of martial arts. Their skills are impressive, but I really don't care about the context it's for. But hey, that's just me.



TFP said:


> now to the second part, the  "legit fighter" question.....  For one, if you do indeed have a BB in a certain art that should imply that you are infact a "legit fighter".  Or at least that is what it used to mean!!!  Now if you do have a BB in an art and get your *** handed to you then that speaks volumes about that art, IMO.   I can tell you this, most all BJJ BB are infact harasses and can defend themselves well, why?   Because the Jiu-Jutsu community polices it's self very well!   No McDojo ********.



See above. Different contexts. A Judo blackbelt should be very skilled at throwing in Judo competition. A BJJ blackbelt should be very good at controlling and dominating on the ground. A TKD blackbelt should be avery skilled kicker. A Kendo blackbelt should be good at engaging in a match with shinai. A classical martial artist at blackbelt level (or similar) should have good, demonstable knowledge of their system... which might have little to do with modern competition, or even fighting.



TFP said:


> And this is what the Gracie Challenge set out to disprove, the legitimacy of the arts.



No, it set out to establish the Gracie name. It ignored completely the realities of the other arts themselves, and ignored what (and how) they were designed to work. 

Here's a little clue for you. Not all martial arts are even designed with the idea of a skilled opponent in mind.



TFP said:


> i have states before that I believe part of the reaso the Geaciea did so well is because they were all a family of trained fighters, unlike your normal __________ insert art here BB.
> 
> but they did challenge a lot of top guys once moving to the stats.  But many wouldn't step up to the challenge.
> 
> Gene Lebell
> Benny the Jet
> boztepe (who eventually sent one of his top students)
> Schultz (wrestler)
> 
> some of these guys went to "spar" (Benny & Schultz), now Shultz was down for whatever, but Benny was not and would not step up to an official challenge.
> 
> to act like they did not attempt to fight legit comp is silly!   They openly challenged all arts in open letters and adds in the top martial arts magazines of the time.  You cannot discredit them because certain people would not fight them.



Are we talking about the whole Benny The Jet thing again? Where they issued challenges where he wouldn't see them, including taking out a full page ad in a Hollywood entertainment magazine claiming he was too scared to fight them? Really? Gene, who they wanted to fight someone two decades younger than he was? These were genuine, realistic challenges? No, they were ways to try to push their name up.



Steve said:


> Forgive me for reading too fast.  I just noticed the bolded part, which I think bears particular attention.  I listen, and granted, as is the case here, I don't always catch things the first time through.  But I do read posts more than once and I go out of my way to not just read, but to _understand _what you mean.
> 
> What I don't do, necessarily, is agree with your _*opinions.*_  If anyone fails to listen, it's you, Chris.  You don't discuss anything.  You don't debate or engage in conversation.  Rather, you lecture and teach, and you confuse your opinions with fact.  Overall, it makes conversation with you very tedious.



It wasn't just me, though, Steve. You were told repeatedly by many others. You were equating experience and expertise, when they don't actually necessarily correlate. You were given multiple examples and arguments, and you just kept coming back with "Yeah, but is it really possible? Really?" You didn't listen.



Kframe said:


> I was hoping someone would mention this. Chris parker, Im hoping you can help me here.  I was on the Akban webpage and was watching some clips.  In one of them the tori does a take down off of a punch that the attaker just left his arm out. The question is why do some of the kata have the attacker leaving there arms out. I see it in more then a few clips.  I cant find the clip, ill keep searching, but why in so many kata do they leave there arms just hanging out?



I'm going to separate this out, and take it to the "Forms and their true value" thread, as that one desperately needs some things to be said, and I might use this to make some points. Here, it's just going to take us in yet another direction that should be covered elsewhere.



TFP said:


> Well this is very convenient........ You ask for names, I give some of who they challenged and who said no,  so how do the Gracies win with you?
> 
> I mean in one breath it's they didn't fight anyone good and then in the second breath it's good fighters had nothing to gain.
> 
> Simple fact is there are plenty of examples of the Gracies challenging everyone, plenty of examples of the Gracies beating BB after BB and little to no examples of anyone beating the Gracies. :hmmm:



Lots of people have beaten the Gracies, lists have been provided (and re-posted). In fact, it could be easily said that MMA has beaten the Gracies... at a seminar with Royce Gracie that I attended a few years back, he was asked about MMA... his reply was that he doesn't think anything of it. To him, it means you can't do anything well enough, so you have to do a bit of this, a bit of that, and hope you have enough breadth to your approach that the lack of depth doesn't adversely affect your success. But the simple fact is that he, and other BJJ-only persons, aren't in it anymore. BJJ can be beaten by MMA... or by anything else. The Gracies themselves? Well, like (almost) anyone, they've been beaten in their time too... so?



TFP said:


> Can you give me some examples that show I don't think standup styles have a place in fighting arts?  Because I know that as far as style vs style goes that BJJ is the best, dies not mean that I don't respect other arts, it just means that BJJ is the most dominant.   With that said I fully understand BJJ as a whole has some serious flaws.



HA! Ah, that was funny.. no.



Hanzou said:


> As I've always stated, my issue is more with training methods than anything else. That Aikido vid that Spinedoc for example was very impressive, showcasing a nice mixing of Aikido locks with grappling. However, how many Aikido dojos train like that? My guess would be not many.
> 
> You could even make a nice competition-based Aikido style from what was shown in that vid.
> 
> Will that ever happen? Nope.



You think Aikido is the techniques? Really? Oh, and competition Aikido exists... it's called Shudokan, or Tomiki Aikido. But, again, get out of your head that the single, tiny, relatively insignificant, low-risk, unimportant context of safe competition is anything like a litmus test that all arts must fit. It's a useless method for everything I do, for example, as it goes directly against what I teach and train. To do it would be to ignore or abandon everything I've actually trained to do.



K-man said:


> Six techniques and that was very impressive! That was plain normal! What do you think we do at training ... drink coffee all night? Every single one of those techniques are in our Goju as well, plus a whole lot more. You have no idea of what good schools teach so why be so surprised when someone demonstrates a small number of the techniques we regularly train?
> :idunno:


 
We have similar technical methods as well... but again, mechanics aren't what makes an art. What makes an art provides the mechanics, though...


----------



## Mauthos

Just have to add if BJJ is supposedly the be all and end all as has been suggested, then if we take the UFC as a benchmark as such, then why are the statistics for last year (2012) fairly equal for wins by KO/TKO or submission (in fact it is slightly higher for KO/TKO). (58 to 46 if you don't want to read the linked article).

Please refer to this link: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17/3163315/ufc-2012-fight-statistics-ufc-stats for details.

To me all this has proved, as Chris has said that each art/style whether TMA or MMA work for each individual and for what they want to get out of it.  MMA has moved on so far from UFC 1 that it would be highly unlikely to see a successful fighter that was only purely trained in one art say BJJ or Tang Soo Do for example.

It has to be stated that people, in my opinion, train and compete for their own reasons, if you love to strike, you are more than likely going to be training in a striking art and competing in competitions that are striking based, this does not make you better than the grapplers out there, but it also doesn't make you worse or flawed in some way because you don't train the way they do.

Each to their own, enjoy what you do for your own reasons whether you want to stick to traditional arts or mix it up with all kinds.  I personally train in Tang Soo Do, Kenpo and Kick Boxing and I have trained in taijitsu, juijitsu, MT, TKD etc over the years, does that make me an MMAist or simply a guy that just likes to train in martial arts?

Do what you enjoy, respect other peoples decisions and do not disrespect them because they don't train like you do and remember the one piece of advice that has always stuck with me and kept me humble, there is always someone out there better than you.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Oh but then he must have not been a real BJJ guy because he didn't own the other guy easily.



No, its because the Bjj guy didn't perform typical Bjj movements that you see a Bjj stylist perform in certain situations. The lack of Guards, the lack of sweeps, the lack of transitions, the lack of passing defense, etc. I would expect a Bjj stylist at instructor level to have those attributes while in a grappling match. Frankly, I would expect that out of a blue belt.



> No wait the Aikido guy must have done some BJJ because he was using ground fighting, or [insert any counter to the argument as to why a traditional martial art did not beat a BJJ stylist]



Considering that behind both of them is a large sign that says Aiki-Jutsu, Brazilian Juijitsu, and Aikido......


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Higher chance, okay. Thing is, should you go for it at all? Honestly, it's quite an odd choice for any self defence situation, and would be one of the last things I'd suggest or rely on, as it keeps you on your back, with someone on top of you, tying up your limbs... not a good position to deliberately put yourself in.
> In competition, okay. Self defence? Far from advisable.




http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/femal...rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/

Also it doesn't tie up your limbs. Both arms are free. The choke comes from the thighs, and the opponent's trapped arm. Of course there's nothing wrong with punching someone in the face, or placing both hands around your opponent's head to make the choke worse.



> No, it's not fair to say that, many Aikido dojo do spar, just not in an MMA format. Tomiki/Shudokan Aikido is quite known for it, but most others have a form of training referred to as randori (not the same as Judo randori), which can be described as a form of sparring.



You mean like this;





I wouldn't consider that sparring.




> You're coming up against another of your poor interpretation of





> martial arts here, by the way. You're thinking a black belt in one art equals a black belt in another... and that's just simply not the case. For instance, you talk here about a purple belt being able to teach others, which is in about 5-6 years... it's not uncommon for that timing to be a shodan (black belt) in Aikido... so you're talking about potentially similar skill-sets in different arts. But that still doesn't mean the same skills, or the applicability in the same contexts. An Aikidoka with 5-6 years experience is probably also able to teach others... and is potentially a shodan....but hasn't trained for BJJ or MMA competition. Are you going to say that just because the context of both the training and intented application is different to yours, it's not valid? Seriously, get over yourself.



I never said that. I said that many people have stated that Aikido takes a very long time to use effectively. I was saying that Bjj takes significantly less time. To the point, I was saying that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido. Surely we can both agree with that can't we?


----------



## Hanzou

Mauthos said:


> Just have to add if BJJ is supposedly the be all and end all as has been suggested, then if we take the UFC as a benchmark as such, then why are the statistics for last year (2012) fairly equal for wins by KO/TKO or submission (in fact it is slightly higher for KO/TKO). (58 to 46 if you don't want to read the linked article).
> 
> Please refer to this link: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17/3163315/ufc-2012-fight-statistics-ufc-stats for details.
> 
> To me all this has proved, as Chris has said that each art/style whether TMA or MMA work for each individual and for what they want to get out of it.  MMA has moved on so far from UFC 1 that it would be highly unlikely to see a successful fighter that was only purely trained in one art say BJJ or Tang Soo Do for example.
> 
> It has to be stated that people, in my opinion, train and compete for their own reasons, if you love to strike, you are more than likely going to be training in a striking art and competing in competitions that are striking based, this does not make you better than the grapplers out there, but it also doesn't make you worse or flawed in some way because you don't train the way they do.
> 
> Each to their own, enjoy what you do for your own reasons whether you want to stick to traditional arts or mix it up with all kinds.  I personally train in Tang Soo Do, Kenpo and Kick Boxing and I have trained in taijitsu, juijitsu, MT, TKD etc over the years, does that make me an MMAist or simply a guy that just likes to train in martial arts?
> 
> Do what you enjoy, respect other peoples decisions and do not disrespect them because they don't train like you do and remember the one piece of advice that has always stuck with me and kept me humble, there is always someone out there better than you.



Everyone in MMA/UFC practices Bjj. Its standard, because if you don't know it, you're going to lose, badly.

In the recent season of The Ultimate Fighter, Chris Holdsworth, primarily a Bjj stylist, defeated everyone with Bjj submissions and won the tournament. Why? Because his adversaries on the show didn't know wtf they were doing once they hit the ground, and Holdsworth sent them to dreamland.


----------



## lklawson

Kframe said:


> Thought I would add this. In my state, according to the law, breaking and entering is considered a Forcible felony. Under Our Castle doctrine we can use deadly force on forcible felonies.  Accordingly we get more then occasional reports of burglars getting Shot by homeowners and homeowners not getting charged.  Moral of the story don't break in to peoples homes, when they are home, in my area.


I agree that most implementations of Castle Doctrine presuppose the justification of Deadly Force.  That's why I repeatedly mentioned it as a mitigating element.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> No, its because the Bjj guy didn't perform typical Bjj movements that you see a Bjj stylist perform in certain situations. The lack of Guards, the lack of sweeps, the lack of transitions, the lack of passing defense, etc. I would expect a Bjj stylist at instructor level to have those attributes while in a grappling match. Frankly, I would expect that out of a blue belt.



No, its because the *Karate *guy didn't perform typical *Karate *movements that  you see a *Karate *stylist perform in certain situations. The lack of *blocks*,  the lack of *kicks*, the lack of *combinations*, the lack of *takedown *defense, etc. I would expect a *Karate *stylist at instructor level to have  those attributes while in a *sparring *match. Frankly, I would expect  that out of a blue belt.

You see what happens when you replace BJJ with a random TMA and a few words from your argument? You get the same response from a TMA when you see that TMA getting beaten by BJJ but apparently in your world when a BJJ stylist gets beaten by a TMA its because *he *was ineffective and when its the other way around its the TMA itself that's ineffective. Go figure.


----------



## lklawson

Spinedoc said:


> It's an art with so much subtlety and nuance. Slight small movements. Watching a real good Aikidoka will look like they aren't even trying or doing anything. But they are, it's just fast and subtle. This is why I like it. YMMV.


That's part of the issue.  If the difference between a technique working or not working is a very slight, small, subtle movement, then the technique (or class of techniques) is not what's commonly referred to as "high percentage."  A punch, kick, arm bar, or collar choke can all still work relatively well even if performed with little subtlety or if the Tori has to "muscle" his way through it.  That's part of why they're "high percentage" techniques.

I should also add that while a really talented and well trained Aikidoka can often "force" a fight into the 5% area where he has specialized, the more training, experience, and talent his opponent has, particularly in "high percentage" techniques, the less said Aikidoka will be able to force the fight into his area of expertise.

It can be good stuff, but learn basic arithmetic first.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Spinedoc

lklawson said:


> That's part of the issue.  If the difference between a technique working or not working is a very slight, small, subtle movement, then the technique (or class of techniques) is not what's commonly referred to as "high percentage."  A punch, kick, arm bar, or collar choke can all still work relatively well even if performed with little subtlety or if the Tori has to "muscle" his way through it.  That's part of why they're "high percentage" techniques.
> 
> I should also add that while a really talented and well trained Aikidoka can often "force" a fight into the 5% area where he has specialized, the more training, experience, and talent his opponent has, particularly in "high percentage" techniques, the less said Aikidoka will be able to force the fight into his area of expertise.
> 
> It can be good stuff, but learn basic arithmetic first.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Kirk, I actually agree with you. I grew up boxing, took TKD, then did a martial art mix in the military. You have to know how to strike as well. (I also even wrestled for 2 years as a teen..ooops didn't put that in my bio).

Aikido appeals to me because of the subtlety...the nuance. Real aikido fights likely have much more atemi than what we see in demonstrations. That doesn't mean Aikido is worthless, rather that the application (like almost every other art) is variable. 

The biggest problem with aikido as I see it, is that it takes so long to become good at it. 

Mike


----------



## lklawson

jks9199 said:


> Boxing is about the opposite, nearly all blows, some holds, and pretty much no throws.  (I'm sticking with modern boxing, not pre-Marquis of Queensberry rules).


<grumble>And here I got all excited for a moment.  </grumble>



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

Those are some good vids.  I think I've posted the Krav vs BJJ vid before.   But it is becoming more and more clear to me that when you ask these questions, "who have they really fought", etc that you arnt really looking for answers and examples.  I have posted two long posts full of videos in this thread, one with BJJ being used as a self defense art in the street and then this recent one showing who the Gracue actually fought in the Gracie Challenges.    And both got no response to any of the videos and techniques used in them.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Also interesting these noble martial artist decided to defend there arts honor by challenging this actor to a fight....... Guess they didn't hear of this Gracie challenge.:wink1:


Maybe it wasn't so much about "defending their art's honor" and they were pissed off with Seagull (old joke) and didn't have any particular beef with Gracie?

I know that if I were pissed off with Steve I wouldn't go punch someone else hoping that would shut Steve up.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> If this was true how come the Israeli Defence Force teach Krav to their troops? How come the Russians teach Sambo or Systema to theirs? How come none of the World's military forces have taken on BJJ exclusively to train their Special forces? Wouldn't the military guys want the best for their troops?
> :asian:



This is a great question and in notice you put the disclaimer in there of "exclusively".  Smart move as you know that BJJ is being implemented into most of these branches you mentioned.   I would assume because BJJ isn't the only or best art for fighting multiple attackers or a war zone.


----------



## lklawson

Chris Parker said:


> Gracie JiuJitsu (I really hate mis-spelling that word...)


It's not misspelling, it's the late 19th Century/early 20th Century standard romanization.  I know you get grumpy about the jutsu/jitsu inversion but even noted native Japanese instructors, when writing in english, used the romanization "jiu-jitsu/ju-jitsu" in their books.  Tani & Miyake, 1906? Yamanaka, 1918?  Plenty of other examples too.  And because GJJ was developed from jiu-do (see what I did there?  right around that time you could argue that it's an anachronistic spelling, but not a misspelling.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Spinedoc said:


> That doesn't mean Aikido is worthless


Didn't say that it was.  However, I do think that a lot of folks practicing it don't have a background to really know when, where, or how to actually apply the Aikido system.



> The biggest problem with aikido as I see it, is that it takes so long to become good at it.


I, honestly, don't see that as a "problem" with *Aikido*.  I see it as a problem for people misunderstanding what Aikido is and when/where/how it shines.  I find the statement somewhat analogous to "The biggest problem with Advanced Statistical Analysis 301 is how long it takes K12 kids to learn it."  Well duh.    There's a whole ton of prerequisite skills that must be learned before someone can apply the comparatively small subset of what Aikido is.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Mauthos

Hanzou said:


> Everyone in MMA/UFC practices Bjj. Its standard, because if you don't know it, you're going to lose, badly.
> 
> In the recent season of The Ultimate Fighter, Chris Holdsworth, primarily a Bjj stylist, defeated everyone with Bjj submissions and won the tournament. Why? Because his adversaries on the show didn't know wtf they were doing once they hit the ground, and Holdsworth sent them to dreamland.



I honestly don't know if you missed the point or if I wasn't clear. I agree that pretty much every UFC fighter will have a base in BJJ these days, that was sort of my point, that there are no true 1 style fighters within the majority of MMA anymore.

My point was that, by looking at the stats for last year, wins by submission or by KO/TKO were pretty much equal, therefore proving that both strikers and grapplers are still finding success within the realms of UFC at least. And therefore a mix of both styles is obviously working.

However, I cannot agree that guys who do not know BJJ are going to lose badly in the UFC as how did BJJ help the guys win by KO/TKO? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that the 58 fights ending in KO/TKO last year were only possible due to their bjj? I am sure you will tell me that it was their background in bjj that enabled them to prevent a takedown in order to get the KO, but then in all honesty wouldn't their opponent, the ones that were Ko'd also be trained in bjj and therefore, by your logic, been able to prevent the KO by using their bjj?  A quandary if ever there was one.

Maybe I am mistaken, but can't you see that the reason why there are great fights in the UFC ending in both KO victories or submission victories is due to the fact that pretty much all the fighters these days have crossed trained in a variety of MAs? And not just bjj, MT, wrestling or kick boxing. Machida for example claims shotokan as his main martial art and therefore surely that doesn't fit your stereotype.  Then someone like Rich Franklin also doesn't meet your stereotype, he has stated that his first interest in martial arts was by learning submission fighting via video tapes.  He then took up bjj and MT and therefore he himself has said in the past that he believes he mainly has a base in grappling and this would surely mean he would win all of his fights by way of bjj techniques when in actuality he has only 5 wins by submission but 20 by way of KO.

It goes to show that within the sports world of MMA, to succeed you need to have a well rounded skillset comprising from several different styles. 1 style will just not cut it anymore and one style is definitely not better than the others.


----------



## Spinedoc

lklawson said:


> Didn't say that it was. However, I do think that a lot of folks practicing it don't have a background to really know when, where, or how to actually apply the Aikido system.
> 
> I, honestly, don't see that as a "problem" with *Aikido*. I see it as a problem for people misunderstanding what Aikido is and when/where/how it shines. I find the statement somewhat analogous to "The biggest problem with Advanced Statistical Analysis 301 is how long it takes K12 kids to learn it." Well duh.  There's a whole ton of prerequisite skills that must be learned before someone can apply the comparatively small subset of what Aikido is.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Completely agree with this. I didn't mean it as a problem per se, but rather the thing that people see as a weakness. Personally, it's one of its strengths.


----------



## TFP

i


chris parker said:


> hmm, perhaps you should go back a bit, then... The comment was made that no-one from a range of backgrounds, including ninjutsu, had "stepped up to the challenge". I pointed out some who had, and you came back with "he won by submission!!!", going on to point out the stats on how many successes came in that form. I pointed out that that didn't mean anything about the validity/dominance of bjj, as japanese arts are based in grappling/locking/pinning methods (where do you think the brazilians got them from, hmm?), they were just being applied in that instance on the ground. That said, it also didn't mean anything with regards to there being ground fighting (as seen in bjj) in ninjutsu... As there isn't any. If a bjj practitioner is a naturally skilled striker, and keeps knocking people out with a jab, does that mean there is boxing in bj
> 
> again your missing it,  my post had nothing to do with bjj!  It had to do with you saying "no ground in ninjutsu".
> 
> oh, and for the record, ground fighting in a competitive environment (say, an mma match) where it's allowed, is fine, and far from useless... It's less of a benefit to what we do, though, and is thoroughly besides any point for our traditional material. You really need to understand that there is no "one context fits all" in martial arts... Just because something works in a competition doesn't mean anything other than it works in that competition format.
> this makes sense, but the fact they won and did so using  grappling in this one-on-one no rules fight says something to grapplings effectiveness.
> 
> 
> bluntly, yes. It was called the "ultimate fighting championship" so that gracie jiujitsu (i really hate mis-spelling that word...) would be called the "ultimate" martial art, and royce could be called the "ultimate" fighter. It was only meant to be a one off, it was set up by the gracies, the environment was far more generous/beneficial to the grapplers than the strikers, the opponents were selected (in part at least) by the gracies, there was an award presentation with a cheque to helio in the middle of the damn thing! The gracies wanted publicity (their other big strength besides ground work is their marketing, kirk is right, it was genius) for the schools they were setting up in la, so they brought their challenge matches/vale tudo concepts to the us in the form of a pay-per-view. And, really, let's not forget that the entire design of the thing was pretty much matching what the gracies were already quite experienced in, while most, if not all, of the other competitors were really going in blind. There is little more the gracies could have done to stack things in their favour, really. It was an ad. A violent one, but just an ad.
> 
> no, whomever won the event would be called the ultimate fighter and there art would represent the top art of those involved.  It wasn't a pre determined fact that royce would win.
> 
> Yes the gracie's and art davies picked the fighters, and many of the fighters had previous  nhb fights.  There were not many "gimmies" that night.  Most were legit tough guys.  And no, the area and rules (there were non) did not favor the grappler, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> i could hand a bjj blackbelt their *** pretty damn easily, you realise... If we restrict it to striking, or weapons.. Or tennis. The idea that other martial arts black belts couldn't beat a bjj guy or a gracie in a challenge set up by the bjj guy/gracie, following the rules of the bjj/gracie guy, who had most likely prepared (at least mentally for the idea of issuing the challenge), whereas the "challengee" would have it come up out of the blue, means that they aren't "a real black belt" in that art is ludicrous.
> most the challenges were no rules fights.  I do agree a grappling contest vs the gracie's was a no win for any art that didn't really gave submission base.  Take mark schultz (one of the greatest, meanest american wrestlers) and his match with rickson.  Both grapplers, they decided no strikes, subs only.  Well schultz took rickson down and held him in a cradle for 20 minutes before getting triangle choked.  This happened twice and was considered a victory for rickson.  Never mind that schultz really didn't know any submission or finishing moves (his art of wrestling had been watered down do to it becoming a sport) or the fact that under the rule set of his art he had "pinned" rickson.
> But again, most fights were no rules.
> 
> 
> 
> let me ask you, do you know what a black belt, or really, any rank in an art means? It means you've gotten to a particular level of understanding and skill within that art itself... Nothing to do with anything outside of it. Hell, let's have some fun... I'm not an iai black belt, but if you find yourself here, i'll have a sword, you have your bjj, and we'll see what happens, yeah? Oh, but if i win, then it means that bjj is useless, and shouldn't be trained by anyone... Right? Seriously, you really, really, really need to get the idea of "different contexts and different needs/requirements for different arts". Bjj's context and approach is not the only one... In fact, it's not one that particularly impresses me, as i found it completely useless for my personal ideal of martial arts. Their skills are impressive, but i really don't care about the context it's for. But hey, that's just me.
> lets not forget that all martial arts a (or almost all) come from a combat base.  So you in context it's rooted in fighting.  And in no rules one on one matches bjj is extremely successful.   Like it or not.   Now in the gracie's mind if you're saying your martial art is not meant for combat or self defense than no problem, but if your selling it, teaching it as a great way to learn to defend yourself than they would say ours is better and we will prove it.
> 
> 
> see above. Different contexts. A judo blackbelt should be very skilled at throwing in judo competition. A bjj blackbelt should be very good at controlling and dominating on the ground. A tkd blackbelt should be avery skilled kicker. A kendo blackbelt should be good at engaging in a match with shinai. A classical martial artist at blackbelt level (or similar) should have good, demonstable knowledge of their system... Which might have little to do with modern competition, or even fighting.
> yup i totally get that and am fine with it.  If an art isn't claiming to be the best fighting art and is just practiced for fun or exercise, or whatever, great for that art and it's practitioners!!  But if an instructor is making it out that his art is the best fighting art and it ain't bjj than i may have an issue.
> 
> no, it set out to establish the gracie name. It ignored completely the realities of the other arts themselves, and ignored what (and how) they were designed to work.
> 
> Here's a little clue for you. Not all martial arts are even designed with the idea of a skilled opponent in mind.
> again, this challenge (gracie & ufc) was to establish who's art was most effective in a fighting sense.  If people don't view there art as a fighting or self defense art than gjj had no beef with them and they had nothing to prove.
> 
> are we talking about the whole benny the jet thing again? Where they issued challenges where he wouldn't see them, including taking out a full page ad in a hollywood entertainment magazine claiming he was too scared to fight them? Really? Gene, who they wanted to fight someone two decades younger than he was? These were genuine, realistic challenges? No, they were ways to try to push their name up.
> the gene challenge i agree on and already posted in this thread that it was great he responded by calling out helio who was closer to his age.   The jet challenge was real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lots of people have beaten the gracies, lists have been provided (and re-posted). In fact, it could be easily said that mma has beaten the gracies... At a seminar with royce gracie that i attended a few years back, he was asked about mma... His reply was that he doesn't think anything of it. To him, it means you can't do anything well enough, so you have to do a bit of this, a bit of that, and hope you have enough breadth to your approach that the lack of depth doesn't adversely affect your success. But the simple fact is that he, and other bjj-only persons, aren't in it anymore. Bjj can be beaten by mma... Or by anything else. The gracies themselves? Well, like (almost) anyone, they've been beaten in their time too... So?
> yes the gracie's have been beat,  i don't think i've ever said otherwise.  Asking for examples was in response to being asked " who did they even beat".  I'm mostly talking about style vs style match ups pre or early ufc.  Almost every single name on that list was post style vs style.
> 
> I agree 100% that mma is better than bjj.  For sure and that gjj paved the way for mixed arts and that mixed arts is better than gjj.  100%!!!


----------



## TFP

Mauthos said:


> Just have to add if BJJ is supposedly the be all and end all as has been suggested, then if we take the UFC as a benchmark as such, then why are the statistics for last year (2012) fairly equal for wins by KO/TKO or submission (in fact it is slightly higher for KO/TKO). (58 to 46 if you don't want to read the linked article).
> 
> Please refer to this link: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/17/3163315/ufc-2012-fight-statistics-ufc-stats for details.
> 
> To me all this has proved, as Chris has said that each art/style whether TMA or MMA work for each individual and for what they want to get out of it.  MMA has moved on so far from UFC 1 that it would be highly unlikely to see a successful fighter that was only purely trained in one art say BJJ or Tang Soo Do for example.
> 
> It has to be stated that people, in my opinion, train and compete for their own reasons, if you love to strike, you are more than likely going to be training in a striking art and competing in competitions that are striking based, this does not make you better than the grapplers out there, but it also doesn't make you worse or flawed in some way because you don't train the way they do.
> 
> Each to their own, enjoy what you do for your own reasons whether you want to stick to traditional arts or mix it up with all kinds.  I personally train in Tang Soo Do, Kenpo and Kick Boxing and I have trained in taijitsu, juijitsu, MT, TKD etc over the years, does that make me an MMAist or simply a guy that just likes to train in martial arts?
> 
> Do what you enjoy, respect other peoples decisions and do not disrespect them because they don't train like you do and remember the one piece of advice that has always stuck with me and kept me humble, there is always someone out there better than you.




I don't believe anyone is trying to say BJJ is the ultimate art for the new age UFC/MMA fights.  Not at all,  GJJ and the early UFC's showed the world you needed to cross train in grappling arts to be successful.   That standing arts alone we're not enough.   But there is an issue when a standing art refuses to recognize the importance of grappling but still wants to act like there art is superior.*you YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME TYPE OF GRAPPLING, OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SELF DEFENSE/FIGHTING ART
*I think that is the point and the arguement.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> No, its because the Bjj guy didn't perform typical Bjj movements that you see a Bjj stylist perform in certain situations. The lack of Guards, the lack of sweeps, the lack of transitions, the lack of passing defense, etc. I would expect a Bjj stylist at instructor level to have those attributes while in a grappling match. Frankly, I would expect that out of a blue belt.



to me the glaring weakness beyond all those that you listed is the grappling fighters lack of interest in grip/hand fighting.  He never ever looked to establish dominance in the grip fighting and this you will learn early on in grappling is paramount.

was fun to see the locks and throws in on a semi resistant opponent for sure!
  +1 for Aikdo guys!


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> No, its because the *Karate *guy didn't perform typical *Karate *movements that  you see a *Karate *stylist perform in certain situations. The lack of *blocks*,  the lack of *kicks*, the lack of *combinations*, the lack of *takedown *defense, etc. I would expect a *Karate *stylist at instructor level to have  those attributes while in a *sparring *match. Frankly, I would expect  that out of a blue belt.
> 
> You see what happens when you replace BJJ with a random TMA and a few words from your argument? You get the same response from a TMA when you see that TMA getting beaten by BJJ but apparently in your world when a BJJ stylist gets beaten by a TMA its because *he *was ineffective and when its the other way around its the TMA itself that's ineffective. Go figure.



Touche'


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Maybe it wasn't so much about "defending their art's honor" and they were pissed off with Seagull (old joke) and didn't have any particular beef with Gracie?
> 
> I know that if I were pissed off with Steve I wouldn't go punch someone else hoping that would shut Steve up.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



But why were they upset with Segal?  Because he was making false claims about there arts effectiveness, correct?


----------



## TFP

And just so I don't come off as some GJJ/BJJ fan boy, here are some of my gripes with the art and family in no particular order........

they were a family of bullies not displaying "the martial way".
early on they would storm unsuspecting dojo's and act as if it was a challenge match
they would incorporate other styles into there system acting as if it was always or is now a part of GJJ.
GJJ/ BJJ lack of takedowns most pointedly wrestling.
as a BJJ fighter if you run up against a better striker you can't takedown your in trouble.
there stuborness and lack of respect for those who beat them.


----------



## James Kovacich

TFP said:


> 1) they were a family of bullies not displaying "the martial way".
> early on they would storm unsuspecting dojo's and act as if it was a challenge match
> 
> 2)they would incorporate other styles into there system acting as if it was always or is now a part of GJJ.
> 
> 3) GJJ/ BJJ lack of takedowns most pointedly wrestling.
> 
> 
> 4) as a BJJ fighter if you run up against a better striker you can't takedown your in trouble.
> there stuborness and lack of respect for those who beat them.


1) The Gracies were not bullies or dijo busters. They were constantly being challenged and. Did the fair share of challlenges.

2) They created Bazilian Gracie Jiujitsu. That involves changes.

3) GJJ has takedowns, throws etc

4) that could be said in reverse against a striker. The better, more skilled fighter prevails.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> But why were they upset with Segal?  Because he was making false claims about there arts effectiveness, correct?


Basically Seagull was popping off and eventually got into kinda  a personal feud with Wall.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-s...lt magazine allen steen steven seagal&f=false


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

James Kovacich said:


> 1) The Gracies were not bullies or dijo busters. They were constantly being challenged and. Did the fair share of challlenges.
> 
> 2) They created Bazilian Gracie Jiujitsu. That involves changes.
> 
> 3) GJJ has takedowns, throws etc
> 
> 4) that could be said in reverse against a striker. The better, more skilled fighter prevails.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2




1) they absolutely were bullies and street thugs who openly sought out other styles who did not have beef with them.   Learn your history.  Helio himself was arrested and sentenced to 2 yrs in prison for a 3 on 1 attack of a local gymnast.  Helio appealed to the Supreme Court and lost and at the last minute he was pardoned by the president due his connections.

2) they created GJJ and it's a great art, I find there lack of giving credit to other arts that they borrow from a problem.

3). Yes it does, that's why I said "lack of" meaning there takedowns and amount if time spent on them are lacking IMO.

4).  Yup.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Here's a little clue for you. Not all martial arts are even designed with the idea of a skilled opponent in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> again, this challenge (gracie & ufc) was to establish who's art was most effective in a fighting sense. If people don't view there art as a fighting or self defense art than gjj had no beef with them and they had nothing to prove.
Click to expand...

If they had retained the original format I could agree to a point. Once rules were introduced some systems lost more of their techniques than others and it no longer represents styles as such. Now it is the question of who is the most rounded all round fighter and often who gets lucky.



TFP said:


> to me the glaring weakness beyond all those that you listed is the grappling fighters lack of interest in grip/hand fighting.  He never ever looked to establish dominance in the grip fighting and this you will learn early on in grappling is paramount.
> 
> was fun to see the locks and throws in on a semi resistant opponent for sure!
> +1 for Aikdo guys!



And when someone like *Hanzou* says that Aikido won't compete because everyone knows it doesn't work, four of the six techniques used would be banned as 'small joint manipulation'.



TFP said:


> I don't believe anyone is trying to say BJJ is the ultimate art for the new age UFC/MMA fights.
> 
> That's not the impression we are getting.
> 
> Not at all, GJJ and the early UFC's showed the world you needed to cross train in grappling arts to be successful. That standing arts alone we're not enough.
> 
> Again, that was after they changed the rules. Sure Royce Gracie did well in the early fights but so to did some of the others. It was a more even playing field, but far too much chance of injury to allow it to continue without additional rules.
> 
> But there is an issue when a standing art refuses to recognize the importance of grappling but still wants to act like there art is superior.you YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME TYPE OF GRAPPLING, OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SELF DEFENSE/FIGHTING ART.
> 
> I don't think many are saying that you don't need *some* type of grappling skill. We don't all agree that BJJ is the only way to obtain that skill. Then the kicker at the end is not strictly accurate. It suggests you need a lot of grappling skill to have a 'successful' self defence/fighting art when I would say 'successful' suggests sport and for self defence you need minimal ground skill.
> 
> 
> I think that is the point and the arguement.


----------



## James Kovacich

TFP said:


> 1) they absolutely were bullies and street thugs who openly sought out other styles who did not have beef with them.   Learn your history.  Helio himself was arrested and sentenced to 2 yrs in prison for a 3 on 1 attack of a local gymnast.  Helio appealed to the Supreme Court and lost and at the last minute he was pardoned by the president due his connections.
> 
> 2) they created GJJ and it's a great art, I find there lack of giving credit to other arts that they borrow from a problem.
> 
> 3). Yes it does, that's why I said "lack of" meaning there takedowns and amount if time spent on them are lacking IMO.
> 
> 4).  Yup.



I think what you are considering bullying is a combination of rough Brazilian culture and the early days of Vale Tudo. Rickson once said if you go into a Brazilian deli and "stand in line" you'll never get your order because people will step in front of you. Their culture, especially way back then is/was much different than ours.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TFP

James Kovacich said:


> I think what you are considering bullying is a combination of rough Brazilian culture and the early days of Vale Tudo. Rickson once said if you go into a Brazilian deli and "stand in line" you'll never get your order because people will step in front of you. Their culture, especially way back then is/was much different than ours.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Two Brazilian judges/courts disagree with you. 

Listen, I'm actually ok with it.  They were hell bent on proving there fighting style.  But let's not pretend they were nice, humble, respectful martial artists.  They truly weren't.  George, Helio, Carlos, Carlson, etc and there off spring would fight at the drop
of a hat if someone was willing, and if hey weren't willing they would find a way to make them willing.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> This is a great question and in notice you put the disclaimer in there of "exclusively".  Smart move as you know that BJJ is being implemented into most of these branches you mentioned.   I would assume because BJJ isn't the only or best art for fighting multiple attackers or a war zone.


I meant to include this in my previous post. 
Yes, I intentionally added the disclaimer because Krav in particular takes from everywhere unashamedly. Unfortunately it doesn't acknowledge the source of its techniques so if I didn't suggest some of the groundwork comes from BJJ I'm sure there would be someone nearby to correct my omission. 

But your comment on the multiple attackers and war zone is pertinent. Krav is also taught to Israeli civilians because in that region it is the most relevant SD system. To me, Krav is the closest modern system to Okinawan Goju karate that I have seen.
:asian:


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> I meant to include this in my previous post.
> Yes, I intentionally added the disclaimer because Krav in particular takes from everywhere unashamedly. Unfortunately it doesn't acknowledge the source of its techniques so if I didn't suggest some of the groundwork comes from BJJ I'm sure there would be someone nearby to correct my omission.
> 
> But your comment on the multiple attackers and war zone is pertinent. Krav is also taught to Israeli civilians because in that region it is the most relevant SD system. To me, Krav is the closest modern system to Okinawan Goju karate that I have seen.
> :asian:



Oddly enough, even in today's hyper aware world it could simply come down to BJJ no reaching that region yet.  I mean even Europe isn't huge in regards to BJJ population yet.   This is just a theory of course.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Oddly enough, even in today's hyper aware world it could simply come down to BJJ no reaching that region yet.  I mean even Europe isn't huge in regards to BJJ population yet.   This is just a theory of course.


As is the case in Australia. I don't think it will get all that big either. Too many places are advertising MMA and they teach BJJ within their overall training, that combined with the perception of BJJ being one dimensional. I suspect that may prove the same in Europe.
:asian:


----------



## Kframe

Spinedoc said:


> As far as Aikido and BJJ.....thought you might enjoy this...
> 
> [video=youtube_share;0UwD4Y3dCpY]http://youtu.be/0UwD4Y3dCpY[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike



wow that was nice.. 

Hanzou, what I gathered, was, they didn't start from the midget grappling position but started on there feet.  Any BJJ person is going to be a threat in grappling, im impressed with that Aiki-jitsuka's balance and skill.


----------



## James Kovacich

TFP said:


> Two Brazilian judges/courts disagree with you.
> 
> Listen, I'm actually ok with it.  They were hell bent on proving there fighting style.  But let's not pretend they were nice, humble, respectful martial artists.  They truly weren't.  George, Helio, Carlos, Carlson, etc and there off spring would fight at the drop
> of a hat if someone was willing, and if hey weren't willing they would find a way to make them willing.



Never said they were nice. I honestly don't remember Helios case but experience tells me there's 2 sides to every coin. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

Kframe said:


> Hanzou, what I gathered, was, they didn't start from the midget grappling position but started on there feet.  Any BJJ person is going to be a threat in grappling, im impressed with that Aiki-jitsuka's balance and skill.



That really doesn't make much of a difference.

Upon further inspection, it appears that this was a sparring match between an instructor and one of his students. This also appears to be a hybrid style, given the clothing, and their mixture of styles.

This seems a bit more accurate of a cross-style exchange between Aikido and Grappling;


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> That really doesn't make much of a difference.
> 
> Upon further inspection, it appears that this was a sparring match between an instructor and one of his students. This also appears to be a hybrid style, given the clothing, and their mixture of styles.
> 
> This seems a bit more accurate of a cross-style exchange between Aikido and Grappling;


OK, let's put this into context. The Turkish wrestler is a Grandmaster visiting the Aikido dojo. This video has been posted before on MT and the observation was made that the wrestler was invited to demonstrate his style. Just saying, before we get all sorts of adverse comments flying past.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/femal...rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/
> 
> Also it doesn't tie up your limbs. Both arms are free. The choke comes from the thighs, and the opponent's trapped arm. Of course there's nothing wrong with punching someone in the face, or placing both hands around your opponent's head to make the choke worse.



Really? Okay, let's look at this... it happened in a bus (confined environment with no other people around... the driver had deliberately driven there so there wouldn't be anyone around), in which case there's some argument for choosing a triangle... but that still doesn't make it an advisable go-to for self defence. As far as "your arms are free", sure... I just said "limbs"... 



Hanzou said:


> You mean like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't consider that sparring.



No, I wouldn't consider someone describing a tactic that can be applied within multiple opponent randori to be sparring either... nor would I consider a clip of BJJ instructors discussing their approach to rolling to actually be rolling either. Is this seriously the best you can do?



Hanzou said:


> I never said that. I said that many people have stated that Aikido takes a very long time to use effectively. I was saying that Bjj takes significantly less time. To the point, I was saying that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido. Surely we can both agree with that can't we?



Actually, no. The timeframe for relative expertise given was actually roughly equal (5-6 years to know enough, and be able to do enough, to teach juniors). I'd say neither is "easier" to learn... it depends on the student.



TFP said:


> This is a great question and in notice you put the disclaimer in there of "exclusively".  Smart move as you know that BJJ is being implemented into most of these branches you mentioned.   I would assume because BJJ isn't the only or best art for fighting multiple attackers or a war zone.



A better question is actually why it's there in a number of military systems in the first place... cause it ain't anything to do with being effective, easy to learn, powerful, or anything else... 



lklawson said:


> It's not misspelling, it's the late 19th Century/early 20th Century standard romanization.  I know you get grumpy about the jutsu/jitsu inversion but even noted native Japanese instructors, when writing in english, used the romanization "jiu-jitsu/ju-jitsu" in their books.  Tani & Miyake, 1906? Yamanaka, 1918?  Plenty of other examples too.  And because GJJ was developed from jiu-do (see what I did there?  right around that time you could argue that it's an anachronistic spelling, but not a misspelling.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah, I know.... still wrong, though.... grumble.... 




TFP said:


> _again your missing it, my post had nothing to do with bjj! It had to do with you saying "no ground in ninjutsu"._



Really? You think that Steve and Scott winning by submission shows that there is ground in ninjutsu? Seriously? Mate, I'm twenty years deep in this art, believe me, there isn't any. And, for the record, Bob's RBWI is a different animal altogether again... from memory they were instigating it well before the Gracies made their appearance... but it wasn't from ninjutsu....



TFP said:


> _this makes sense, but the fact they won and did so using grappling in this one-on-one no rules fight says something to grapplings effectiveness._



Seriously, enough with the "no rules!" thing. There were many, many rules... they just weren't stated as such. What the early UFC's really were were limited (almost no) restriction competitions.... but there were rules aplenty. And, frankly, all the prevalence of ground work (grappling is not ground work, no matter how often you equate the two) only meant that it was suited to that environment... which hasn't been argued against. In fact, I pointed out that the environment for the early UFC's in particular was geared up to favour such an approach... so it's hardly a surprise that it's seen relatively frequently. It doesn't actually mean anything outside of there, though.



TFP said:


> _no, whomever won the event would be called the ultimate fighter and there art would represent the top art of those involved. It wasn't a pre determined fact that royce would win._
> 
> _Yes the gracie's and art davies picked the fighters, and many of the fighters had previous nhb fights. There were not many "gimmies" that night. Most were legit tough guys. And no, the area and rules (there were non) did not favor the grappler, not at all._



Sure, whoever won would be able to use the title... but it was seriously stacked towards the Gracies. And there were rules. Quite a lot.



TFP said:


> _most the challenges were no rules fights. I do agree a grappling contest vs the gracie's was a no win for any art that didn't really gave submission base. Take mark schultz (one of the greatest, meanest american wrestlers) and his match with rickson. Both grapplers, they decided no strikes, subs only. Well schultz took rickson down and held him in a cradle for 20 minutes before getting triangle choked. This happened twice and was considered a victory for rickson. Never mind that schultz really didn't know any submission or finishing moves (his art of wrestling had been watered down do to it becoming a sport) or the fact that under the rule set of his art he had "pinned" rickson. _


_But again, most fights were no rules._[/QUOTE]

There were rules, mate. The fact that you can't recognise them tells me a lot, really...




TFP said:


> l





TFP said:


> _ets not forget that all martial arts a (or almost all) come from a combat base. So you in context it's rooted in fighting. And in no rules one on one matches bjj is extremely successful. Like it or not. Now in the gracie's mind if you're saying your martial art is not meant for combat or self defense than no problem, but if your selling it, teaching it as a great way to learn to defend yourself than they would say ours is better and we will prove it._




Oh, boy.... you're actually serious with this, aren't you? You do realize that you're showing me that you don't understand the history of martial arts, the application of them, the contexts they developed in, or what the differences between self defence and "fighting" are, don't you?



TFP said:


> _yup i totally get that and am fine with it. If an art isn't claiming to be the best fighting art and is just practiced for fun or exercise, or whatever, great for that art and it's practitioners!! But if an instructor is making it out that his art is the best fighting art and it ain't bjj than i may have an issue._




No, you don't get it. Everything you post shows you don't get it. You might think you do, but you're showing each and every time that you aren't able to differentiate distinct contexts and environments. But seriously.... "if an instructor is making out that his art is the best fighting art (whatever that is) and it ain't BJJ, then I may have an issue"... HA!!! I really needed that laugh... 



TFP said:


> _again, this challenge (gracie & ufc) was to establish who's art was most effective in a fighting sense. If people don't view there art as a fighting or self defense art than gjj had no beef with them and they had nothing to prove._




See? More lack of ability to simply grasp what you're being told... sigh.... 



TFP said:


> _the gene challenge i agree on and already posted in this thread that it was great he responded by calling out helio who was closer to his age. The jet challenge was real._




The Benny challenge was done in such an unprofessional fashion, seeking to embarrass Benny without really risking anything, that it was just a joke.



TFP said:


> _yes the gracie's have been beat, i don't think i've ever said otherwise. Asking for examples was in response to being asked " who did they even beat". I'm mostly talking about style vs style match ups pre or early ufc. Almost every single name on that list was post style vs style. _
> 
> _I agree 100% that mma is better than bjj. For sure and that gjj paved the way for mixed arts and that mixed arts is better than gjj. 100%!!!_




Eh, neither cut it for me. Not serious enough.



TFP said:


> I don't believe anyone is trying to say BJJ is the ultimate art for the new age UFC/MMA fights.  Not at all,  GJJ and the early UFC's showed the world you needed to cross train in grappling arts to be successful.   That standing arts alone we're not enough.   But there is an issue when a standing art refuses to recognize the importance of grappling but still wants to act like there art is superior.*you YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME TYPE OF GRAPPLING, OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SELF DEFENSE/FIGHTING ART
> *I think that is the point and the arguement.



You do realize that you're trying to say two different things here... first you're talking about what works in an MMA match, then try to imply that to self defence... this is what I mean when I say you simply don't get what the problem is here.



TFP said:


> And just so I don't come off as some GJJ/BJJ fan boy........



Perhaps a bit late for that, I fear....



TFP said:


> Oddly enough, even in today's hyper aware world it could simply come down to BJJ no reaching that region yet.  I mean even Europe isn't huge in regards to BJJ population yet.   This is just a theory of course.



Ha! No.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


LOL...  sorry about this.  Autocorrect got me last night.  I meant who don't train in BJJ.

Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts.  They train to the test.  In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box.  If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling.  The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.

Non-competitive arts also have some advantages.  The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art.  If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition.  This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset.  For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.  

It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style.  However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense.  What if he has a knife?  What if he has a friend?  What would I do if this happens or that happens? )

And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful.  You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler?  Try it.  Hook up with some grapplers and find out.  Maybe make some friends in the process.

Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.  

Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense.  It's just not.  But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> As is the case in Australia. I don't think it will get all that big either. Too many places are advertising MMA and they teach BJJ within their overall training, that combined with the perception of BJJ being one dimensional. I suspect that may prove the same in Europe.
> :asian:


Guys, BJJ is doing just fine in Australia and in Europe.  John Will, one of the first 12 non-brazilian black belts in BJJ, has several thriving schools in Australia and he is very active within the martial arts (not just BJJ) community.  There are lots of great schools in Australia.  

Same for Europe.  The European open is a HUGE IBJJF event and elite athletes from all over Europe compete.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Really? Okay, let's look at this... it happened in a bus (confined environment with no other people around... the driver had deliberately driven there so there wouldn't be anyone around), in which case there's some argument for choosing a triangle... but that still doesn't make it an advisable go-to for self defence. As far as "your arms are free", sure... I just said "limbs"...





So are you trying to argue that that example isn't a self defense situation? If that was a legitimate self defense situation then how could you say it wouldn't be advisible in that situation?



> No, I wouldn't consider someone describing a tactic that can be applied within multiple opponent randori to be sparring either... nor would I consider a clip of BJJ instructors discussing their approach to rolling to actually be rolling either. Is this seriously the best you can do?



Is this more like it?

*




Bjj Randori for comparison's sake;





*



> Actually, no. The timeframe for relative expertise given was actually roughly equal (5-6 years to know enough, and be able to do enough, to teach juniors). I'd say neither is "easier" to learn... it depends on the student.



Aikidoka disagree...




> *Does Aikido take longer time to master and apply than other martial arts?*
> 
> The simple answer is "yes". A year in Karate/Tae Kwon Do/Kempo and you can probably fight much better than before. It takes well over a year before you start feeling comfortable enough with Aikido techniques to imagine using them in "real life".
> 
> The complex answer is "no" in the sense that I don't think anyone ever feels like they have "mastered" an art. If they do then they've stopped growing, or the art is too simple.



http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html



> Does it take longer to learn aikido, than other martial arts?
> 
> The short answer is yes. How long it takes, like many skills, depends on individual dedication and commitment. How long would it take for you to master a musical instrument? If you react to a dangerous situation with disproportionate tension, fear or anger, no amount of training will help you. Aikido teaches a relaxed awareness and emphasizes blending with, rather than blocking and stopping an attack, making it ideal for defending against more powerful or multiple aggressors.



http://www.aikidoofelpaso.org/faq.html


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> A better question is actually why it's there in a number of military systems in the first place... cause it ain't anything to do with being effective, easy to learn, powerful, or anything else...
> 
> I honestly don't understand this.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You think that Steve and Scott winning by submission shows that there is ground in ninjutsu? Seriously? Mate, I'm twenty years deep in this art, believe me, there isn't any. And, for the record, Bob's RBWI is a different animal altogether again... from memory they were instigating it well before the Gracies made their appearance... but it wasn't from ninjutsu...
> I'm stating Scott came in as a Ninjutsu fighter, so yes.  If he won by submission then he knew submissions and ground fighting.  You are the one who brought up Steve.   Plus your post is odd, first you say no ground fighting taught, then say these guys were learning it before the Gracie's were around.
> 
> It's interesting because all one would have to do is type Ninjutsu ground fighting into Google and there would seem to be a whole world of people who disagree with you that Ninjutsu dies t have ground fighting or grappling.......
> 
> 
> Seriously, enough with the "no rules!" thing. There were many, many rules... they just weren't stated as such. What the early UFC's really were were limited (almost no) restriction competitions.... but there were rules aplenty. as
> such as?  Tell you arnt one of those "well they couldn't stab each other so that's a rule" kinda guys!
> 
> 
> And, frankly, all the prevalence of ground work (grappling is not ground work, no matter how often you equate the two) only meant that it was suited to that environment... which hasn't been argued against. In fact, I pointed out that the environment for the early UFC's in particular was geared up to favour such an approach... so it's hardly a surprise that it's seen relatively frequently. It doesn't actually mean anything outside of there, though
> 
> how was it geared toward grappling more so than say being in a room and defending yourself is?  And please explain how grappling is not ground work?
> 
> Sure, whoever won would be able to use the title... but it was seriously stacked towards the Gracies. And there were rules. Quite a lot.
> how exactly was it staked toward the Gracie's?   And again, please state these numerous rules you keep suggesting!
> 
> 
> _But again, most fights were no rules._



There were rules, mate. The fact that you can't recognise them tells me a lot, really...
what were they again?  These rules?



Oh, boy.... you're actually serious with this, aren't you? You do realize that you're showing me that you don't understand the history of martial arts, the application of them, the contexts they developed in, or what the differences between self defence and "fighting" are, don't you?
Are you saying GJJ isn't a self defense art.  Are you saying most martial arts didn't exist to aid in fighting and defending ones self?


See? More lack of ability to simply grasp what you're being told... sigh...
I grasp what you're saying, I just agree with you.  



The Benny challenge was done in such an unprofessional fashion, seeking to embarrass Benny without really risking anything, that it was just a joke. 

yeah, the Gracie's were good at hyperbole and marketing for sure, but this doesn't change the fact that a legit challenge was made, also doesn't change the fact that Benny and his students did infact spar with the Gracie's before this challenge and got tooled.



Eh, neither cut it for me. Not serious enough.
but Dana White says it "as real as it gets".   Lol, not serious enough huh?  If actually fighting isn't serious then I guess I'm off base.


You do realize that you're trying to say two different things here... first you're talking about what works in an MMA match, then try to imply that to self defence... this is what I mean when I say you simply don't get what the problem is here. 

well to me the problem is your lack of ability to admit that things testing in the Cage do directly translate to self defense,  then your lack of ability to look at the history, the videos of what BJJ practitioners are doing on the street with these moves.   I mean I posted plenty of videos of BJJ being used in self defense/street fights, gave plenty of accounts but you just ignore them......


Perhaps a bit late for that, I fear....
could be.


Ha! No.
YUP


[/QUOTE]


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Originally Posted by Hanzou
> I never said that. I said that many people have stated that Aikido takes a very long time to use effectively. I was saying that Bjj takes significantly less time. To the point, I was saying that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido. Surely we can both agree with that can't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by Chris Parker
> Actually, no. The timeframe for relative expertise given was actually roughly equal (5-6 years to know enough, and be able to do enough, to teach juniors). I'd say neither is "easier" to learn... it depends on the student.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Aikidoka disagree...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Can Aikido be used for self-defense?*
> 
> Yes, Aikido can be a very effective form of self-defense However,* it can take considerable time and effort before Aikido (or any martial art) can be used effectively in a self-defense situation.
> 
> **Does Aikido take longer time to master and apply than other martial arts?
> *
> The simple answer is "yes". A year in Karate/Tae Kwon Do/Kempo and you can probably fight much better than before. *It takes well over a year before you start feeling comfortable enough with Aikido techniques to imagine using them in "real life".*
> 
> 
> 
> The complex answer is "no" in the sense that I don't think anyone ever feels like they have "mastered" an art. If they do then they've stopped growing, or the art is too simple. In Funakoshi's autobiography you definitely get the feeling that he doesn't feel like a "master" and is bemused to be considered one.
> 
> http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Does it take longer to learn aikido, than other martial arts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *The short answer is yes. *How long it takes, like many skills, depends on individual dedication and commitment. How long would it take for you to master a musical instrument? If you react to a dangerous situation with disproportionate tension, fear or anger, no amount of training will help you. Aikido teaches a relaxed awareness and emphasizes blending with, rather than blocking and stopping an attack, making it ideal for defending against more powerful or multiple aggressors.
> 
> http://www.aikidoofelpaso.org/faq.html
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*Hanzou*, you are right, yet you are still wrong. What Chris is saying is that after 5 to 6 years you have the expertise to teach juniors. I would go further and say after 5 to 6 years you should have enough technical ability to begin to teach adults the technical aspects of Aikido. 

However, that aside, yes, you are certainly correct in stating that it takes a long time to become effective in Aikido. Then when you read back through your previous posts you will see where you bagged Aikido (and please don't ask me where because I'm not reading back through 150 posts  ).  You are contradicting yourself. Aikido gets a bum rap in discussions about the effectiveness of martial arts. You yourself canned it. Why? The answer is, even after many years of training many students can't apply the techniques in real life. The reasons for that are quite complex and I won't go down that burrow except to say Aikido is an internal art. It does not work if you use strength. A strong practitioner can use strength to make a technique work, but that to me is not Aikido. 

So to summarise. Chris is right in what he said and you are right in what you said, but, sorry mate, you are still wrong. Aikidoka don't disagree. Ain't life a *****?


----------



## K-man

K-man said:


> Ain't life a *****?


This thread is all over the place anyway so I feel comfortable having a rant about the 'starring' of my expression. I could talk all day about roots and rooting (I'll leave it up to you to look up the colloquial use) and I could kick anyone's fanny. But after all that I can't call life a female dog. God I wish you people could learn the English language! 

End of rant!  Back to topic!


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Guys, BJJ is doing just fine in Australia and in Europe.  John Will, one of the first 12 non-brazilian black belts in BJJ, has several thriving schools in Australia and he is very active within the martial arts (not just BJJ) community.  There are lots of great schools in Australia.
> 
> Same for Europe.  The European open is a HUGE IBJJF event and elite athletes from all over Europe compete.


If you say so.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> If you say so.


LOL.  So, I post 4 paragraphs on the actual topic at hand, and not one response.  I post two sentences on BJJ and get a smart *** comment.  This thread is hopeless.


----------



## TFP

Steve said:


> Guys, BJJ is doing just fine in Australia and in Europe.  John Will, one of the first 12 non-brazilian black belts in BJJ, has several thriving schools in Australia and he is very active within the martial arts (not just BJJ) community.  There are lots of great schools in Australia.
> 
> Same for Europe.  The European open is a HUGE IBJJF event and elite athletes from all over Europe compete.



Well doing fine is subjective.  It's nothing compared to North American BJJ, and in the context of saying maybe BJJ really hasn't made a big splash in Israel yet, I think it's fair to say it hasn't really exploded in Australia or even Europe for that extent.   Yes it's coming along, but the "dirty dozen" weren't really going but 10-15yrs ago.


----------



## Steve

TFP said:


> Well doing fine is subjective.  It's nothing compared to North American BJJ, and in the context of saying maybe BJJ really hasn't made a big splash in Israel yet, I think it's fair to say it hasn't really exploded in Australia or even Europe for that extent.   Yes it's coming along, but the "dirty dozen" weren't really going but 10-15yrs ago.


Everything is relative.  The implication is that BJJ is not all that popular.  BJJ in particular (distinguishing from MMA) is very popular, throughout the world.  Is it popular with everyone?  Of course not.  Is it better than any other art?  That's subjective.   Certainly better for SOME people, not for others.  Is it failing to catch on?  Perhaps in a particular town, but to say that it's not all that popular in Australia or not catching on in Europe is demonstrably false.  There are terrific schools run by very high level black belts in all parts of the world, including Isreal.  

But, all of the above aside, who gives a rip?  What does it matter?  Whether 10 people in the world trained in BJJ or 10 million, how is that relevant to the topic of the thread?  What position is being furthered by a discussion of the relative popularity of BJJ that relates to the value of sport and competition in martial arts?


----------



## jks9199

Steve said:


> Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts.  They train to the test.  In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box.  If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling.  The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.


Excellent point, and I agree completely.  Most people who claim to train for self defense will never really put their training to the real test -- and I don't want them to have to!  And this is why some silly things persist...  I like how Rory Miller has put it: every training exercise has a flaw, especially when you're training for self defense purposes.  They have to -- or you won't have playmates.  Good training balances those flaws in different exercises, or with careful selection of flaws that are less likely to persist through to real application.



> Non-competitive arts also have some advantages.  The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art.  If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition.  This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset.  For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.
> 
> It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style.  However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense.  What if he has a knife?  What if he has a friend?  What would I do if this happens or that happens? )
> 
> And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful.  You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler?  Try it.  Hook up with some grapplers and find out.  Maybe make some friends in the process.
> 
> Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.
> 
> Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense.  It's just not.  But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.



I think it's generally impossible for someone to become an expert in self defense because it so broad a topic and so dependent on the specifics.  There are some commonalities across the field -- but lots of differences, too.  A bouncer has different concerns that a cop, who has different concerns than a bodyguard, who faces different issues than a simple private person being attacked.  Male and female can be radically different (consider that just about every self defense situation for a woman is likely to involve the equivalent of my nightmare opponent... who there's not a lot of chance I'll encounter.  There just aren't that many guys out there that much bigger and stronger AND likely to attack me...).  And so on...  And, if you're not a special kind of stupid, you hopefully won't face enough opportunities to test yourself and distinguis "worked once" from "damn lucky it worked at all" from "works just about every time"....  even if you're a cop -- cause if I KNOW I'm going to fight you, I'm stacking the odds and you won't have a chance to fight me.


----------



## TFP

Steve said:


> But, all of the above aside, who gives a rip?  What does it matter?  Whether 10 people in the world trained in BJJ or 10 million, how is that relevant to the topic of the thread?  What position is being furthered by a discussion of the relative popularity of BJJ that relates to the value of sport and competition in martial arts?



If you don't give a rip then why post about it?  I surmised that maybe BJJ's lack of exposure in Israel is part of it being left out of there combat training.  I fully stated it was just a theory in the post.

if you don't give a rip than don't give a rip!


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> *Hanzou*, you are right, yet you are still wrong. What Chris is saying is that after 5 to 6 years you have the expertise to teach juniors. I would go further and say after 5 to 6 years you should have enough technical ability to begin to teach adults the technical aspects of Aikido.
> 
> However, that aside, yes, you are certainly correct in stating that it takes a long time to become effective in Aikido. Then when you read back through your previous posts you will see where you bagged Aikido (and please don't ask me where because I'm not reading back through 150 posts  ).  You are contradicting yourself. Aikido gets a bum rap in discussions about the effectiveness of martial arts. You yourself canned it. Why? The answer is, even after many years of training many students can't apply the techniques in real life. The reasons for that are quite complex and I won't go down that burrow except to say Aikido is an internal art. It does not work if you use strength. A strong practitioner can use strength to make a technique work, but that to me is not Aikido.
> 
> So to summarise. Chris is right in what he said and you are right in what you said, but, sorry mate, you are still wrong. Aikidoka don't disagree. Ain't life a *****?



Well wouldn't that coincide with my argument that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido? I would also argue that many old school Aikidoka say that most Aikido dojos are garbage these days, making it even harder for someone to learn "real" Aikido, and leading many to view Aikido as mainly a spiritual pursuit instead of a martial art.

i must confess, that Steven Segal randori is pretty fantastical (and hysterical).


----------



## Steve

TFP said:


> If you don't give a rip then why post about it?  I surmised that maybe BJJ's lack of exposure in Israel is part of it being left out of there combat training.  I fully stated it was just a theory in the post.
> 
> if you don't give a rip than don't give a rip!


First, you didn't answer the questions. _What does it matter? Whether 10 people in the world trained in BJJ or 10 million, how is that relevant to the topic of the thread? What position is being furthered by a discussion of the relative popularity of BJJ that relates to the value of sport and competition in martial arts?  
_
Second, you are presuming that BJJ suffers from a lack of exposure in Isreal.  I've seen no evidence that this is true.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Well wouldn't that coincide with my argument that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido? I would also argue that many old school Aikidoka say that most Aikido dojos are garbage these days, making it even harder for someone to learn "real" Aikido, and leading many to view Aikido as mainly a spiritual pursuit instead of a martial art.
> 
> i must confess, that Steven Segal randori is pretty fantastical (and hysterical).


If you think BJJ is easier to learn than Aikido, why do you think that is?  Is it because BJJ techniques are simpler to learn?  Is it because of the competitive/sport aspect to BJJ training?


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> If you think BJJ is easier to learn than Aikido, why do you think that is?  Is it because BJJ techniques are simpler to learn?  Is it because of the competitive/sport aspect to BJJ training?



Because they're simpler, more practical, and allow a larger margin of error. However, the competitive aspect definitely plays a role, because you're forced into free sparring constantly. You spend time learning the technique, then you spend time applying the technique at full force.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> LOL...  sorry about this.  Autocorrect got me last night.  I meant who don't train in BJJ.


We wouldnt be if there were not some folks here telling us how much better BJJ is the the rest of the Martial Arts out there.  You can understand why some people who have 20-30 or  more years in one of these other arts may take exception to that.


> Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts.  They train to the test.  In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box.  If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling.  The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.


True  but does that testing translate in the real world?  In some ways it does in others not so much.  I guess some is better then nothing.  There are also ways to test non-sport arts as well in training and sparing.


> Non-competitive arts also have some advantages.  The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art.  If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition.  This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset.  For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.


I dont know if thats tunnel vision or more a case of the rules not being compatible with real life.  The rules for BJJ make dropping into guard a good thing.  When in real life it might not be.


> It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style.  However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense.  What if he has a knife?  What if he has a friend?  What would I do if this happens or that happens? )


The only time adding sport to an art is a bad thing is when it starts changing the art by adding rules and soon the art looks different then how it was invented.  Judo and TKD come to mind.  LIke I said before my Judo school teaches a bunch of stuff thats banned from comps but other schools that are more concerned about Comps dont bother teaching it.  So its not Judo anymore in my opinion its just a part of Judo.   BUT you also dont need a sport art to compete.  There are plenty of Karate competitions and sparing that you can participate in. 


> And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful.  You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler?  Try it.  Hook up with some grapplers and find out.  Maybe make some friends in the process.


I think if your goal is to be well rounded then you need more then just a sport art.  If all your training for is to win comps then your not well rounded.  Thats very specific training with very specific rules.  


> Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.


MIddle ground between sport and non-sport?  


> Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense.  It's just not.  But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.



whats an expert in your opinion?  And why do you need to be one?


----------



## Steve

I'll post more about what I think expert means when I have a real keyboard.  When it becomes important is when one presumes to teach. There are a lot of "self defense experts" who little to no practical experience who make their living teaching self defense .  Like a golf pro who's never hit a ball outside the driving range.

Otherwise, I think you said pretty much what I said, but somehow made it sound as though you disagreed with me.  Maybe I'm missing your point.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> MIddle ground between sport and non-sport?



Yes. Your Judo dojo would be a good example. Too much sport can be detrimental, but not enough sport can also be detrimental.

I also believe that Steve is right on point when he says that you end up utilizing what you train for in sport/competitive styles via tournaments and competitions. That aspect also forces the entire school to achieve a certain level of competency.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> We wouldnt be if there were not some folks here telling us how much better BJJ is the the rest of the Martial Arts out there.  You can understand why some people who have 20-30 or  more years in one of these other arts may take exception to that.


Sure, but it takes two to tango, ballen.  





> True  but does that testing translate in the real world?  In some ways it does in others not so much.  I guess some is better then nothing.  There are also ways to test non-sport arts as well in training and sparing.


Sure.  Something is better than nothing.  The key to remember is that if you haven't used the skills and techniques for self defense, you don't know whether they will work... for you.  A technique may be perfectly sound, but whether you can rely on it when the **** hits the fan has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can rely on it.  The advantage that sport has over non-sport, IMO, is that I know I can execute certain techniques.  Whether or not they are a good idea for self defense is a different matter.  





> I dont know if thats tunnel vision or more a case of the rules not being compatible with real life.  The rules for BJJ make dropping into guard a good thing.  When in real life it might not be.
> 
> The only time adding sport to an art is a bad thing is when it starts changing the art by adding rules and soon the art looks different then how it was invented.  Judo and TKD come to mind.  LIke I said before my Judo school teaches a bunch of stuff thats banned from comps but other schools that are more concerned about Comps dont bother teaching it.  So its not Judo anymore in my opinion its just a part of Judo.   BUT you also dont need a sport art to compete.  There are plenty of Karate competitions and sparing that you can participate in.


The tunnel vision is only training within the ruleset.  So, yeah.  I think it's tunnel vision.   Judo training, with a mind toward self defense is, I take it, practical training in your opinion.  

As an aside, if a karate style has competitions...  guess what?  It's not a non-sport art with competitions.  It's a sport art in exactly the same way BJJ and other traditional martial arts are "sport" arts.


> I think if your goal is to be well rounded then you need more then just a sport art.  If all your training for is to win comps then your not well rounded.  Thats very specific training with very specific rules.


This is what I was referring to in my previous post.  The way you say this makes it sound like it's contrary to what I said above.  It's not.  This is exactly the point I was making earlier.


> MIddle ground between sport and non-sport?


Yeah.  Hanzou touched on it.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Sure, but it takes two to tango, ballen.


That's the point of a forum to discuss things.




> Sure.  Something is better than nothing.  The key to remember is that if you haven't used the skills and techniques for self defense, you don't know whether they will work... for you.  A technique may be perfectly sound, but whether you can rely on it when the **** hits the fan has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can rely on it.  The advantage that sport has over non-sport, IMO, is that I know I can execute certain techniques.  Whether or not they are a good idea for self defense is a different matter.


No it means you can execute it in class or in a controlled environment.  When the crap hits the fan. You have no clue what you will do.  I've seen trained cops freeze up when things got real.  Nobody has any idea what they will do when it comes down to it. When I was on SWAT I remember I was training a new guy that just finished SWAT school.  We hit a house he was supposed to follow me and cover me.  He never even picked up his gun.  We cleared the house and he forgot his gun.  He saidbhis mind went blank and he just followed me like I told him.  So sport training means nothing in real life.  The techniques might work fine but you might not.



> The tunnel vision is only training within the ruleset.  So, yeah.  I think it's tunnel vision.   Judo training, with a mind toward self defense is, I take it, practical training in your opinion.
> 
> As an aside, if a karate style has competitions...  guess what?  It's not a non-sport art with competitions.  It's a sport art in exactly the same way BJJ and other traditional martial arts are "sport" arts.



Not at all.  There are some arts that are spot based.  There are some arts that are not spot based but guys get together to " play".  


> This is what I was referring to in my previous post.  The way you say this makes it sound like it's contrary to what I said above.  It's not.  This is exactly the point I was making earlier.
> Yeah.  Hanzou touched on it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yes. Your Judo dojo would be a good example. Too much sport can be detrimental, but not enough sport can also be detrimental.
> 
> I also believe that Steve is right on point when he says that you end up utilizing what you train for in sport/competitive styles via tournaments and competitions. That aspect also forces the entire school to achieve a certain level of competency.



Na you don't need any sport.  Sport can be fun but its not needed.  And the only lvl of competency you achieve is set with the rules the competition governing body has set.


----------



## Spinedoc

ballen0351 said:


> I've seen trained cops freeze up when things got real.



I saw guys in the military do the same thing!!!

It's like, WTF? where is your honor? I won't say I was never scared, as that would be a BIG FAT lie, but courage is not the absence of fear, but rather overcoming your fear (shameless movie reference, but truth just the same). I was scared to death multiple times, but I would never, EVER, let my fellow marines and seamen down. I'd rather die. 

But, yeah, I digress, the point is, you don't know how you will react to a real life or death situation until...well, yep, until you are in one.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> That's the point of a forum to discuss things.


 then accept responsibility and stop blaming other people.  You're talking about bjj because you're choosing to do so.  Don't blame Hanzou for it.



> No it means you can execute it in class or in a controlled environment.  When the crap hits the fan. You have no clue what you will do.  I've seen trained cops freeze up when things got real.  Nobody has any idea what they will do when it comes down to it. When I was on SWAT I remember I was training a new guy that just finished SWAT school.  We hit a house he was supposed to follow me and cover me.  He never even picked up his gun.  We cleared the house and he forgot his gun.  He saidbhis mind went blank and he just followed me like I told him.  So sport training means nothing in real life.  The techniques might work fine but you might not.


once again, you're saying this as though it isn't pretty much exactly my point.  





> Not at all.  There are some arts that are spot based.  There are some arts that are not spot based but guys get together to " play".


in your opinion.  I disagree.  I dint see any meaningful difference between kyokushin karate and bjj.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> LOL.  So, I post 4 paragraphs on the actual topic at hand, and not one response.  I post two sentences on BJJ and get a smart *** comment.  This thread is hopeless.


Sorry Toots. I thought a little brevity might be appreciated. I have already said twice, BJJ is no big deal in Australia .. Fact.
I spoke of two dojos that closed in the past 6 months, one in the dojo where I train and one just around the corner from where I live. Both because they had too few students and where I train they even left without paying their rent. I wasn't going to post it again so I was just agreeing with you. And I agree with you also .... this thread is hopeless!



> QUOTE=Steve
> Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts. They train to the test. In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box. If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling. The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.
> 
> And I train to break peoples necks. I don't train to test.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-competitive arts also have some advantages. The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art. If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition. This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset. For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.
> 
> Are you suggesting that you get tunnel vision from sport sparring?  Sorry, never experienced that even in tournaments where I suffered broken bones. Adrenalin was good though, I didn't feel a thing until afterwards. Seriously, we can be as intense as that in our training too.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style. However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense. What if he has a knife? What if he has a friend? What would I do if this happens or that happens? )
> 
> It depends what you want from your martial art. I did the sport thing and if I had my time over I would not go that way again.
> 
> 
> And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful. You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler? Try it. Hook up with some grapplers and find out. Maybe make some friends in the process.
> 
> So how does you art become rounded by ditching your best weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.
> 
> And you are perfectly welcome to that opinion. For me it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense. It's just not. But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.
> 
> So I teach my guys the skills I believe will keep them safe, not only here but elsewhere in the world where there is more likelihood of violence. How does training them in techniques that the will likely never use on the street going to help them. Surely they are better off practising to use the skills inherent in their training.


Lets say I am a world class classical pianist (which I an not). I see there is a challenge to find the best piano player in the world so I decide to sign up. When they send me the information I find that the organiser has made it a condition of competition that you can't use the black keys. Now this guy actually developed a style of piano playing where you only use the white keys, so he has a bit of an advantage. Why would I want to continue with the competition? I can play my piano properly anywhere I like as it is and I don't have to worry about changing my whole method of playing.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Everything is relative.  The implication is that BJJ is not all that popular.  BJJ in particular (distinguishing from MMA) is very popular, throughout the world.  Is it popular with everyone?  Of course not.  Is it better than any other art?  That's subjective.   Certainly better for SOME people, not for others.  Is it failing to catch on?  Perhaps in a particular town, but to say that it's not all that popular in Australia or not catching on in Europe is demonstrably false.  There are terrific schools run by very high level black belts in all parts of the world, including Isreal.
> 
> Nobody is saying there aren't good schools. There are and I have a number of mates training there. Compared to other styles of MAs, BJJ is small beer. Nothing to do with quality, just numbers.
> 
> But, all of the above aside, who gives a rip?  What does it matter?  Whether 10 people in the world trained in BJJ or 10 million, how is that relevant to the topic of the thread?  What position is being furthered by a discussion of the relative popularity of BJJ that relates to the value of sport and competition in martial arts?
> 
> Perhaps you could check with the person who made the claim originally. I only responded to correct an incorrect claim.


For what it's worth, MMA schools are booming, BJJ is not.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Sorry Toots. I thought a little brevity might be appreciated. I have already said twice, BJJ is no big deal in Australia .. Fact.
> I spoke of two dojos that closed in the past 6 months, one in the dojo where I train and one just around the corner from where I live. Both because they had too few students and where I train they even left without paying their rent. I wasn't going to post it again so I was just agreeing with you. And I agree with you also .... this thread is hopeless!
> 
> 
> Lets say I am a world class classical pianist (which I an not). I see there is a challenge to find the best piano player in the world so I decide to sign up. When they send me the information I find that the organiser has made it a condition of competition that you can't use the black keys. Now this guy actually developed a style of piano playing where you only use the white keys, so he has a bit of an advantage. Why would I want to continue with the competition? I can play my piano properly anywhere I like as it is and I don't have to worry about changing my whole method of playing.
> :asian:



Did you seriously call me toots?   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## seasoned

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Wes Yager (seasoned)
MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well wouldn't that coincide with my argument that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido? I would also argue that many old school Aikidoka say that most Aikido dojos are garbage these days, making it even harder for someone to learn "real" Aikido, and leading many to view Aikido as mainly a spiritual pursuit instead of a martial art.
> 
> i must confess, that Steven Segal randori is pretty fantastical (and hysterical).


It may well do. I don't know. I do know that some TKD people end up with black belts in about three years and one of my mates who is one of Australia's top martial artists took 10 years to achieve his BJJ black. Go figure! It takes a long time, more than five years, to get your Aikido black belt and at that stage you are still a way to go. I would have thought that might put it on a par with BJJ in terms of competency. The difference is BJJ obviously has some skills that you can utilise sooner.

As to your comment about the Aikido schools being garbage, I don't know. I do know that I have come across a number of Aikidoka who wouldn't know their *** from their elbow, but I have seen the same from other MAs as well. Then if I was asked who is the most proficient martial artist I have met ... he is Aikidoka.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Yes. Your Judo dojo would be a good example. Too much sport can be detrimental, but not enough sport can also be detrimental.
> 
> I also believe that Steve is right on point when he says that you end up utilizing what you train for in sport/competitive styles via tournaments and competitions. That aspect also forces the entire school to achieve a certain level of competency.


*Hanzou*, do you have any older guys in your school. I have one guy in my class who joined two years ago at age 65. He is still training. What would competition do for him? You need to accept that a lot of people are not suited to competition. My last tournament I was 58 and fighting guys up to 40 years younger. Big deal. In hindsight competition wasted years of my training life.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Did you seriously call me toots?


I did and I'm sorry if it causes offence in the US. Here it is just friendly banter.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

seasoned said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
> 
> Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.
> 
> Wes Yager (seasoned)
> MT Senior Moderator-



In case this was missed.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> It may well do. I don't know. I do know that some TKD people end up with black belts in about three years and one of my mates who is one of Australia's top martial artists took 10 years to achieve his BJJ black. Go figure! It takes a long time, more than five years, to get your Aikido black belt and at that stage you are still a way to go. I would have thought that might put it on a par with BJJ in terms of competency. The difference is BJJ obviously has some skills that you can utilise sooner.



Well again, in Bjj a purple is considered high enough to teach a class. A Bjj purple is equivalent of black in a lot of styles.

I do feel that TKD is easier to learn than Bjj. Fighting on the ground is definitely a different style of fighting than most people are used to.



> As to your comment about the Aikido schools being garbage, I don't know. I do know that I have come across a number of Aikidoka who wouldn't know their *** from their elbow, but I have seen the same from other MAs as well. Then if I was asked who is the most proficient martial artist I have met ... he is Aikidoka.
> :asian:



Well, in that case I was talking more about old-school Aikidoka getting ticked off at how modern Aikido students are being taught. But yeah, I agree that if you can pull off what Seagal was doing in that Randori video, I would consider that to be a pretty impressive martial artist.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Na you don't need any sport.  Sport can be fun but its not needed.  And the only lvl of competency you achieve is set with the rules the competition governing body has set.



Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.


No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve. 
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve.
> :asian:



Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.


Mate, you are like a cracked record. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. For God's sake give us a break. We have our opinion too and it just happens to be different to yours. We know your opinion, you don't have to keep beating the drum!
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, I'm going to break this into two conversations here... first, Hanzou and TFP...



Hanzou said:


> So are you trying to argue that that example isn't a self defense situation? If that was a legitimate self defense situation then how could you say it wouldn't be advisible in that situation?




Self defence training is about high-return, high likelihood situations and tactics/methods. A single account of an action having an effective result once doesn't qualify as an advisable approach to the situation. It's the same as high kicks to the head... sure, they can work, but they're just not advisable in self defence training.



Hanzou said:


> Is this more like it?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bjj Randori for comparison's sake;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Yes, that's more like it... but did you understand what you were watching?

Oh, and I don't think we've met properly yet... you really, really don't need to show me contrasting methods. Frankly, the Aikido one was far more impressive, especially from a self defence perspective (although neither art really was showing self defence there). Remember, I have a background that includes some informal and formal Aikido instruction, as well as time in BJJ, and a hell of a lot more besides.



Hanzou said:


> Aikidoka disagree...
> 
> http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html
> 
> http://www.aikidoofelpaso.org/faq.html



And I'd disagree with them. The issue is that the question is far too vague to really be answered that categorically... I mean, it depends on how the art is taught and trained, more than the art itself. But the real point is that I was talking about a relative skill level, separate from the rank (which is always arbitrary, and relevant only to the art it's applied to) that was roughly equal. So, uh... no. 



TFP said:


> _I honestly don't understand this....._


_
_
No kidding.

Here's a clue: The US Military incorporated some BJJ into their training methods which are severely limited and curtailed by the very equipment the soldiers would be carrying. The reasons that BJJ was brought in was nothing to do with any of their soldiers using it in any actual, real, genuine combat. Have you figured out the actual reasons?



TFP said:


> _I'm stating Scott came in as a Ninjutsu fighter, so yes. If he won by submission then he knew submissions and ground fighting. You are the one who brought up Steve. Plus your post is odd, first you say no ground fighting taught, then say these guys were learning it before the Gracie's were around._


_
_
There is no ground fighting in Ninjutsu. None. Bob and his guys were always doing their own thing (there's also no high-kicks in Ninjutsu, but Bob's guys used them a lot... why? Because Bob taught an eclectic mix of a number of things, including Ninjutsu, and his first art, a form of TKD, as well as constantly exploring and studying all other areas of combat they could), I'm not saying that there wasn't any in RBWI, I'm saying that the traditional systems that make up the Ninjutsu schools syllabus doesn't actually contain any ne waza. The closest they have is some kime waza and osai komi (pinning techniques) and suwari waza (seated/kneeling techniques). I'm also saying that people like Steve and Scot being able to apply locks and chokes on the ground isn't a huge alteration from our actual training and application of them standing (which is how they are presented in our art).



TFP said:


> _It's interesting because all one would have to do is type Ninjutsu ground fighting into Google and there would seem to be a whole world of people who disagree with you that Ninjutsu dies t have ground fighting or grappling......._


_
_
Grappling is not ground fighting. There is no ground fighting in the systems taught in Ninjutsu. Do a number of instructors create ground fighting approaches out of the methods we have? Yep. Have some also studied things like BJJ, and explored that in their approach to their Ninjutsu? Yep, I've said that as well.

Here's a challenge for you, though. You seem to be trying to tell me what my art has in it, can you cite some examples of ground fighting in Ninjutsu? I'm going to need kata names, ryu-ha, sections... you don't have to demonstrate what makes it "ninjutsu" ground fighting, just find some actual examples. 



TFP said:


> _such as? Tell you arnt one of those "well they couldn't stab each other so that's a rule" kinda guys!_



Actually, yes. That's a very crude one, of course, but yes, that, and much, much more. Simply by agreeing to meet in a place and fight implies rules... hell, there's rules even when there isn't such an agreement. True "no rules" fighting doesn't actually happen... if you can't see (or follow) the difference between an absence of rules and an absence of restrictions (which is really what the UFC were in the beginning), you're not going to do well for the rest of my comments...



TFP said:


> _how was it geared toward grappling more so than say being in a room and defending yourself is? And please explain how grappling is not ground work?_



How was it geared towards grapplers? In a number of ways, actually... first was the rules. The lack of time limits or rounds played into a longer strategy. Next was the lack of referee interference (the fighters wouldn't be broken up for lack of action, as later happened in order to make the fights more "exciting"), also allowing the art of attrition that was brought up earlier. The only banned actions were ones that would only be applied against a grappling opponent, of course (not that fish-hooking would result in immediate defeat of the grappler, but it is interesting that that was not allowed, whereas striking the throat or groin was fine...). Beyond the rules, was the environment. A number of fighters afterwards (particularly those from striking-based arts) mentioned that the floor was a lot softer than they were used to... which invites going to the ground, as you're not about to break your knees in a bad fall, but, more importantly, robbed the strikers of their usual speed and power. The surrounding cage allowed grappling competitors more handholds and grips, providing leverage which wasn't really any help to the strikers (seriously, they needed a cage?). Then, of course, was the selection of the competitors. Very grappler friendly, and, more specifically, ground fighting friendly. Really, why would there have been any surprise that Royce won?

It's interesting to note that the surface has become a lot more solid (still padded, and a little slow, but faster than it used to be), there's been an instigation of time limits and rounds, attrition isn't encouraged anymore, there are more restrictions on what can be done, and so on... 

As far as "please explain how grappling is not ground work?", seriously? Maybe read a dictionary? Grappling means "to seize or hold"... it is taken from the English term "grapnel", a device to take hold of a wall. It has nothing to do with if you're standing, sitting, lying down, swimming, or flying through the air. The fact that it has come to refer to ground work in the MMA world has no real meaning here. In real terms, I'm a grappler. I don't do ground work. 



TFP said:


> _how exactly was it staked toward the Gracie's? And again, please state these numerous rules you keep suggesting!_



See above.



TFP said:


> what were they again?  These rules?



And again.



TFP said:


> Are you saying GJJ isn't a self defense art.  Are you saying most martial arts didn't exist to aid in fighting and defending ones self?



You really want me to say it? Okay, yes. Gracie JiuJitsu, despite all accounts and claims, is not a self defence art. If it's meant to be, it's missed the boat incredibly badly. In my time in BJJ I saw absolutely nothing that I would consider viable, or appropriate self defence teachings... training in a seminar with Royce just solidified that for me, really. To me, BJJ really is a watered down sporting version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sporting version of actual martial arts. It's fantastic in it's specialisation, but it's specialisation isn't anything to do with self defence.

As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.

There's a big difference between what something is said to be, and what it actually is... no matter who, or how many, are saying it.



TFP said:


> I grasp what you're saying, I just agree with you.



No, you really don't. Tell you what, can you explain to me the two major categories of violence that could be encountered in a self defence altercation, and the types of violence (and attacker/s) that might present you with? Can you explain what a self defence system actually is?



TFP said:


> yeah, the Gracie's were good at hyperbole and marketing for sure, but this doesn't change the fact that a legit challenge was made, also doesn't change the fact that Benny and his students did infact spar with the Gracie's before this challenge and got tooled.



The "legit challenge" was little more than another publicity stunt. 



TFP said:


> but Dana White says it "as real as it gets".   Lol, not serious enough huh?  If actually fighting isn't serious then I guess I'm off base.



It's sport. It's a contest. A game, really. And no, it's not "as real as it gets", nor is it anywhere close to serious enough for me. And if you think that the UFC, or MMA is "actually fighting" in anything other than a controlled, sporting environment, then yeah, you're incredibly off base.



TFP said:


> well to me the problem is your lack of ability to admit that things testing in the Cage do directly translate to self defense,  then your lack of ability to look at the history, the videos of what BJJ practitioners are doing on the street with these moves.   I mean I posted plenty of videos of BJJ being used in self defense/street fights, gave plenty of accounts but you just ignore them......



No, I didn't ignore them. I gave them the proper relevance. There's a difference.

But, frankly, "testing things in the cage" doesn't relate at all to self defence. At all. Not one bit. But, I suppose we haven't met properly yet either... me not looking at the history of something is quite a funny idea. Get back to me with an understanding of self defence, and you might be able to talk. I already know your context... can you get a handle on mine?



TFP said:


> could be.



Ha, sure.... "could be"... 



TFP said:


> YUP



No. And I wouldn't be so strong in your defence, as you're also stating later that "hey, it's just a theory". Here's some insight for you... your theory is wrong.



Hanzou said:


> Well wouldn't that coincide with my argument that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido? I would also argue that many old school Aikidoka say that most Aikido dojos are garbage these days, making it even harder for someone to learn "real" Aikido, and leading many to view Aikido as mainly a spiritual pursuit instead of a martial art.
> 
> i must confess, that Steven Segal randori is pretty fantastical (and hysterical).



BJJ can be incredibly technical, it is often described as "physical chess", showing that it focuses on longer-term strategy to employ it's technical methods, and, having experience with both, I would say that no, Aikido isn't harder to learn than BJJ is... nor is BJJ harder to learn than Aikido is. Both require a different approach, certainly... but that's not on a scale. As far as the ideas of "real Aikido" of the old days versus now... that type of comment I have seen levelled at pretty much every art that's old enough. Watch, you'll see it applied to BJJ in the next decade or two.... When it comes to Segal's randori... when I believe you know what you're watching, I'll listen to your comments. Answering my questions above will go a long way towards that. 



Steve said:


> If you think BJJ is easier to learn than Aikido, why do you think that is?  Is it because BJJ techniques are simpler to learn?  Is it because of the competitive/sport aspect to BJJ training?



This question I like, and I feel is largely at the heart of the intention of the thread!



Hanzou said:


> Because they're simpler, more practical, and allow a larger margin of error. However, the competitive aspect definitely plays a role, because you're forced into free sparring constantly. You spend time learning the technique, then you spend time applying the technique at full force.



Ha, oh, that was funny... "simpler and more practical"? BJJ? Really? Wow, we must have trained in very different arts... 

As far as the idea of competition being how to "learn the technique, then apply it at full force" (really? Full force? I seriously doubt that... if you did, you'd have no training partners the next class, they'd all be recovering from broken arms and the like... or you would be yourself), do you really think that non-competitive arts don't do that? Or that competitive methods are the only, or even the best way to achieve such training?



K-man said:


> As to your comment about the Aikido schools being garbage, I don't know. I do know that I have come across a number of Aikidoka who wouldn't know their *** from their elbow, but I have seen the same from other MAs as well. Then if I was asked who is the most proficient martial artist I have met ... he is Aikidoka.
> :asian:



No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it.





Steve said:


> LOL... sorry about this. Autocorrect got me last night. I meant who don't train in BJJ.



It's the way the thread went, Steve. This isn't the BJJ thread... some of us didn't come here to discuss BJJ, but that's where the conversation has gone. Like yourself (and Boar Man, and a few others), I tried to deal specifically with the topic itself... and it got lost in the mix. Honestly, we're not the ones pre-occupied... it's just become the nexus for the conversation, as it represents sporting approaches in broad terms (even aside from the specific "BJJ is the only real combat art!" style posts).



Steve said:


> Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts. They train to the test. In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box. If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling. The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.



Sure. Although, honestly, I wouldn't say they "train to the test", as, well, they don't. They train to the application. Testing really isn't a part of it, when looked at accurately, as that would mean that you train in order to test whether or not boxing works... in a boxing ring, in a boxing match, under boxing rules, in a boxing context. You don't. You train to be able to apply the skill of boxing in a boxing ring/match/context. That could be seen as testing yourself (and your abilities) in such a context, but that's all. And really, non-sporting arts do exactly the same thing, just differently. We train to the skill.

As far as your last comment there ("The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand"), well, yes. That's kinda what we've been saying. And we've been saying that that context is not self defence or real world application. It's a sporting contest. Having that context clear and easily understood sounds fine... but the nuances seem to be being missed. Sports ability does not equal combat or defensive ability. Nor does self defence training equal applicable skills in competition. 



Steve said:


> Non-competitive arts also have some advantages. The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art. If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition. This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset. For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.



That's true, but it's only a part of the entire equation. Realistically, focusing on competition at all can be detrimental. When training in something (martial arts), it's vital to have a clear goal in mind, and to have everything you do geared towards that goal. You need to only focus on that single approach and methodology... anything else takes time away, removes you from doing what you're needing to do, and can very easily counter-man otherwise good work you may have been doing. The clearer you are in what you're doing, and why, the more powerful the training will be. Otherwise, it's two steps forwards, one step back. 



Steve said:


> It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style. However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense. What if he has a knife? What if he has a friend? What would I do if this happens or that happens? )



This is actually a good example of the split focus I was talking about, and why introducing sport into an art whose context is quite divorced from it can be the end of (that arts) world. Really, it can only benefit the art if it is done in a way that keeps the system moving towards the intended goal the art has... otherwise, two steps forward, one back... I mean, why would you spend time training in things that don't fit what you're supposed to be training for?



Steve said:


> And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful. You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler? Try it. Hook up with some grapplers and find out. Maybe make some friends in the process.



If your aim is to be able to "hang" with skilled opponents, sure. Self defence actually isn't really concerned with that at all, as it's not likely, high return, practical, or realistic. So again, it depends on the context and aims of the training.



Steve said:


> Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.



Well rounded is one thing... but, again, being geared towards a particular focus (whether sports, self defence, duelling, battlefield application, or whatever) won't really lead you towards being "well rounded"... I mean, I train with some two dozen or so primary weapons, I train striking, evasion, throws, locks, chokes, traditional movement and modern application and self defence methods, and far more... I have a background that includes everything from the most traditional of traditional systems, to arts that were designed purely to win tournaments, to no BS self defence systems, unarmed, armed, standing, ground, group, security, military, and more... and I aim to not be "well rounded". I aim to be skilled in my context, with everything I do geared towards my aims. 



Steve said:


> Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense. It's just not. But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.



I disagree completely. It's absolutely possible to become an expert in self defence... but you have to work towards that context specifically. Again, well rounded just isn't the way.



Steve said:


> Guys, BJJ is doing just fine in Australia and in Europe. John Will, one of the first 12 non-brazilian black belts in BJJ, has several thriving schools in Australia and he is very active within the martial arts (not just BJJ) community. There are lots of great schools in Australia.
> 
> Same for Europe. The European open is a HUGE IBJJF event and elite athletes from all over Europe compete.



Yeah, I know John's schools... great guy, good solid head on his shoulders. I don't always agree with what he writes, but he's generally got a good approach. Of course, John is basically the most well-known BJJ instructor in Australia, and a frequent writer in magazines here... but his schools doing well doesn't mean that BJJ as a whole is making much of a splash here. It's certainly got it's place, but it's lost it's sheen of "the new thing", and is settling like many other arts around. As ever, it's arts like TKD that are probably the most "dominant" (in terms of market penetration) here.



Steve said:


> LOL. So, I post 4 paragraphs on the actual topic at hand, and not one response. I post two sentences on BJJ and get a smart *** comment. This thread is hopeless.



Hey, I was getting to it...!



jks9199 said:


> Excellent point, and I agree completely. Most people who claim to train for self defense will never really put their training to the real test -- and I don't want them to have to! And this is why some silly things persist... I like how Rory Miller has put it: every training exercise has a flaw, especially when you're training for self defense purposes. They have to -- or you won't have playmates. Good training balances those flaws in different exercises, or with careful selection of flaws that are less likely to persist through to real application.



I agree with this (well, it's Rory Miller, he's hard to disagree with... ha!), but I would still say that it's more than possible to become a self defence expert. Catch is, of course, that not everyone who claims to be one, or even to be an instructor, actually is.



jks9199 said:


> I think it's generally impossible for someone to become an expert in self defense because it so broad a topic and so dependent on the specifics. There are some commonalities across the field -- but lots of differences, too. A bouncer has different concerns that a cop, who has different concerns than a bodyguard, who faces different issues than a simple private person being attacked. Male and female can be radically different (consider that just about every self defense situation for a woman is likely to involve the equivalent of my nightmare opponent... who there's not a lot of chance I'll encounter. There just aren't that many guys out there that much bigger and stronger AND likely to attack me...). And so on... And, if you're not a special kind of stupid, you hopefully won't face enough opportunities to test yourself and distinguis "worked once" from "damn lucky it worked at all" from "works just about every time".... even if you're a cop -- cause if I KNOW I'm going to fight you, I'm stacking the odds and you won't have a chance to fight me.



Yep, self defence is a broad topic, with quite a lot to cover, but at the same time, you can be an expert at it, commonly in a particular area or focus. I also wouldn't necessarily class bouncing, security, body-guarding, being an LEO, or anything similar as actually self defence... they're high risk, high likelihood of getting into physical altercations, but that's something quite different and separate, really.



Steve said:


> Sure, but it takes two to tango, ballen. Sure. Something is better than nothing. The key to remember is that if you haven't used the skills and techniques for self defense, you don't know whether they will work... for you. A technique may be perfectly sound, but whether you can rely on it when the **** hits the fan has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can rely on it. The advantage that sport has over non-sport, IMO, is that I know I can execute certain techniques. Whether or not they are a good idea for self defense is a different matter. The tunnel vision is only training within the ruleset. So, yeah. I think it's tunnel vision. Judo training, with a mind toward self defense is, I take it, practical training in your opinion.



By the same token, even if you've applied a technique in a sporting contest, that also doesn't mean you know if it will work (for you) in a self defence situation... or if you could pull it off. As a result, the sporting approach suddenly loses it's reason for claiming to have superior applicability. Here's the thing, though... in a self defence class, you learn the methods in a self defence context, you train them in a self defence context, you apply them in a self defence context, and you test them in a self defence context. Is it a real attack on the street? No, it's a training exercise... but it's a hell of a lot closer than a sporting competition is. 

Knowing you can pull off a particular technique in a sporting context, though, doesn't teach you anything about your ability to pull it off elsewhere. And, if it is, as suggested, not a good idea for self defence, what does it matter if you can pull it off in competition? It's a very false security being relied upon, I feel.



Steve said:


> As an aside, if a karate style has competitions... guess what? It's not a non-sport art with competitions. It's a sport art in exactly the same way BJJ and other traditional martial arts are "sport" arts.



Hmm. No. If it focuses on competition, it's a sports art. If it doesn't focus on competition, but tries to have them anyway, it's a mess. And BJJ is a sports art. It's a traditional one, yes. But it's a sports art nonetheless.



Steve said:


> This is what I was referring to in my previous post. The way you say this makes it sound like it's contrary to what I said above. It's not. This is exactly the point I was making earlier.



I think the issue is one of emphasis.



Steve said:


> Yeah. Hanzou touched on it.



Can you elaborate on it, then? Personally, I can't see it being anything other than a longer path to less skill.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> Well again, in Bjj a purple is considered high enough to teach a class. A Bjj purple is equivalent of black in a lot of styles.



No, it's not. It's equivalent to purple in BJJ. That's it. 

To emphasise, grades/ranks/belts etc are completely arbitrary. They mean nothing outside of the school who uses them. No rank in any school is the equivalent of any rank in any other school.



Hanzou said:


> I do feel that TKD is easier to learn than Bjj. Fighting on the ground is definitely a different style of fighting than most people are used to.



This is something I've been thinking about... you've been going on about how BJJ is better than non-sporting systems because of it's sporting methodology, which ensures that everything in the system is practical, realistic, and works... therefore, it's the best fighting style around. What about TKD, then? It's a dominantly sporting system, but it gets railed on for being ineffective and unrealistic. So, uh... which is it? Sporting methods makes it effective, or not?



Hanzou said:


> Well, in that case I was talking more about old-school Aikidoka getting ticked off at how modern Aikido students are being taught. But yeah, I agree that if you can pull off what Seagal was doing in that Randori video, I would consider that to be a pretty impressive martial artist.



Again, you really need to know what the aims and construction of that randori was... 



Hanzou said:


> Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.
> 
> 
> 
> K-man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve.
> :asian:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In sports, son. Nothing else.


----------



## MJS

lklawson said:


> OK, I'm not trying to be a wanker here, I'm just trying to nail down a definition of what counts as a "legitimate fighter."  I'm getting kinda a mish-mash mix of various "Sport Fighters" (such as Judoka) and high level TMA guys.  What counts?  Is it people with a verifiable "sport fighting" record such as Golden Glove boxers or Judoka?  Is it guys with a history of going out and picking "street fights" in order to "test out" their stuff (which was, apparently also common in Judo at one time).  Is it LEO or CO?  I mean, really, what counts?
> 
> Again, not to be a wang, but it's kinda sounding like "the definition of porn."
> 
> As to the issue of only local guys showing up, well... um... What else would you expect?  I have a friend who's making a name for his crew in WMA and Irish MA, following a sort of home-grown "alive testing" development of stick fighting.  He's of Irish extraction and his "Family System" is, essentially, just bashing each other with sticks and, over time, finding out what seems to work and what doesn't.  His style looks a little like a cross between Jo-Jutsu (when held at one end), Hutton's "Great Stick," and some of the FMA 5' stick material.  It's all well and good and seems to work well, at least for them.  But some years back the gent issued, literally, a World Wide Challenge for Stick Fighting Champion.  Being, essentially, a nobody at that time, well, nobody showed up except for his crew and a few locals who were interested in cross-testing against other material.  When he later on issued a statement about who had taken the title, he was, well, politely, it was met with some skepticism.  Back when the Gracies were doing these challenges (they still are, ims) who would be willing to fly from New York, for instance, just to take some apparent blow-hard up on his "come fight me" challenge?  Heck, you still occasionally see some blow-hard issue a "come fight me" challenge on some forums and they get exactly the same response; laughter.  So, honestly, why would anyone, much less a "legitimate fighter," work up much effort to travel any respectable distance to take the Gracie Challenge?  No one on the national stage even cared until UFC 1.  Whether UFC 1 was "a work," a "marketing stunt," or an honest style-vs-style test, it was, undeniably, pure genius.  Suddenly people who weren't local to a Gracie academy actually cared about the Gracie Challenge but now they had the UFC as a venue to "test" and the motivation for making the effort was money (the Purse).
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I know you're not addressing this to me, and I've been away from this party for a few days, but I'll toss in my .02 on this.  For me, I'd say he's probably talking about a big name fighter.  Who knows...perhaps the guys that took the challenge, were big names, I honestly don't know.  So, one of the top point fighting Karate guys, a ranked boxer, or kickboxer, etc.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Self defence training is about high-return, high likelihood situations and tactics/methods. A single account of an action having an effective result once doesn't qualify as an advisable approach to the situation. It's the same as high kicks to the head... sure, they can work, but they're just not advisable in self defence training.



Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position. It would seem bizarre not to apply the triangle choke or a similar hold in a similar situation.



> Yes, that's more like it... but did you understand what you were watching?



I understand it just fine. I'm just curious as to why we never see that type of randori being done outside the confines of an Aikido dojo or seminar to non-Aikido practitioners. It reminds me of Masaaki Hatsumi touching people and making them submit in the Honbu, but for some reason neither him, or his students could replicate that effect anywhere else.



> And I'd disagree with them. The issue is that the question is far too vague to really be answered that categorically... I mean, it depends on how the art is taught and trained, more than the art itself. But the real point is that I was talking about a relative skill level, separate from the rank (which is always arbitrary, and relevant only to the art it's applied to) that was roughly equal. So, uh... no.



Fair enough.




> Ha, oh, that was funny... "simpler and more practical"? BJJ? Really? Wow, we must have trained in very different arts...
> 
> As far as the idea of competition being how to "learn the technique, then apply it at full force" (really? Full force? I seriously doubt that... if you did, you'd have no training partners the next class, they'd all be recovering from broken arms and the like... or you would be yourself), do you really think that non-competitive arts don't do that? Or that competitive methods are the only, or even the best way to achieve such training?



Full force as in full, non-compliant resistance. You don't need to break someone's arm if you're placing the proper pressure on your partners arm, and forcing them to tap. Same thing applies to chokes. Broken limbs and choke outs happening in competitions are testaments to the effectiveness of that training.

Some non-competitive arts don't even spar, much less participate in free sparring/randori at full force.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Gene Lebell
> Benny the Jet
> boztepe (who eventually sent one of his top students)
> Schultz (wrestler)
> 
> some of these guys went to "spar" (Benny & Schultz), now Shultz was down for whatever, but Benny was not and would not step up to an official challenge.
> 
> to act like they did not attempt to fight legit comp is silly!   They openly challenged all arts in open letters and adds in the top martial arts magazines of the time.  You cannot discredit them because certain people would not fight them.



IIRC, there was a Black Belt magazine article about Boztepe and the challenge.  I might be wrong, but if memory serves right, there was some sort of dispute with the setting up of the match.  Both sides I believe, wanted specific conditions, and neither side would budge.  Was this a ploy to avoid a fight?  Don't know, but personally, I'd have loved to have seen it go down!


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> IIRC, there was a Black Belt magazine article about Boztepe and the challenge.  I might be wrong, but if memory serves right, there was some sort of dispute with the setting up of the match.  Both sides I believe, wanted specific conditions, and neither side would budge.  Was this a ploy to avoid a fight?  Don't know, but personally, I'd have loved to have seen it go down!



Considering that Benny the Jet lost two matches yet still claimed to be "undefeated", I tend to believe the side of the Gracie account.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Chances are if you can do a triangle choke during sparring or a competition, you have a higher chance of pulling it off in a self defense situation.



As Steve said....that is if the person actually wants to go to he ground in a SD situation.  Just because someone does BJJ, does that mean that they always have to go there?  If it does, it implies that they've got no other options, other than that.  I've said it before and I'll keep saying it...assess each situation accordingly.


----------



## MJS

Kframe said:


> I was hoping someone would mention this. Chris parker, Im hoping you can help me here.  I was on the Akban webpage and was watching some clips.  In one of them the tori does a take down off of a punch that the attaker just left his arm out. The question is why do some of the kata have the attacker leaving there arms out. I see it in more then a few clips.  I cant find the clip, ill keep searching, but why in so many kata do they leave there arms just hanging out?



I really don't know the answer for that.  IMO, in the beginning, I'm all for 100% cooperation on the part of the attacker.  I mean, if the defender is to learn correctly, things have to be slowed down.  BUT....once this happens, once the student is grasping things, then IMHO, the attacking needs to be more realistic. 

I did this with one Kenpo class I taught.  I picked a technique, and had them go thru it.  Then I'd pick up the pace a bit, and have the attacker do something else, during the defense. ie: if the attack was a left hand lapel grab, I'd had them punch with their right or grab with their right or push/pull, etc.  basically anything to make things a bit more realistic.  

Made me feel good after the class, with the compliments for a great class!  Of course, it made me feel sad, when some of them said that was the first time they'd ever done anything like that in class before.  Hey, it's like I've said, I'm not the martial arts police.  As long as *I* can make a positive difference in a student, that's all that matters to me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position. It would seem bizarre not to apply the triangle choke or a similar hold in a similar situation.



In the course of my training in my non-compettitive TMA we have learned, practiced and taught many techniques that would be useful in that situation and none of them involved a triangle choke or similar hold. I'd be willing to bet that a woman (or a man for that matter) would not want to stick around long enough to choke the attacker out if they could avoid it, especially if there were even the remote possibility that there may be additional rapists around.



Hanzou said:


> Full force as in full, non-compliant resistance. You don't need to break someone's arm if you're placing the proper pressure on your partners arm, and forcing them to tap. Same thing applies to chokes.
> 
> Some non-competitive arts don't even spar, much  less participate in free sparring/randori at full force.




Full force means that you don't hold back on the force you use, if you are not breaking someone's arm with that armbar or Kimoura or whatever you are using then you are holding back, that's not full force. What you are talking about is full resistance. When I am sparring non-contact in my martial art against another adult male black belt of similar experience I can strike and kick with full power to any target, that is more full force than what you are talking about. If we did that full contact we would soon run out of sparring partners unless we added either rules, protective gear or dialed back the power or reduced the amount of targets we aimed for. As for full resistance my sparring partner is not just standing there allowing me to attack him and not attacking back he is actively resisting my efforts and trying to prevent me getting past his defences and trying to get past mine. So don't think for one second that competing in a sport means that you are applying your art at full force or full resistance and that it is the only good way to do things. I could choke someone unconscious or break their limbs and I've never competed.



Hanzou said:


> Broken limbs and choke outs happening in competitions are testaments to the effectiveness of that training.



It could also be a testament of the practitioner lack of control and/or the partners stubbornness and/or stupidity for not tapping out early enough.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> then accept responsibility and stop blaming other people.  You're talking about bjj because you're choosing to do so.  Don't blame Hanzou for it.


Im not blaming anyone I had no problem with the conversation.  You were crying about how much BJJ talk there is I was just giving my opinion I can take it or leave it BJJ menas nothing to me.


> once again, you're saying this as though it isn't pretty much exactly my point.


If you say so


> in your opinion.  I disagree.  I dint see any meaningful difference between kyokushin karate and bjj.



Kyokushin is a sport related art like BJJ im not talking about sport related art.  Goju for example isnt a Sport related art but Ive been to Goju tournaments.  By sport related Im speaking of a popular sporting events like BJJ Judo Kyokushin TKD.  Other arts dont have a popular main stream sport side Like Krav or Goju Or other arts that dont have the sport following


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.



No that just means that non-sport MAs evolve DIFFERENTLY. Just because one evolves into a fish and the other evolves into a bird it doesn't meant that the fish is better.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation.


DUDE you have no idea what your talking about.  How many rape victims have you talked to?  How many rapes have you been too?  How many rape suspects have you interviewed.  Turn the TV off man this isnt Criminal Minds You have no idea what your talking about


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Benny the Jet lost two matches yet still claimed to be "undefeated", I tend to believe the side of the Gracie account.



He lost one - on points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Urquidez


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> In the course of my training in my non-compettitive TMA we have learned, practiced and taught many techniques that would be useful in that situation and none of them involved a triangle choke or similar hold. I'd be willing to bet that a woman (or a man for that matter) would not want to stick around long enough to choke the attacker out if they could avoid it, especially if there were even the remote possibility that there may be additional rapists around.




Would that training include this defense against someone sitting on top of you;



> A bear hand fist or middle knuckle strike to the side of the neck, the temple or the facial nerve under the cheek bone would not take much power to be effective. There is also the possibility of kicking to the back of the head with the shin,instep or ball of the foot or getting the leg around the front and pulling him backwards or kneeing in the kidneys. Nothing from this position would be ideal but there are manyt things that could work. That being said, if you are put in this position then something has already gone terribly wrong.




http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/109556-MMA-vs-TMA?p=1605527#post1605527

Just to point out, the defenses in Bjj are quite a bit more practical than what you described here. 




> Full force means that you don't hold back on the force you use, if you are not breaking someone's arm with that armbar or Kimoura or whatever you are using then you are holding back, that's not full force. What you are talking about is full resistance. When I am sparring non-contact in my martial art against another adult male black belt of similar experience I can strike and kick with full power to any target, that is more full force than what you are talking about. If we did that full contact we would soon run out of sparring partners unless we added either rules, protective gear or dialed back the power or reduced the amount of targets we aimed for. As for full resistance my sparring partner is not just standing there allowing me to attack him and not attacking back he is actively resisting my efforts and trying to prevent me getting past his defences and trying to get past mine. So don't think for one second that competing in a sport means that you are applying your art at full force or full resistance and that it is the only good way to do things. I could choke someone unconscious or break their limbs and I've never competed.



Except forcing someone to submit isn't holding back. If someone surrenders to you, then you've defeated them. Every situation doesn't require you to snap someone's arm in half.



> It could also be a testament of the practitioner lack of control and/or the partners stubbornness and/or stupidity for not tapping out early enough.



The point was that those training methods work, even if we don't destroy each other's body part every session.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Sure. Although, honestly, I wouldn't say they "train to the test", as, well, they don't. They train to the application. Testing really isn't a part of it, when looked at accurately, as that would mean that you train in order to test whether or not boxing works... in a boxing ring, in a boxing match, under boxing rules, in a boxing context. You don't. You train to be able to apply the skill of boxing in a boxing ring/match/context. That could be seen as testing yourself (and your abilities) in such a context, but that's all. And really, non-sporting arts do exactly the same thing, just differently. We train to the skill.


It sounds like you have a definite idea of what "the test" is, and you're applying the filter of self defense to that test.  When I say that a sport art teaches to the test, what I mean is a pure sport art, such as Western Boxing or freestyle wrestling, does not purport to be a self defense art.  While you can easily see some self defense application, they aren't teaching you self defense.  You're learning to box or to wrestle within the rules of the sport.  

My point is that this is a double edged sword.  The down side is that you are very likely learning habits that could be great for the sport but terrible for self defense (ie, pulling guard in a street fight.)  The up side, though, is that you are building skills and technical ability that can provide a solid foundation for self defense.  A boxer is not learning self defense.  The test that the boxer is training for is a boxing match.  And what does that mean?  It means that a boxer KNOWS that he or she can execute a straight jab, a cross, a hook or an uppercut, with good head movement and footwork against people trained to stop them from doing so.  He or she knows how powerful each technique really is.  "Oh, that punch REALLY knocks people out, and I have the timing and experience to make it work."  Sport does this for you.  If a technique is too deadly to ever execute it against a real person at full speed, you will not really know if you can pull it off.  

Bottom line is that a boxer can become an expert boxer.  A jiu-jitiero can become an expert jiu-jitiero.  A bujinkan taijutsu practioner can become an expert at taijutsu.  But NONE of those equal expertise at self defense.  





> As far as your last comment there ("The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand"), well, yes. That's kinda what we've been saying. And we've been saying that that context is not self defence or real world application. It's a sporting contest. Having that context clear and easily understood sounds fine... but the nuances seem to be being missed. Sports ability does not equal combat or defensive ability. Nor does self defence training equal applicable skills in competition.


But, try to remember that this isn't strictly a thread about self defense.  If self defense is your goal, than it would be a great idea to cross train or at least spend time widening the scope of your training.  Once again, it seems as though you are defaulting to a filter where effectiveness for self defense is the measure.  I used "well rounded" as a way to suggest that self defense ISN'T everyone's goal in training.  However you define it is important, and maybe the lesson to be learned here is that knowing what you want out of training is important.  A self defense school may not be the best school for everyone.





> That's true, but it's only a part of the entire equation. Realistically, focusing on competition at all can be detrimental. When training in something (martial arts), it's vital to have a clear goal in mind, and to have everything you do geared towards that goal. You need to only focus on that single approach and methodology... anything else takes time away, removes you from doing what you're needing to do, and can very easily counter-man otherwise good work you may have been doing. The clearer you are in what you're doing, and why, the more powerful the training will be. Otherwise, it's two steps forwards, one step back.


possibly, but sport provides objective feedback.  If you have a clear focus on your training, and you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you expect to learn about your training from the sport, I don't believe it can be anything but positive.  If self defense skills are your goald, sports can be a way to hide bad training ("I'm great at deep half guard, so it's my go to in a street fight").  But lack of sport is also a terrific way to hide bad training.  





> I disagree completely. It's absolutely possible to become an expert in self defence... but you have to work towards that context specifically. Again, well rounded just isn't the way.


Yes.  We disagree completely.  You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques.  You CAN become an expert in a system.  Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system.  Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying.  They are not defending themselves in your class.  They are applying your system.  

This is not to say that your system doesn't work.  It may.  But it doesn't create self defense experts.  It creates Parker-fu experts.  





> Yeah, I know John's schools... great guy, good solid head on his shoulders. I don't always agree with what he writes, but he's generally got a good approach. Of course, John is basically the most well-known BJJ instructor in Australia, and a frequent writer in magazines here... but his schools doing well doesn't mean that BJJ as a whole is making much of a splash here. It's certainly got it's place, but it's lost it's sheen of "the new thing", and is settling like many other arts around. As ever, it's arts like TKD that are probably the most "dominant" (in terms of market penetration) here.


Its' been around long enough that it's not a fad.  There are schools popping up all over the world.  It's not a competition.  I'm not opening a school in Australia.  I get that Hanzou is ruffling some feathers, and frankly, saying that BJJ "isn't a big deal" sounds to me to be a petty attempt to take Hanzou down a notch or two.  When I said, "who gives a rip?" what I mean is, "This is completely irrelevant."


> Hey, I was getting to it...!


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Can you give me some examples that show I don't think standup styles have a place in fighting arts?  Because I know that as far as style vs style goes that BJJ is the best, dies not mean that I don't respect other arts, it just means that BJJ is the most dominant.   With that said I fully understand BJJ as a whole has some serious flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this I am curious about...... Please explain.



So, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.  Please clarify something for me. Going on what you just said, am I safe to assume that you feel that stand up arts have their place?  You then state that style vs style, BJJ is head and shoulders above the rest.  So if that's the case, then why bother with stand up?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> .  You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques.



You can do case study on real world examples of self defense You dont need to have been involved in each attempt.  You can learn alot from case study and files.  Im considered by courts a Defensive tactics expert.  Im also the departments defensive tactics instructor.  Ive been to dozens of classes on officer safety, and have reviewed hundreds if not close to a 1000 reports on officer assaults and deaths.  Ive never been killed but am I an expert?  The courts think so.  Ive testified in civil cases and officer trial boards.  Ive gotten cops fired and cops exonerated with my testimony.  

So maybe your definition of an expert is different then most people.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> In the course of my training in my non-compettitive TMA we have learned, practiced and taught many techniques that would be useful in that situation and none of them involved a triangle choke or similar hold. I'd be willing to bet that a woman (or a man for that matter) would not want to stick around long enough to choke the attacker out if they could avoid it, especially if there were even the remote possibility that there may be additional rapists around.


For what it's worth, if anti-rape training is one's goal, I cannot imagine how a solid year or two of BJJ training would be other than mandatory.  Being confident and effective from guard just makes sense.  Being confident and effective from guard IS the difference between being raped and "not stick[ing] around long enough to choke the attacker out."  In other words, not sticking around is ALSO BJJ.  And the confidence and effectiveness of the techniques can be honed in competition.  





> Full force means that you don't hold back on the force you use, if you are not breaking someone's arm with that armbar or Kimoura or whatever you are using then you are holding back, that's not full force.


Not true.  Full force does not equal uncontrolled.  the submission comes when defense is no longer an option.  As long as there is the potential to escape, techniques are applied "full force."  I've been put to sleep one time in training.  It was a baseball bat choke that I'd never seen before.  I was a new blue belt, and was literally unconscious before I hit the mat... less than 2 seconds.  That's "full force," in my opinion.





> What you are talking about is full resistance. When I am sparring non-contact in my martial art against another adult male black belt of similar experience I can strike and kick with full power to any target, that is more full force than what you are talking about. If we did that full contact we would soon run out of sparring partners unless we added either rules, protective gear or dialed back the power or reduced the amount of targets we aimed for. As for full resistance my sparring partner is not just standing there allowing me to attack him and not attacking back he is actively resisting my efforts and trying to prevent me getting past his defences and trying to get past mine. So don't think for one second that competing in a sport means that you are applying your art at full force or full resistance and that it is the only good way to do things. I could choke someone unconscious or break their limbs and I've never competed.


It sounds like you train at a pretty good school.  

Here's another advantage of sport arts, particularly grappling arts.  I'll speak to BJJ because that's what I know.  Because of the sport context of the art, I apply these techniques "full force" against all different body types.  Big and small, strong, fat, skinny, no neck, flexible, inflexible.  You name it.  I'm not punching anyone, so I don't have to pull the punches in order to keep that person safe.  You get a lot of full speed, full resistance, full force opportunities to see how each technique actually works against men, women, big, and small.  The point is that you are only one part of the equation. In a laboratory, your opponents are theoretical.  In a sport, they are right there.  



It could also be a testament of the practitioner lack of control and/or the partners stubbornness and/or stupidity for not tapping out early enough.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> You can do case study on real world examples of self defense You dont need to have been involved in each attempt.  You can learn alot from case study and files.  Im considered by courts a Defensive tactics expert.  Im also the departments defensive tactics instructor.  Ive been to dozens of classes on officer safety, and have reviewed hundreds if not close to a 1000 reports on officer assaults and deaths.  Ive never been killed but am I an expert?  The courts think so.  Ive testified in civil cases and officer trial boards.  Ive gotten cops fired and cops exonerated with my testimony.
> 
> So maybe your definition of an expert is different then most people.


I'm not sure I understand, ballen.  You're saying that you're well trained AND have reviewed "hundreds if not close to a 1000 reports?"  Sounds like you have practical experience to me.  

What sorts of things does a defensive tactics instructor teach?  What experiences and training do you have that qualify you to be a defensive tactics expert?  I would be willing to bet money that you have training and experiences that other cops don't. 

I don't think my definition of expert is any different than yours.  Well, it might be, but I don't think so.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'm not sure I understand, ballen.  You're saying that you're well trained AND have reviewed "hundreds if not e to a 1000 reports?"  Sounds likewasn't ehave practical experience to me.


I have some experience but your making it sound like from your post that a little experience does not make you an expert.  Maybe I'm not understanding your point.  


> What sorts of things does a defensive tactics instructor teach?  What experiences and training do you have that qualify you to be a defensive tactics expert?  I would be willing to bet money that you have training and experiences that other cops don't.


Yes and no.  Basically to be a DT instructor you need to attend a class and pass.  I've always been a first one in kinda guy so I tend to have more experience then others but that's more of my own "I don't trust you as much as I trust me" so I do it myself.  I have trust issues I guess.


> I don't think my definition of expert is any different than yours.  Well, it might be, but I don't think so.


the way i read your point was training wasnt enough.  You needed real life exp.  I contend you can get that knowlegde  from other sources.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Everyone in MMA/UFC practices Bjj. Its standard, because if you don't know it, you're going to lose, badly.
> 
> In the recent season of The Ultimate Fighter, Chris Holdsworth, primarily a Bjj stylist, defeated everyone with Bjj submissions and won the tournament. Why? Because his adversaries on the show didn't know wtf they were doing once they hit the ground, and Holdsworth sent them to dreamland.



Here's the thing:  If that's what is required for the UFC/MMA type events, great!  At this point in my life, I'm not going to be entering the UFC and the little bit of fighting that I do in Kyokushin will probably end within the next few years anyways.  Why?  Not that I have to give reasons to justify my choices, but, a) I'm not as gung ho about it, as some others are.  Let them fight. b) I have other priorities in life that require my time. That said, to make it really worth while to compete, you've got to dedicate the time to do it. c) I work a 40hr a week job, sometimes more, depending on OT.  I need a job to keep a roof over my head.  I'm 40yrs old.  Frankly, I really don't feel like racking up tons of potential injuries.  d) everyone has their goals and reasons why they train.  While I doubt that every punk thug on the street isn't skilled, I highly doubt they're the same level as a MMA pro fighter.  That said, I doubt there's a bunch of evil Gracie twins roaming the streets looking to jack someone's car.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> Here's the thing:  If that's what is required for the UFC/MMA type events, great!  At this point in my life, I'm not going to be entering the UFC and the little bit of fighting that I do in Kyokushin will probably end within the next few years anyways.  Why?  Not that I have to give reasons to justify my choices, but, a) I'm not as gung ho about it, as some others are.  Let them fight. b) I have other priorities in life that require my time. That said, to make it really worth while to compete, you've got to dedicate the time to do it. c) I work a 40hr a week job, sometimes more, depending on OT.  I need a job to keep a roof over my head.  I'm 40yrs old.  Frankly, I really don't feel like racking up tons of potential injuries.  d) everyone has their goals and reasons why they train.  While I doubt that every punk thug on the street isn't skilled, I highly doubt they're the same level as a MMA pro fighter.  That said, I doubt there's a bunch of evil Gracie twins roaming the streets looking to jack someone's car.



That was a quote taken out of the context. I was responding to a poster who asked if Bjj is so great, why are most UFC fights ended in knockouts. I certainly wasn't suggesting that people should practice Bjj to become the next Ultimate Fighter, or to participate in a MMA fight.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> DUDE you have no idea what your talking about.  How many rape victims have you talked to?  How many rapes have you been too?  How many rape suspects have you interviewed.  Turn the TV off man this isnt Criminal Minds You have no idea what your talking about



The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> I don't believe anyone is trying to say BJJ is the ultimate art for the new age UFC/MMA fights.  Not at all,  GJJ and the early UFC's showed the world you needed to cross train in grappling arts to be successful.   That standing arts alone we're not enough.   But there is an issue when a standing art refuses to recognize the importance of grappling but still wants to act like there art is superior.*you YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME TYPE OF GRAPPLING, OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SELF DEFENSE/FIGHTING ART
> *I think that is the point and the arguement.



While some will disagree, this is something that I agree with, as I've said the same thing countless times myself. But, then again, to each their own.  If someone doesn't see value in it, that's fine.  I'm not going to look at them as any less of a person or art because of what they choose to do/not do.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> And just so I don't come off as some GJJ/BJJ fan boy, here are some of my gripes with the art and family in no particular order........
> 
> they were a family of bullies not displaying "the martial way".
> early on they would storm unsuspecting dojo's and act as if it was a challenge match
> they would incorporate other styles into there system acting as if it was always or is now a part of GJJ.
> GJJ/ BJJ lack of takedowns most pointedly wrestling.
> *as a BJJ fighter if you run up against a better striker you can't takedown your in trouble.*
> there stuborness and lack of respect for those who beat them.



but according to some, it doesn't matter, because either way, the BJJ/GJJ guy will have more superior skills all the time. LOL!  Furthermore, according to some, it's very easy to take people down, so....


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.


But in this case 1+1 does not = 2.  Without getting too graphic Missionary is not the most common position in rape.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

MJS said:


> according to some, it's very easy to take people down, so....



I would like to see someone tries to take these guys down.

http://imageshack.com/a/img21/6719/33vk.jpg

In my experience, you may land a lucky punch but you will never have a luck throw (take down).


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would like to see someone tries to take these guys down.
> 
> http://imageshack.com/a/img21/6719/33vk.jpg
> 
> In my experience, you may land a lucky punch but you will never have a luck throw (take down).



I think the chances of getting into a fight with a sumo wrestler is pretty slim.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I think the chances of getting into a fight with a sumo wrestler is pretty slim.



If your opponent has good stand up wrestling skill, you just can't take him down by your "luck". You have to take him down by your skill. 






Even "single leg" sometime won't work on experienced wrestlers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-rr_kW1Mv0&feature=youtu.be

Unfortunately the "resistance to be taken down" training is not popular today.


----------



## K-man

Chris Parker said:


> Originally Posted by K-man
> As to your comment about the Aikido schools being garbage, I don't know. I do know that I have come across a number of Aikidoka who wouldn't know their *** from their elbow, but I have seen the same from other MAs as well. Then if I was asked who is the most proficient martial artist I have met ... he is Aikidoka.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...
Click to expand...

You are one sick puppy! But you are right,  we need to catch up for coffee. PM time and place or better still, make a time to check out the new dojo.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Benny the Jet lost two matches yet still claimed to be "undefeated", I tend to believe the side of the Gracie account.



I can't confirm or deny anything about Benny.  I was talking about Emin Boztepe.  
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-challenge-of-emin-boztepe-and-royce.html


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> That was a quote taken out of the context. I was responding to a poster who asked if Bjj is so great, why are most UFC fights ended in knockouts. I certainly wasn't suggesting that people should practice Bjj to become the next Ultimate Fighter, or to participate in a MMA fight.



Ok, I stand corrected.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent has good stand up wrestling skill, you just can't take him down by your "luck". You have to take him down by your skill.



Like the takedown skills you learn in any submission grappling art?



> Even "single leg" sometime won't work on experienced wrestlers.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-rr_kW1Mv0&feature=youtu.be
> 
> Unfortunately the "resistance to be taken down" training is not popular today.



I'll remember that advice if I ever find myself in a bar fight in Mongolia.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> But in this case 1+1 does not = 2.  Without getting too graphic Missionary is not the most common position in rape.



Then let me clarify; If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable position (like a rape situation), the skills she learns in Bjj would be highly beneficial for her. 

The Triangle Choke is one of those skills.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Benny the Jet lost two matches yet still claimed to be "undefeated", I tend to believe the side of the Gracie account.[/QUOTE
> 
> Because, of course, there's no way a Gracie would ever claim that either their art or themselves were undefeated, or even slightly exaggerate their record. Would never happen.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position. It would seem bizarre not to apply the triangle choke or a similar hold in a similar situation.


Let me strongly suggest that making broad statements about rape is a good way to insert your foot rather deeply into your mouth.  I think I'll leave it there...  and with the observation that some time researching rape events might be of use.



> I understand it just fine. I'm just curious as to why we never see that type of randori being done outside the confines of an Aikido dojo or seminar to non-Aikido practitioners. It reminds me of Masaaki Hatsumi touching people and making them submit in the Honbu, but for some reason neither him, or his students could replicate that effect anywhere else.


I'm not particularly aware of Hatsumi or any Bujinkan practitioners working for submissions.  Or competing much...  Might be wrong, but not something I've seen or heard tell of.

Maybe you can talk about where you've seen or heard about this?


> Full force as in full, non-compliant resistance. You don't need to break someone's arm if you're placing the proper pressure on your partners arm, and forcing them to tap. Same thing applies to chokes. Broken limbs and choke outs happening in competitions are testaments to the effectiveness of that training.
> 
> Some non-competitive arts don't even spar, much less participate in free sparring/randori at full force.



Just curious...  Have you actually read any of the descriptions of what, for lack of a better term, I'll describe as complete training in the methodologies like paired kata?  You know, where people have said that, after an initial phase of compliance, the receiver will begin to take advantage of errors or fail to comply unless the technique is properly executed?


----------



## ballen0351

Like this?


Hélio Gracie disputed Rickson's claim to have had over 400 fights. According to Hélio, Rickson has only competed in fights that are commonly known and reported: the two against Rei Zulu and those that took place in Japan. Hélio alleged that Rickson uses practice and amateur bouts to obtain a number over 400, 




frank raud said:


> Because, of course, there's no way a Gracie would ever claim that either their art or themselves were undefeated, or even slightly exaggerate their record. Would never happen.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Then let me clarify; If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable position (like a rape situation), the skills she learns in Bjj would be highly beneficial for her.
> 
> The Triangle Choke is one of those skills.



Like I said you know not of what you speak and should leave the rape defense to people that actually have a clue


----------



## jks9199

ballen0351 said:


> You can do case study on real world examples of self defense You dont need to have been involved in each attempt.  You can learn alot from case study and files.  Im considered by courts a Defensive tactics expert.  Im also the departments defensive tactics instructor.  Ive been to dozens of classes on officer safety, and have reviewed hundreds if not close to a 1000 reports on officer assaults and deaths.  Ive never been killed but am I an expert?  The courts think so.  Ive testified in civil cases and officer trial boards.  Ive gotten cops fired and cops exonerated with my testimony.
> 
> So maybe your definition of an expert is different then most people.



The word "expert" has a lot of different meanings.  In court, an "expert" is a person with specialized training and/or experience beyond that of a lay person which enables and allows them to give opinion testimony rather than merely state what they saw or heard directly.  An expert may be able to take a skid mark, and state that, to leave a 30 foot skid mark on that pavement, the car had to be traveling at about 25 mph.  Or that an officer's particular use of force was reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered and in keeping with the agency's policies and laws.  

Another way to define an expert is as someone who knows nearly all there is about a subject.  A third, similar definition would be a person with a high level of skill in performing tasks or actions. 

The simple reason that I say that it's hard to impossible to be an "expert" in self defense is what I laid out earlier:  few people encounter enough situations where they use self defense skills to be able to reliably assess something that worked once, something that was pure luck, from something that is reliable.  That's not to say you can't learn enough to have a good guess, and to develop sound assumptions, or to qualify as a court expert.  I just dislike the idea of labeling myself as an "expert" colloquially in a subject that is so subjective in experience.


----------



## ballen0351

jks9199 said:


> The word "expert" has a lot of different meanings.  In court, an "expert" is a person with specialized training and/or experience beyond that of a lay person which enables and allows them to give opinion testimony rather than merely state what they saw or heard directly.  An expert may be able to take a skid mark, and state that, to leave a 30 foot skid mark on that pavement, the car had to be traveling at about 25 mph.  Or that an officer's particular use of force was reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered and in keeping with the agency's policies and laws.
> 
> Another way to define an expert is as someone who knows nearly all there is about a subject.  A third, similar definition would be a person with a high level of skill in performing tasks or actions.
> 
> The simple reason that I say that it's hard to impossible to be an "expert" in self defense is what I laid out earlier:  few people encounter enough situations where they use self defense skills to be able to reliably assess something that worked once, something that was pure luck, from something that is reliable.  That's not to say you can't learn enough to have a good guess, and to develop sound assumptions, or to qualify as a court expert.  I just dislike the idea of labeling myself as an "expert" colloquially in a subject that is so subjective in experience.


I don't consider myself an expert at anything.  But to say you can't be an expert I don't agree with.  I believe there are experts out there. Would you consider Rory Miller an expert ?


----------



## jks9199

ballen0351 said:


> I don't consider myself an expert at anything.  But to say you can't be an expert I don't agree with.  I believe there are experts out there. Would you consider Rory Miller an expert ?


No more than he would...


----------



## ballen0351

jks9199 said:


> No more than he would...



Ok well then we will just disagree.  There are plenty of experts in self defense.  Not as many as actually claim the title but they exist.  I've met them even if they don't consider themselves to be they have no problem taking money to put on seminars


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> Let me strongly suggest that making broad statements about rape is a good way to insert your foot rather deeply into your mouth.  I think I'll leave it there...  and with the observation that some time researching rape events might be of use.



Don't worry, statistics backed up everything I said.



> I'm not particularly aware of Hatsumi or any Bujinkan practitioners working for submissions.  Or competing much...  Might be wrong, but not something I've seen or heard tell of.
> 
> Maybe you can talk about where you've seen or heard about this?



You misread my quote. What I said was that I find it bizarre that we never see these fantastical feats of skill outside of the Aikido dojo, or the Ninjutsu Honbu. 

Here's Massaki Hatsumi doing some pretty interesting stuff that I would love to see done on someone who isn't one of his students;






I would love to learn the secret of pinching the air in front of someone's face, causing them to fall down onto the ground (1:02).



> Just curious...  Have you actually read any of the descriptions of what, for lack of a better term, I'll describe as complete training in the methodologies like paired kata?  You know, where people have said that, after an initial phase of compliance, the receiver will begin to take advantage of errors or fail to comply unless the technique is properly executed?



Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You misread my quote. What I said was that I find it bizarre that we never see these fantastical feats of skill outside of the Aikido dojo, or the Ninjutsu Honbu.
> 
> Of course the 'fantastic feats of skill' to which you refer are assisted be the attackers taking ukemi. In real life an attacker isn't rushing in like that so of course you aren't going to see that sort of receiving skill. In practice you can't throw yourself over to avoid wrist locks so you end up falling awkwardly that doesn't make a demonstration look good.
> 
> Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring.


As for full contact free sparring. I have a few of my guys ready for Nidan grading. Working with them on their bunkai, I now have very sore elbows and shoulders. They haven't got the sensitivity of the aikido guys to know when they are applying their techniques with a little too much vigour.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I think the chances of getting into a fight with a sumo wrestler is pretty slim.



With the state of the obesity epidemic nowadays your chances are about as slim as those guys.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Would that training include this defense against someone sitting on top of you;



Often



Hanzou said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/109556-MMA-vs-TMA?p=1605527#post1605527
> 
> Just to point out, the defenses in Bjj are quite a bit more practical than what you described here.



Since you do not have any experience in any of the things I posted who are you to say what is practical about them? The high mount would not be a very common position in that situation so many of the things in that post would be practical. Oh and stop referring to the position of a rapist as the missionary position, they are 2 completely different things, and quite frankly, a little offensive.




Hanzou said:


> Except forcing someone to submit isn't holding back. If someone surrenders to you, then you've defeated them. Every situation doesn't require you to snap someone's arm in half.



Yes it is, because you can always break their arm anyway, but you don't because you don't need or want to. When someone surrenders to you, you can say to yourself "Well I could have snapped his arm if I put a bit more pressure on it, but he tapped so I didn't have to".


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> There are a lot of "self defense experts" who little to no practical experience who make their living teaching self defense .  Like a golf pro who's never hit a ball outside the driving range.





Steve said:


> You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques.



Yet we have male gynecologists who are considered experts in the field that do not have the very things they are responsible for caring for.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Yet we have male gynecologists who are considered experts in the field that do not have the very things they are responsible for caring for.



What an asinine comment.  I hope you're speaking tongue in cheek.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> I hope you're speaking tongue in cheek.



Firmly entrenched. I must have for got the .


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position. It would seem bizarre not to apply the triangle choke or a similar hold in a similar situation.



You've been told this by others, but no, this is in no way correct. It is not a high likelihood situation. The scenario you describe is rare, to say the least. And the idea of applying a triangle is really a bizarre one, frankly. If you started talking reversals and sweeps, I'd be with you... but a triangle? No.



Hanzou said:


> I understand it just fine. I'm just curious as to why we never see that type of randori being done outside the confines of an Aikido dojo or seminar to non-Aikido practitioners.



See, I really don't think you do understand it. I mean, it's an Aikido specific form of randori, so saying you understand it, but are then curious as to why you don't see it outside of Aikido dojo is just screaming that you really don't understand it. Can you reconcile those comments? Tell you what... can you explain what that form of randori is, how it's structured, and what it's aims are? There are very good reasons it's done the way it is, and it has nothing to do with the way rolling is in BJJ.



Hanzou said:


> It reminds me of Masaaki Hatsumi touching people and making them submit in the Honbu, but for some reason neither him, or his students could replicate that effect anywhere else.



You know, for all my issues with a lot of the things I see Hatsumi doing, I've never seen him "touch someone and make them submit"... I question the reality and practicality of a fair bit that I've seen him present, but nothing like this.



Hanzou said:


> Full force as in full, non-compliant resistance. You don't need to break someone's arm if you're placing the proper pressure on your partners arm, and forcing them to tap. Same thing applies to chokes.



Say, here's a funny thing... you do know that "resistance" isn't actually realistic outside of sports, yeah? I'm talking real world violence here (specifically what is referred to as self defence). But, that said, who ever said that non-sports systems don't train non-compliance? Or that sparring/rolling is the only way to do it (or the best)? Gotta tell you... it ain't. At all.



Hanzou said:


> Broken limbs and choke outs happening in competitions are testaments to the effectiveness of that training.



No, it's really not. It's testament to the fact that arms can be broken with joint locks and choking people can render them unconscious. It is also testament to the fact that it can happen in competition. But "effectiveness of that training"? Nope. Training for competition and overdoing things isn't "effectiveness", it's lack of control and awareness (either on the part of the person applying the technique, or the one receiving it). Of course, if we're going to start discussing "effectiveness of the training", you need to qualify what effectiveness means here... and where it's supposed to apply.



Hanzou said:


> Some non-competitive arts don't even spar, much less participate in free sparring/randori at full force.



You'll love this... I don't spar. None of the arts I do spar. Why? Because it's not realistic enough for us. It's too random for us. It's too limiting for us.



Hanzou said:


> Except forcing someone to submit isn't holding back. If someone surrenders to you, then you've defeated them. Every situation doesn't require you to snap someone's arm in half.



Sure... because someone giving up means it's over... And no, not every situation requires you to break something, but by the same token, submissions aren't the same as control.



Hanzou said:


> The point was that those training methods work, even if we don't destroy each other's body part every session.



Again, you'd need to define "work". If you're saying that training in a sports methodology, for competition, in a sporting system, works in a sporting application, then yes, it does. It doesn't mean anything else... and you're confusing mechanics and techniques with "working".



Hanzou said:


> The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.



And the most common drink is water, and the most common drinking establishment is a bar... are people getting drunk at the local pool, or is everyone drinking water at the local pub? The point is that two (actually unrelated) points don't add to a third.



jks9199 said:


> Let me strongly suggest that making broad statements about rape is a good way to insert your foot rather deeply into your mouth. I think I'll leave it there... and with the observation that some time researching rape events might be of use.



Hanzou, listen to this.



jks9199 said:


> I'm not particularly aware of Hatsumi or any Bujinkan practitioners working for submissions. Or competing much... Might be wrong, but not something I've seen or heard tell of.
> 
> Maybe you can talk about where you've seen or heard about this?



Well, Hatsumi has a background in Judo, as do a number of other seniors (Nagato also has a background in kickboxing, apparently, in addition to Judo... apparently... ). Nothing in the Bujinkan, though. And we don't really work for submissions... osae komi/kime waza is rather different.



Hanzou said:


> Then let me clarify; If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable position (like a rape situation), the skills she learns in Bjj would be highly beneficial for her.
> 
> The Triangle Choke is one of those skills.



If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable position, the skills learnt in BJJ can help. The triangle is one of the less-useful/practical ones.



Hanzou said:


> Don't worry, statistics backed up everything I said.



Er... no. You seem to have completely misread whatever statistics you've come across, and the simple fact that the LEO's on the forum are telling you that you're wrong is a big clue there.



Hanzou said:


> You misread my quote. What I said was that I find it bizarre that we never see these fantastical feats of skill outside of the Aikido dojo, or the Ninjutsu Honbu.



Here's the thing, though... they're not fantastical. They are about something rather different to what you're used to, though... 



Hanzou said:


> Here's Massaki Hatsumi doing some pretty interesting stuff that I would love to see done on someone who isn't one of his students;



As said, there are a range of things Hatsumi does that that I have issues with... and there are a few seen there. But, as I also know the context that they were done in, I can see what's actually going on. And I honestly don't think much of what was shown in that clip (or much of what is seen from Hatsumi, bluntly) is actually practical, realistic combative applications... what there is is an exploration and instruction in principles, often based around concepts of distance and timing (as well as a lot more, obviously).



Hanzou said:


> I would love to learn the secret of pinching the air in front of someone's face, causing them to fall down onto the ground (1:02).



Neko-te. Part of a workshop on kakushi buki. Simulated, in this instance.



Hanzou said:


> Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring.



Dude, it really doesn't matter what you think a martial arts class should include, or be like, it matters what the art itself deems necessary or preferential for it's aims. Sparring is counter-productive to a number of arts, including my own. Your lack of understanding of any other approaches doesn't make them wrong, or worse than the single approach you champion.



Steve said:


> For what it's worth, if anti-rape training is one's goal, I cannot imagine how a solid year or two of BJJ training would be other than mandatory.



Really? I can. For one thing, while I agree that it can certainly be a benefit, reliance on technical superiority is actually a weakness in and of itself, especially when that technical superiority is not designed for the application stated. Secondly, anti-rape approaches are largely not physical. Can it help? Yes. Is it the only approach? No. Is it the best approach? Honestly, I'd say no again. So should it be mandatory? I'd suggest no.



Steve said:


> Being confident and effective from guard just makes sense.



It can be a benefit, yeah... but it comes way down the priority list.



Steve said:


> Being confident and effective from guard IS the difference between being raped and "not stick[ing] around long enough to choke the attacker out." In other words, not sticking around is ALSO BJJ. And the confidence and effectiveness of the techniques can be honed in competition.



Uh... no, I can't see myself agreeing with much of that at all. Being confident and effective from guard (again, we really would need to define "effective" in it's context here) is possibly part of a difference in some circumstances and conditions, but hardly being the definitive difference you seem to be stating here. And the confidence and techniques being honed in competition, I really have to say, means nothing in the middle of a real situation, for quite a range of reasons, not least of all the fact that the people you compete against aren't trying to rape you.



Steve said:


> Not true. Full force does not equal uncontrolled. the submission comes when defense is no longer an option. As long as there is the potential to escape, techniques are applied "full force."
> 
> You're right, full force doesn't mean uncontrolled, but it does mean full force. With the maximum power applied. To the greatest effect. With the full force. Really, that's what the words mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been put to sleep one time in training. It was a baseball bat choke that I'd never seen before. I was a new blue belt, and was literally unconscious before I hit the mat... less than 2 seconds. That's "full force," in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Are you saying that the choke was applied with a baseball bat?
> 
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you train at a pretty good school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not meaning any disrespect to RTKDCMB there, but it sounds fairly standard to me...
> 
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another advantage of sport arts, particularly grappling arts. I'll speak to BJJ because that's what I know. Because of the sport context of the art, I apply these techniques "full force" against all different body types. Big and small, strong, fat, skinny, no neck, flexible, inflexible. You name it. I'm not punching anyone, so I don't have to pull the punches in order to keep that person safe. You get a lot of full speed, full resistance, full force opportunities to see how each technique actually works against men, women, big, and small. The point is that you are only one part of the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... quick question. How is that in any way different to, well, every other art I've ever seen?
> 
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a laboratory, your opponents are theoretical. In a sport, they are right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is this laboratory, Steve? Seriously, I don't think you've got an accurate idea of what training without sport is like or about with comments like this...
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, conversation two:



Steve said:


> It sounds like you have a definite idea of what "the test" is, and you're applying the filter of self defense to that test. When I say that a sport art teaches to the test, what I mean is a pure sport art, such as Western Boxing or freestyle wrestling, does not purport to be a self defense art. While you can easily see some self defense application, they aren't teaching you self defense. You're learning to box or to wrestle within the rules of the sport.



I'm applying the filter of self defence because it was present throughout your post. You talk about "the skills can translate" from sport to...what?... if not self defence? You mention tactics that are not necessarily practical outside of sporting contexts... what other contexts would you be meaning? You talk about well rounded skills (as if that's a goal)... it's not a goal, it's an end to a goal, so... what is the goal you're talking about if you're contrasting it with competition? You specifically mention self defence as a concern for keeping your head "outside of the box" of a competitive ruleset, bringing in the idea of weapons and groups. And you finish your post with a comment about how you don't think people can become experts in self defence... which is only relevant if that's been the alternate context of your entire post. So my looking at your post as through a filter of self defence training is because, well, that's what you posted.

And I got what you meant when you said "train to the test", but I disagreed with your terminology. That's not a test (of the art/system/techniques/methods). And, really, I'm having some trouble understanding what you're trying to say in this clarification... training boxing gets you good at boxing... well, yeah. It doesn't claim to be self defence (well, honestly, a number of boxing gyms do...), okay, yeah, sure. That's just understanding context, nothing about "to the test" at all. I mean, are you trying to say that self defence systems don't test what they do? Cause, if so, you'd be rather mistaken. But testing doesn't mean going out and finding street fights.



Steve said:


> My point is that this is a double edged sword. The down side is that you are very likely learning habits that could be great for the sport but terrible for self defense (ie, pulling guard in a street fight.) The up side, though, is that you are building skills and technical ability that can provide a solid foundation for self defense.



And, again, that's a false assumption. They might provide some foundation (solid or otherwise) for some physical aspects that might have use in a violent encounter, but that's far from definite or necessarily true. I mean, you're saying on one hand that what you're doing might have nothing to do with self defence, or have any real applicability for that context, but they are providing a foundation for it? How, if they're not applicable or related?



Steve said:


> A boxer is not learning self defense. The test that the boxer is training for is a boxing match. And what does that mean? It means that a boxer KNOWS that he or she can execute a straight jab, a cross, a hook or an uppercut, with good head movement and footwork against people trained to stop them from doing so. He or she knows how powerful each technique really is. "Oh, that punch REALLY knocks people out, and I have the timing and experience to make it work." Sport does this for you. If a technique is too deadly to ever execute it against a real person at full speed, you will not really know if you can pull it off.



Right. Yes, a boxer trains to be able to box in a ring. They then know that they can box in a ring. They know that they can throw their punches, and wear their opponents in a match. To be frank, though, boxing teaches you to stagger the power of your punches, as it's aim is to allow you to continue through a number of rounds, not send all your power into a single blow... so the very application is not the same as it would be employed outside of a ring. And, of course, sport teaches you to employ in a sporting context... but sports are hardly the only, or best way to know that what you're doing "works" (which means very different things in different contexts, of course). The idea that sports give you that knowledge to the exclusion of other methods providing such insight is quite off base. And Steve? "Too deadly"? Really? Tell me, how often have you broken someone's arm with an armlock? If you haven't, how do you know if you can pull it off? It's more than just the mechanics, of course... 



Steve said:


> Bottom line is that a boxer can become an expert boxer. A jiu-jitiero can become an expert jiu-jitiero. A bujinkan taijutsu practioner can become an expert at taijutsu. But NONE of those equal expertise at self defense.



Really, Steve, this is the same as saying that you can become a great guitar player, pianist, drummer, or singer... but that doesn't make you a classical flautist. I would also stress here that I have pointed out that simply training in martial arts doesn't equal training in self defence as well... and that I have never stated that training in such arts equals self defence. I have, however, said that training in, and being educated in, self defence does equal gaining expertise in the field of self defence. You're trying to equate things that have never been said.



Steve said:


> But, try to remember that this isn't strictly a thread about self defense.



Yes, I know. But your entire post I was responding to was presented with the idea of sports versus self defence contexts, as detailed above.



Steve said:


> If self defense is your goal, than it would be a great idea to cross train or at least spend time widening the scope of your training.



No, if self defence is your goal, it would be a great idea to know what it involves and actually is. Cross training really isn't the answer. And with the amount of systems I've got experience in, you can trust me on that.



Steve said:


> Once again, it seems as though you are defaulting to a filter where effectiveness for self defense is the measure. I used "well rounded" as a way to suggest that self defense ISN'T everyone's goal in training. However you define it is important, and maybe the lesson to be learned here is that knowing what you want out of training is important.



"Well rounded" isn't a goal, it's a means to a goal. Your entire post was referencing self defence, whether you felt you intended to or not. And, if not, what other context would you be talking about? Oh, but I wasn't referring to anything to do with effectiveness, I was making reference to applicability. As far as the lesson here...? Steve, those are essentially my own words.



Steve said:


> A self defense school may not be the best school for everyone.possibly, but sport provides objective feedback.



And again, what makes you think that sport is the only way of getting it? Why do you think that non-sporting systems don't also have objective feedback systems in place? And really, if we're going to get down to it, what the sports approach gives you is subjective feedback, not objective.



Steve said:


> If you have a clear focus on your training, and you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you expect to learn about your training from the sport, I don't believe it can be anything but positive.



Firstly, again, you're basically using the exact words I did... but, to the point, it certainly can be something other than positive. Let's say you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you want to gain from your training, and it simply isn't found in the sports system? How is the sports training then a positive? What about if the sports training directly contradicts the aims you have? Still positive? It's like saying that I want to get healthy, so I think about what I'm eating while spending each meal at Pizza Hut. Positive? Nope.



Steve said:


> If self defense skills are your goald, sports can be a way to hide bad training ("I'm great at deep half guard, so it's my go to in a street fight"). But lack of sport is also a terrific way to hide bad training.



So.... neither are good?



Steve said:


> Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques.



Yes, you can. Many are. It comes down to understanding what the needs are first and foremost, and continuing from there. I mean, most self defence isn't anything to do with any physical techniques at all... so there's nothing to go and test. It actually is far more an academic area than you're thinking it is. Forget the idea of techniques, you're focusing on the wrong thing, and honestly, I don't think you know what you're arguing against.



Steve said:


> You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.



Steve, you've complained about people who have never done a single class of BJJ stating what's in the system, so can I ask that you don't even try to suggest what's in my classes? You really don't have any frame of reference here, either in what I do (and yes, they do damn well "defend themselves" in my classes) or in what is self defence, by your own words and statements made previously. Everything you've stated here is off base and incorrect.



Steve said:


> This is not to say that your system doesn't work. It may. But it doesn't create self defense experts. It creates Parker-fu experts.



It creates what it is intended to create, Steve. If it's a self defence system, it creates people who know and understand self defence, and can apply it. Again, don't tell me what is or is not in my classes. 



Steve said:


> Its' been around long enough that it's not a fad. There are schools popping up all over the world. It's not a competition. I'm not opening a school in Australia. I get that Hanzou is ruffling some feathers, and frankly, saying that BJJ "isn't a big deal" sounds to me to be a petty attempt to take Hanzou down a notch or two. When I said, "who gives a rip?" what I mean is, "This is completely irrelevant."



There was no suggestion that BJJ is a fad, but it certainly had it's moment as one (many arts have, many will in the future... currently it's MMA, previously it was BJJ, before that was the whole "ninja" thing... previously kung fu, before that, judo, then karate...). All that was said was that it's lost it's sheen of being the new thing, which it has. It's moved past being a fad... which means it doesn't get as much new blood as it used to. That's fine... it happens to all arts. First there's a boom, as interest develops and awareness spikes... then there's a steady flow... then it settles down. That's where we are now. And, for Australia, BJJ was never a huge thing. Good, healthy, sure. But that's it. It really is, here, "no big deal". Just another art. So's mine, of course.



jks9199 said:


> The word "expert" has a lot of different meanings. In court, an "expert" is a person with specialized training and/or experience beyond that of a lay person which enables and allows them to give opinion testimony rather than merely state what they saw or heard directly. An expert may be able to take a skid mark, and state that, to leave a 30 foot skid mark on that pavement, the car had to be traveling at about 25 mph. Or that an officer's particular use of force was reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered and in keeping with the agency's policies and laws.
> 
> Another way to define an expert is as someone who knows nearly all there is about a subject. A third, similar definition would be a person with a high level of skill in performing tasks or actions.
> 
> The simple reason that I say that it's hard to impossible to be an "expert" in self defense is what I laid out earlier: few people encounter enough situations where they use self defense skills to be able to reliably assess something that worked once, something that was pure luck, from something that is reliable. That's not to say you can't learn enough to have a good guess, and to develop sound assumptions, or to qualify as a court expert. I just dislike the idea of labeling myself as an "expert" colloquially in a subject that is so subjective in experience.



I'm using expert to mean someone with deeper knowledge. I'd apply that to the first and second definitions, and, in those cases, you certainly can be a "self defence expert". The third definition is also part of it... but, in this case, is more to do with the first two than going out and getting involved in multiple encounters. I don't think a self defence expert has necessarily been involved in large numbers of encounters... if they have, many of them I wouldn't probably class as actual self defence, more fights of various forms... it's someone who understands how such things happen, the conditions of violence, the common forms of assault, the psychology of predators and victims, and so on and so forth. 



ballen0351 said:


> I don't consider myself an expert at anything. But to say you can't be an expert I don't agree with. I believe there are experts out there. Would you consider Rory Miller an expert ?





jks9199 said:


> No more than he would...





ballen0351 said:


> Ok well then we will just disagree. There are plenty of experts in self defense. Not as many as actually claim the title but they exist. I've met them even if they don't consider themselves to be they have no problem taking money to put on seminars



My personal opinion is that there certainly are self defence experts, but, as with most who deserve the title, it's one that others use to apply to them, not one self-applied.



K-man said:


> You are one sick puppy! But you are right,  we need to catch up for coffee. PM time and place or better still, make a time to check out the new dojo.



Ha, yeah, we do have to catch up... busy time of year, but I should get something arranged soon!


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> With the state of the obesity epidemic nowadays your chances are about as slim as those guys.



Even then, the chances of fighting a morbidly obese person trained in Sumo wrestling isn't very likely.



RTKDCMB said:


> Often
> 
> 
> Since you do not have any experience in any of the things I posted who are you to say what is practical about them? The high mount would not be a very common position in that situation so many of the things in that post would be practical.



Actually I have quite a bit of experience in the things you posted. In my art we call it "what not to do when someone is on top of you".



> Oh and stop referring to the position of a rapist as the missionary position, they are 2 completely different things, and quite frankly, a little offensive.



Where did I say that?




> Yes it is, because you can always break their arm anyway, but you don't because you don't need or want to. When someone surrenders to you, you can say to yourself "Well I could have snapped his arm if I put a bit more pressure on it, but he tapped so I didn't have to".



Isn't that exactly what I said?


----------



## SENC-33

Most people are just flat out delusional when it comes to real world self defense. The likelihood of you being attacked by a well trained ninja, ground fighter, or whatever are slim and if YOU happen to be well trained and have to defend yourself you wouldn't even recognize your "art form" if you could see it in a real world scenario. Violence happens fast and rarely are you fully prepared for it. You end up relying more on natural instincts which is why I train to hone those instincts.


----------



## RTKDCMB

SENC-33 said:


> Most people are just flat out delusional when it comes to real world self defense. The likelihood of you being attacked by a well trained ninja, ground fighter, or whatever are slim and if YOU happen to be well trained and have to defend yourself you wouldn't even recognize your "art form" if you could see it in a real world scenario. Violence happens fast and rarely are you fully prepared for it. You end up relying more on natural instincts which is why I train to hone those instincts.



3 people who have or have tried to attack me, Karate 2nd Dan, Judo black belt, kickboxer. It happens.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Even then, the chances of fighting a morbidly obese person trained in Sumo wrestling isn't very likely.



Sumo wrestler no, morbidly obese person yes.




Hanzou said:


> Actually I have quite a bit of experience in the things you posted. In my art we call it "what not to do when someone is on top of you".



And that is why I would not send someone to you to learn self defence. Because you are very limited in your approach and have no idea what real violence is like outside the mat.



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that?



Implied here: *The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.*

Said here; *Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a  high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily  transferable into the guard position. *



Hanzou said:


> Isn't that exactly what I said?



No you said that it was full force when they tapped out, not when you break their arm.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Sumo wrestler no, morbidly obese person yes.



And not a huge deal. 



> And that is why I would not send someone to you to learn self defence. Because you are very limited in your approach and have no idea what real violence is like outside the mat.



You're welcome to your opinion, but the facts contradict you.




> Implied here: *The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.*
> 
> Said here; *Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a  high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily  transferable into the guard position. *


*
*
Yeah, neither of those statements suggests that missionary is "the rape position". 



> No you said that it was full force when they tapped out, not when you break their arm.



So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It requires full force to make someone comply/submit to you.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> Most people are just flat out delusional when it comes to real world self defense. The likelihood of you being attacked by a well trained ninja, ground fighter, or whatever are slim and if YOU happen to be well trained and have to defend yourself you wouldn't even recognize your "art form" if you could see it in a real world scenario. Violence happens fast and rarely are you fully prepared for it. You end up relying more on natural instincts which is why I train to hone those instincts.



Like this?
http://youtu.be/-eywhQ6_mu0

Or this?
http://youtu.be/eKB-BEtVR8g



Or this?
http://youtu.be/4PFkea7hm2g

Looks pretty recognizable to me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You're welcome to your opinion, but the facts contradict you.



You never seem to let real facts get in the way of your story.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, neither of those statements suggests that missionary is "the rape position".



Women *getting raped *in secluded areas in the *missionary position*

Kinda does.



Hanzou said:


> So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It requires full force to make someone comply/submit to you.



I am disagreeing with you that not adding the necessary force to break someones arm after they submit constitutes full force.:hb:


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You're welcome to your opinion, but the facts contradict you.


What facts?



> [/B]
> Yeah, neither of those statements suggests that missionary is "the rape position".


According to you it is. Hopefully you have moved in from this nonsense however.  Just because you read one article about a military officer using a triangle doesn't mean its the end all be all.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> You never seem to let real facts get in the way of your story.



I'll discuss this more in Ballen's response.



> Women *getting raped *in secluded areas in the *missionary position*
> 
> Kinda does.



If you say so.


> I am disagreeing with you that not adding the necessary force to break someones arm after they submit constitutes full force.:hb:



That's semantics. It requires full force to make someone submit, and it requires full force to break someone's arm. In both cases, you are applying full force.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> What facts?



That learning to fight from the ground position is beneficial for self defense.
That many fights end up in the clinch, and go to the ground, or with someone falling to the ground.
That the potential for damage or injury occurs when you're on the ground.
That the quickest way to end a confrontation outside of getting a lucky knockout punch (or kick), is to choke them unconscious.

Given some of the examples I've seen personally or heard of on this forum, I still believe that Bjj is the best way for someone to learn that method of fighting.



> According to you it is. Hopefully you have moved in from this nonsense however.  Just because you read one article about a military officer using a triangle doesn't mean its the end all be all.



I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> You've been told this by others, but no, this is in no way correct. It is not a high likelihood situation. The scenario you describe is rare, to say the least. And the idea of applying a triangle is really a bizarre one, frankly. If you started talking reversals and sweeps, I'd be with you... but a triangle? No.



Where did I say that someone should only be using Triangle Chokes to stop a rape? I simply said that the Triangle Choke is a great technique to use in a SD situation. I even used an example of said SD situation where a triangle was used to stop an attack.




> See, I really don't think you do understand it. I mean, it's an Aikido specific form of randori, so saying you understand it, but are then curious as to why you don't see it outside of Aikido dojo is just screaming that you really don't understand it. Can you reconcile those comments? Tell you what... can you explain what that form of randori is, how it's structured, and what it's aims are? There are very good reasons it's done the way it is, and it has nothing to do with the way rolling is in BJJ.



The reasoning behind that style of randori is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is that you never see that type of randori being put to use outside of a heavily controlled setting like a demo, a dojo, etc. I've never seen anyone perform an Aikido throw after someone punches them. Never. I've seen Judokas do it. I've seen wrestlers do it. Never seen an Aikidoka perform it against someone looking to smash their face in. I'm simply asking why that is? I think that's a fair question to ask, don't you?



> Say, here's a funny thing... you do know that "resistance" isn't actually realistic outside of sports, yeah? I'm talking real world violence here (specifically what is referred to as self defence). But, that said, who ever said that non-sports systems don't train non-compliance? Or that sparring/rolling is the only way to do it (or the best)? Gotta tell you... it ain't. At all.



Yet it is the sport-based systems that appear most adept at being able to perform their art in a non-compliant situation (like a street fight). Again, why is that?




> No, it's really not. It's testament to the fact that arms can be broken with joint locks and choking people can render them unconscious. It is also testament to the fact that it can happen in competition. But "effectiveness of that training"? Nope. Training for competition and overdoing things isn't "effectiveness", it's lack of control and awareness (either on the part of the person applying the technique, or the one receiving it). Of course, if we're going to start discussing "effectiveness of the training", you need to qualify what effectiveness means here... and where it's supposed to apply.



If you're training to break someone's arm, and you break someone's arm while they're fully resisting you, I would say your training is effective.




> You'll love this... I don't spar. None of the arts I do spar. Why? Because it's not realistic enough for us. It's too random for us. It's too limiting for us.



So where does the testing of the techniques come into play?



> Here's the thing, though... they're not fantastical. They are about something rather different to what you're used to, though...



They would certainly be less fantastical if we saw them being utilized outside the confines of a demonstration or a dojo.




> Neko-te. Part of a workshop on kakushi buki. Simulated, in this instance.



Sounds very practical.



> Dude, it really doesn't matter what you think a martial arts class should include, or be like, it matters what the art itself deems necessary or preferential for it's aims. Sparring is counter-productive to a number of arts, including my own. Your lack of understanding of any other approaches doesn't make them wrong, or worse than the single approach you champion.



I'm interested to hear why you believe that sparring would be impractical in a fighting system. Especially when sparring has proven to be an effective means of practice for centuries, even within classical styles.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.



Yes you have taken one rare case and now you try to use it as a fact.  The real facts don't support your one rare example.  Again I've been to talked to and researched many many many rape cases.  Your just wrong.  So again I'll ask you to leave rape defense to the experts and please don't go teaching anyone anything unless you actually do some case study.  I'm not saying BJJ isn't a good idea the fact is ANY regular training in ANY art is better then nothing.  I won't discount BJJ but I will say the triangle is a great way to get her hurt.  There are much better methods of BJJ to use.  I'll leave it at that.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> That's semantics. It requires full force to make someone submit, and it requires full force to break someone's arm. In both cases, you are applying full force.


This is completely untrue. Submission in Aikido and as I teach it in karate is brought about with minimum force. Full force would destroy the joint, period.



Hanzou said:


> I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.



Obviously you didn't read the article. The lady in question was not military and there is nothing in the article to suggest she was an officer.



Hanzou said:


> The reasoning behind that style of randori is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is that you never see that type of randori being put to use outside of a heavily controlled setting like a demo, a dojo, etc. I've never seen anyone perform an Aikido throw after someone punches them. Never. I've seen Judokas do it. I've seen wrestlers do it. Never seen an Aikidoka perform it against someone looking to smash their face in. I'm simply asking why that is? I think that's a fair question to ask, don't you?
> 
> As I pointed out and Chris reinforced the randori is used in training, not in fighting. It is used to demonstrate ukemi as much as it is to demonstrate the technique. In all my time in aikido I have only learned one actual 'throw' and I can't remember its name. I had to demonstrate it for grading and it is one I would probably ever use in practice. The rest I classify as take downs. Your opponent ends up in a heap at your feet. The throws you are watching are with compliant partners. As Chris said,you have no idea of what you are watching.
> 
> Yet it is the sport-based systems that appear most adept at being able to perform their art in a non-compliant situation (like a street fight). Again, why is that?
> 
> This is patently untrue and just your uninformed opinion.
> 
> If you're training to break someone's arm, and you break someone's arm while they're fully resisting you, I would say your training is effective.
> 
> This is true, but in training it would demonstrate total lack of control. How often have you broken your training partner's arm?
> 
> So where does the testing of the techniques come into play?
> 
> It depends on your definition of sparring. We test techniques against a realistic attack. In the early stage you know what the attack will be, as you gain experience the attacks become random. We train to deal with an attack in seconds, not roll around for minutes.
> 
> They would certainly be less fantastical if we saw them being utilized outside the confines of a demonstration or a dojo.
> 
> How different systems train may well look different to the real life application. For example, boxers do a lot of skipping. Is that part of fighting? Boxers shadow box. Do they do that in a real fight? Boxers punch a bag and it doesn't hit back. Does that happen in a real fight.
> 
> I'm interested to hear why you believe that sparring would be impractical in a fighting system. Especially when sparring has proven to be an effective means of practice for centuries, even within classical styles.
> 
> &#8203;Really? What classical styles are you referring to?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> This is completely untrue. Submission in Aikido and as I teach it in karate is brought about with minimum force. Full force would destroy the joint, period.



I was talking about Bjj, not Aikido.




> Obviously you didn't read the article. The lady in question was not military and there is nothing in the article to suggest she was an officer.



Last I checked, the Navy is considered military.



> _As I pointed out and Chris reinforced the randori is used in training, not in fighting. It is used to demonstrate ukemi as much as it is to demonstrate the technique. In all my time in aikido I have only learned one actual 'throw' and I can't remember its name. I had to demonstrate it for grading and it is one I would probably ever use in practice. The rest I classify as take downs. Your opponent ends up in a heap at your feet. The throws you are watching are with compliant partners. As Chris said,you have no idea of what you are watching._


_

So all of the Aikido throws shown here;

_









Aren't actually in Aikido?



> _This is patently untrue and just your uninformed opinion._


_

_Well, where are the Aikidoka competing in the UFC or MMA competitons? Where are all the videos of someone using Aikido to defend themselves in a street fight?



> _This is true, but in training it would demonstrate total lack of control. How often have you broken your training partner's arm?_


_

Never, because my training partners are smart enough to tap. However, if they didn't tap, I would probably break their arm.

_


> _It depends on your definition of sparring. We test techniques against a realistic attack. In the early stage you know what the attack will be, as you gain experience the attacks become random. We train to deal with an attack in seconds, not roll around for minutes._


_

So someone rushing towards you with their arm extended and hand open is viewed as a "realistic attack"?

_


> _How different systems train may well look different to the real life application. For example, boxers do a lot of skipping. Is that part of fighting? Boxers shadow box. Do they do that in a real fight? Boxers punch a bag and it doesn't hit back. Does that happen in a real fight. _


_

Boxers also spar against other boxers who have the same goal in mind: Knock the other guy out.

So when a trained boxer ends up in a fight with a non-boxer:

_



_
Its brutally effective, and looks similar to what they do when they practice.

Where are the similar Aikido clips?
_


> _&#8203;Really? What classical styles are you referring to?_


_

_Pankration for starters;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration

Its about 2500 years old give or take a century. 

There's even a cool image of a trainer overlooking two fighters sparring each other.


----------



## ballen0351

Your boxer clip looks set up as a demo.  Why else would they have just happened to be filming plus none of the punches actually connected.  Regardless just because it is on youtube doesn't make it fact and a lack of it being on youtube doesn't mean it didn't happen


----------



## seasoned

1000 coming up..............


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I was talking about Bjj, not Aikido.
> 
> So what you are saying is that in BJJ you need to use strength which sort of goes against the idea of it allowing a smaller less strong person overcoming a bigger stronger one. Looks like that is one up for aikido.
> 
> Last I checked, the Navy is considered military.
> 
> Last time I checked she was off a merchant ship.
> http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/courts/woman-sailor-thwarts-dubai-rape-attempt-with-leg-stranglehold
> 
> So all of the Aikido throws shown here;
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the one I was referring to, Koshi nage. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the only 'throw' here was Koshi nage. The rest were either what I would call takedowns or in the case of kote gaeshi where it is performed slowly, Uke diving over to take Ukemi. That is just not possible to do in a full speed scenario.
> 
> Aren't actually in Aikido?
> 
> Yes, but except for the hip throw which was also performed from the lower position, the rest are take downs. And, as I said, it is the only real throw I have learned in Aikido. For me, I don't like it all that much because it is too easy to get a reversal unless you can perform it very fast. It also is very difficult to roll out of and is the cause of the only severe injury I have seen in the time I have been training Aikido
> 
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]Well, where are the Aikidoka competing in the UFC or MMA competitons? Where are all the videos of someone using Aikido to defend themselves in a street fight?
> 
> Give me a break! How many times do you need to be told?
> 
> Never, because my training partners are smart enough to tap. However, if they didn't tap, I would probably break their arm.
> 
> So what you are saying is that you have either never used full force or your technique is ineffective. Your choice.
> 
> So someone rushing towards you with their arm extended and hand open is viewed as a "realistic attack"?
> 
> What you are referring to here is a training technique used in Aikido. As you normally see it portrayed I agree it is not realistic. However, we don't do it that way where I train. But the original context was of sparring vs non sparring arts. My comment was how I teach karate which is identical to the attacks you would find in a Krav class.
> 
> Boxers also spar against other boxers who have the same goal in mind: Knock the other guy out.
> 
> Yes they do, and Aikidoka use other forms of training against total resistance apart from randori.
> 
> So when a trained boxer ends up in a fight with a non-boxer:
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no different to any trained martial artist against a non trained person.
> _Its brutally effective, and looks similar to what they do when they practice.
> 
> Where are the similar Aikido clips?_
> I have no desire to go looking for what may or may not exist on Youtube.
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]Pankration for starters;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration
> 
> Its about 2500 years old give or take a century.
> 
> There's even a cool image of a trainer overlooking two fighters sparring each other.
> 
> Now that's a really popular sport. How about something a little more mainstream?


 :asian:


----------



## ballen0351

seasoned said:


> 1000 coming up..............



Winner


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Your boxer clip looks set up as a demo.  Why else would they have just happened to be filming plus none of the punches actually connected.  Regardless just because it is on youtube doesn't make it fact and a lack of it being on youtube doesn't mean it didn't happen



Here's a few more;

Boxer vs 3 guys






Retired boxer puts a clown to sleep


----------



## ballen0351

I'm not sure who your trying to convince here?  Unlike you   I see the value in all styles including boxing it worked great when the guy sucker punched the drunk dude.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure who your trying to convince here?  Unlike you   I see the value in all styles including boxing it worked great when the guy sucker punched the drunk dude.



I'm merely pointing out that we've seen competitive styles like Boxing, Wrestling, TKD, Bjj, MT, etc. being used effectively outside the confines of the training hall. I'm curious as to why the same hasn't occurred with the non competitive styles.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I'm merely pointing out that we've seen competitive styles like Boxing, Wrestling, TKD, Bjj, MT, etc. being used effectively outside the confines of the training hall. I'm curious as to why the same hasn't occurred with the non competitive styles.



So because its not on YouTube is hasn't happened?  I know for a fact people have used Goju sorry it didn't end up on YouTube for you


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> _So what you are saying is that in BJJ you need to use strength which sort of goes against the idea of it allowing a smaller less strong person overcoming a bigger stronger one. Looks like that is one up for aikido. _


_
_
Strength isn't the source of force the body can generate.



> _Last time I checked she was off a merchant ship._


_
_
They updated the story. What's your point again?



> _Again, the only 'throw' here was Koshi nage. The rest were either what I would call takedowns or in the case of kote gaeshi where it is performed slowly, Uke diving over to take Ukemi. That is just not possible to do in a full speed scenario._


_

_*So, Entering throw (Iriminage), **Heaven-and-earth throw (Techinage), and **Rotary throw (Kateinage) aren't throws?*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido_techniques
_

_


> _So what you are saying is that you have either never used full force or your technique is ineffective. Your choice._


_

_The full force was used to get the submission. Additionally, getting your opponent to submit also indicates that your technique was effective.



> _What you are referring to here is a training technique used in Aikido. As you normally see it portrayed I agree it is not realistic. *However, we don't do it that way where I train.* _


_

_How did I know you were going to say that. 



> _I have no desire to go looking for what may or may not exist on Youtube._


_

_Too bad, because an Aikidoka or a Ninja tossing around bad guys like rag dolls would be a Youtube sensation.



> _Now that's a really popular sport. How about something a little more mainstream?_


_

_Would you prefer Muay Thai?_

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muay_Thai


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm merely pointing out that we've seen competitive styles like Boxing, Wrestling, TKD, Bjj, MT, etc. being used effectively outside the confines of the training hall. I'm curious as to why the same hasn't occurred with the non competitive styles.


In actual fact under adrenal dump most people go straight to flailing fists, even trained people. The secret is to survive the first few seconds to regain composure before most people can use techniques they have learned. That is the principle used by non competitive styles like Krav and Systema. But are you really trying to say that you don't see karate, aikido, Kung fu, Ninjutsu, Krav, Systema etc used in the real world.
:bs:


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So because its not on YouTube is hasn't happened?  I know for a fact people have used Goju sorry it didn't end up on YouTube for you



There's plenty of karate street fight vids on YT. Karate is karate to most people, I'm sure some of those vids showcase a Goju practitioner or two.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> In actual fact under adrenal dump most people go straight to flailing fists, even trained people. The secret is to survive the first few seconds to regain composure before most people can use techniques they have learned. That is the principle used by non competitive styles like Krav and Systema. But are you really trying to say that you don't see karate, aikido, Kung fu, Ninjutsu, Krav, Systema etc used in the real world.



These guys must have controlled the dump;

http://youtu.be/-eywhQ6_mu0
http://youtu.be/eKB-BEtVR8g
http://youtu.be/4PFkea7hm2g


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> There's plenty of karate street fight vids on YT. Karate is karate to most people, I'm sure some of those vids showcase a Goju practitioner or two.



So then your saying there are videos of nonsport arts being used?  So what's the point?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So then your saying there are videos of nonsport arts being used?  So what's the point?



Since when is Karate nonsport?










Goju-Ryu competition right there.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> [/I][/COLOR]
> Strength isn't the source of force the body can generate.
> 
> Care to elaborate? Body weight is also force.
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]
> They updated the story. What's your point again?
> 
> They updated the story before the article was posted on MT. I checked the original source at the time, you did not, obviously. Perhaps you should check your facts before posting or do you subscribe to the theory of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story?
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]*So, Entering throw (Iriminage), **Heaven-and-earth throw (Techinage), and **Rotary throw (Kateinage) aren't throws?*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido_techniques
> None of them are throws. They are takedowns. Iriminage is a straight takedown in normal application. If you want to get serious you can break the neck. Tenchi Nage similar leading to ground control. I have never heard of Kateinage. However if it was Kaiten nage you are quoting, it is either a straight takedown or continues to a shoulder dislocation. I wish you would stick to things you know about. Certainly you wouldn't post so much crap if you did that.
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]The full force was used to get the submission. Additionally, getting your opponent to submit also indicates that your technique was effective.
> 
> If using full force only gets submission your technique is ineffective. Full force should destroy the joint.i
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]How did I know you were going to say that.
> 
> Because you have never seen a proper dojo. In Aikido we attack with two hands always. If we did the one hand stuff we would be told to attack properly. In Karate, Krav and Systema, which I teach, no one would even think about attacking like that.
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]Too bad, because an Aikidoka or a Ninja tossing around bad guys like rag dolls would be a Youtube sensation.
> 
> Really?
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]Would you prefer Muay Thai?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muay_Thai
> 
> From your source;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muay boran, and therefore muay Thai, was originally called by more generic names such as pahuyuth (from the Sanskrit bahu-yuddha meaning unarmed combat), Toi muay or simply muay. As well as being a practical fighting technique for use in actual warfare, *muay became a sport* in which the opponents fought in front of spectators who went to watch for entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> Muay Thai was not designed for sport.
Click to expand...

:asian:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Since when is Karate nonsport?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goju-Ryu competition right there.


Traditional Goju karate in non sport. The sporting side of Goju came via Gogen Yamaguchi in Japan. Kyokushin came via there as well.  Please check you facts before posting rubbish. Traditional karate is all non sport. 
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> _Care to elaborate? Body weight is also force._



Exactly. 



> _They updated the story before the article was posted on MT. I checked the original source at the time, you did not, obviously. Perhaps you should check your facts before posting or do you subscribe to the theory of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story?_


_

_The point of that story was a woman defending herself from a rapist using the Triangle Choke. Her occupation is pretty irrelevant.



> _None of them are throws. They are takedowns. Iriminage is a straight takedown in normal application. If you want to get serious you can break the neck. Tenchi Nage similar leading to ground control. I have never heard of Kateinage. However if it was Kaiten nage you are quoting, it is either a straight takedown or continues to a shoulder dislocation. I wish you would stick to things you know about. Certainly you wouldn't post so much crap if you did that._


_

_Who to believe; K-man or Aikido? I think I'll go with Aikido knowing what its techniques are, and what they're called.



> _If using full force only gets submission your technique is ineffective. Full force should destroy the joint.i_


_
_
If you're targeting the wrist. In Bjj I'm targeting the elbows.



> _Because you have never seen a proper dojo. In Aikido we attack with two hands always. If we did the one hand stuff we would be told to attack properly. In Karate, Krav and Systema, which I teach, no one would even think about attacking like that._


_
_
Okay, but we're talking about Aikido, not your hybrid MA style.



> _Muay Thai was not designed for sport._


_
_
Wrong thread chief. In this thread we're talking about classical MAs that sparred. Since Muay Thai dates back to the 16th century, I'd consider it a classical MA that definitely enjoys sparring.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, yes. That's a very crude one, of course, but yes, that, and much, much more. Simply by agreeing to meet in a place and fight implies rules... hell, there's rules even when there isn't such an agreement. True "no rules" fighting doesn't actually happen... if you can't see (or follow) the difference between an absence of rules and an absence of restrictions (which is really what the UFC were in the beginning), you're not going to do well for the rest of my comments...
> 
> *GOD BLESS YOU CHRIS, I KNEW YOU WERE GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE GUYS!!!  I SUPPOSE SINCE YOU CAN'T DROP A NUKE ON YOUR OPPONENT IN A STREET FIGHT IT MAKES IT NOT REAL DUE TO "RULES".  OH WAIT!  NOW YOUR CHANGING YOU STANCE MID SENTENCE AND SAYING THERE WERE ONLY "RESTRICTIONS" IN THE EARLY UFC's!  WHICH IS IT BUDDY?  I WILL TELL, NO RULES IS WHICH ONE IT WAS.
> 
> SO IF IM IN A BAR AND SOMEONE ASKS ME TO STEP OUTSIDE, THAT ISN'T A SELF DEFENSE SITUATION BECAUSE WEMBOTH AGREED TO GO TO GO OUT THERE AND FIGHT? *
> 
> How was it geared towards grapplers? In a number of ways, actually... first was the rules. The lack of time limits or rounds played into a longer strategy. Next was the lack of referee interference (the fighters wouldn't be broken up for lack of action
> *CHRIS, YOU'RE HONESTLY GOING TO SIT HERE AND SAY THE "LACK OF RULES" HELPED THE GRAPPLERS!!!  LIKE, THE STRIKERS NEEDED RULES TO HELP EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD!?!?!*
> 
> The only banned actions were ones that would only be applied against a grappling opponent, of course (not that fish-hooking would result in immediate defeat of the grappler, but it is interesting that that was not allowed, whereas striking the throat or groin was fine...).
> *WELL I GOTTA DISAGREE,  ROYCE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS BIT AND STILL WON HIS FIGHT,  AND I HAVE USED A LEGIT FISHHOOK TWICE IN STREET FIGHTS AND BITH TIMES IT WAS STANDING.*
> 
> Beyond the rules, was the environment. A number of fighters afterwards (particularly those from striking-based arts) mentioned that the floor was a lot softer than they were used to... which invites going to the ground, as you're not about to break your knees in a bad fall, but, more importantly, robbed the strikers of their usual speed and power.
> *THIS IS A GOOD POINT!*
> 
> The surrounding cage allowed grappling competitors more handholds and grips, providing leverage which wasn't really any help to the strikers (seriously, they needed a cage?).
> *ACTUALLY THIS STATEMENT JUST SHOWS YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT.  THE CAGE ACTUALLY HELPS THE STRIKER.  GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO KEAN AGAINST AS SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TAKE THEM DOWN, CAN AND IS STILL USED TO HOLD ONTO TO STOP SOMEONE FROM TAKING THEM DOWN AND IS OFTEN USED TO "WALL WALK" THERE WAYNBACK TO THERE FEET ONCE ON THE GROUND.*
> 
> Then, of course, was the selection of the competitors. Very grappler friendly, and, more specifically, ground fighting friendly. Really, why would there have been any surprise that Royce won?
> *LOL, OH MY!!!!!!!  YES, SETTING ROYCE UP FOR A SECOND ROUND MATCHUP VS A 225LB, RIPPED CATCH WRESTLING BOXER AND KING OF PANCRASE NAMED KEN SHAMROCK SURE WAS GIVING HIM THE EASY ROAD.   THISE SNEAKY GRACIES!!!!!!*
> 
> It's interesting to note that the surface has become a lot more solid (still padded, and a little slow, but faster than it used to be), there's been an instigation of time limits and rounds, attrition isn't encouraged anymore, there are more restrictions on what can be done, and so on...
> *WHICH IS WHY THE GRACIES STOPPED FIGHTING.  TO MANY RULES MADE THE UFC UNREALISTIC AS A TRUE SENSE OF COMBAT.
> *
> 
> As far as "please explain how grappling is not ground work?", seriously? Maybe read a dictionary? Grappling means "to seize or hold"... it is taken from the English term "grapnel", a device to take hold of a wall. It has nothing to do with if you're standing, sitting, lying down, swimming, or flying through the air. The fact that it has come to refer to ground work in the MMA world has no real meaning here. In real terms, I'm a grappler. I don't do ground work.
> 
> *JUST BECAUSE THERE IS STANDUP GRAPPLING DOESNT MEAN THE STUFF ON THE GROUND ISN'T ALSO GRAPPLING.
> 
> OH AND HERE IS DEFINITION.
> grappling - the act of engaging in close hand-to-hand combat; "they had a fierce wrestle"; "we watched his grappling and wrestling with the bully"
> hand-to-hand struggle, wrestle, wrestling, grapple
> struggle - strenuous effort; "the struggle to get through the crowd exhausted her"
> 2.	grappling - the sport of hand-to-hand struggle between unarmed contestants who try to throw each other down.
> 
> LOOKS LIKE MAYBE YOU ARE WRONG........AGAIN.:bangahead: *
> 
> You really want me to say it? Okay, yes. Gracie JiuJitsu, despite all accounts and claims, is not a self defence art. If it's meant to be, it's missed the boat incredibly badly. In my time in BJJ I saw absolutely nothing that I would consider viable, or appropriate self defence teachings... training in a seminar with Royce just solidified that for me, really. To me, BJJ really is a watered down sporting version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sporting version of actual martial arts. It's fantastic in it's specialisation, but it's specialisation isn't anything to do with self defence.
> 
> :BSmeter:
> 
> As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.
> 
> There's a big difference between what something is said to be, and what it actually is... no matter who, or how many, are saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really don't. Tell you what, can you explain to me the two major categories of violence that could be encountered in a self defence altercation, and the types of violence (and attacker/s) that might present you with? Can you explain what a self defence system actually is?
> 
> 
> 
> The "legit challenge" was little more than another publicity stunt.
> 
> 
> 
> It's sport. It's a contest. A game, really. And no, it's not "as real as it gets", nor is it anywhere close to serious enough for me. And if you think that the UFC, or MMA is "actually fighting" in anything other than a controlled, sporting environment, then yeah, you're incredibly off base.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't ignore them. I gave them the proper relevance. There's a difference.
> 
> But, frankly, "testing things in the cage" doesn't relate at all to self defence. At all. Not one bit. But, I suppose we haven't met properly yet either... me not looking at the history of something is quite a funny idea. Get back to me with an understanding of self defence, and you might be able to talk. I already know your context... can you get a handle on mine?
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, sure.... "could be"...
> 
> 
> 
> No. And I wouldn't be so strong in your defence, as you're also stating later that "hey, it's just a theory". Here's some insight for you... your theory is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> BJJ can be incredibly technical, it is often described as "physical chess", showing that it focuses on longer-term strategy to employ it's technical methods, and, having experience with both, I would say that no, Aikido isn't harder to learn than BJJ is... nor is BJJ harder to learn than Aikido is. Both require a different approach, certainly... but that's not on a scale. As far as the ideas of "real Aikido" of the old days versus now... that type of comment I have seen levelled at pretty much every art that's old enough. Watch, you'll see it applied to BJJ in the next decade or two.... When it comes to Segal's randori... when I believe you know what you're watching, I'll listen to your comments. Answering my questions above will go a long way towards that.
> 
> 
> 
> This question I like, and I feel is largely at the heart of the intention of the thread!
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, oh, that was funny... "simpler and more practical"? BJJ? Really? Wow, we must have trained in very different arts...
> 
> As far as the idea of competition being how to "learn the technique, then apply it at full force" (really? Full force? I seriously doubt that... if you did, you'd have no training partners the next class, they'd all be recovering from broken arms and the like... or you would be yourself), do you really think that non-competitive arts don't do that? Or that competitive methods are the only, or even the best way to achieve such training?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...




I will be back for more, I actually have to go judge some MMA fights.:drinkbeer


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Exactly.
> 
> So you agree with me. You were using full force.
> 
> The point of that story was a woman defending herself from a rapist using the Triangle Choke. Her occupation is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> If you say so, but it shows you pay no attention to the facts.
> 
> Who to believe; K-man or Aikido? I think I'll go with Aikido knowing what its techniques are, and what they're called.
> 
> No need to be offensive. Aikido had no names for its techniques until Westerners insisted on having things named. Same as Uke in Karate. Look at the web, an your beloved Wiki and it will probably say 'block' which it is not. However if you want to be technical here is what your Wiki has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A throw is a martial arts term for a grappling technique that involves off-balancing or lifting an opponent, and throwing them to the ground, in Japanese martial arts referred to as nage-waza, &#25237;&#12370;&#25216;, "throwing technique". Throws usually involve a rotating motion, the practitioner performing the *throw disconnects with the opponent*, and ends balanced and on their feet as opposed to a takedown where both finish on the ground. Throws can however also be followed into a top position, in which case the person executing the throw does not disengage from the opponent. Certain throwing techniques called sacrifice throws (sutemi-waza, &#25448;&#36523;&#25216;, "sacrifice technique") involve putting oneself in a potentially disadvantageous position, such as on the ground, in order to execute a throw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're targeting the wrist. In Bjj I'm targeting the elbows.
> 
> I am targeting any joint including elbows.
> 
> Okay, but we're talking about Aikido, not your hybrid MA style.
> 
> You you are being really offensive. We are talking about TMA and Sport. I teach pure traditional Okinawan Goju Ryu  Karate, not a hybrid. I would like a genuine apology for that slight. How dare you call my art hybrid. You've bashed every style but that really crosses the line.
> 
> Wrong thread chief. In this thread we're talking about classical MAs that sparred. Since Muay Thai dates back to the 16th century, I'd consider it a classical MA that definitely enjoys sparring.
> 
> 
> For once you are right. I did mix threads.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it's time this thread was closed!


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I'm merely pointing out that we've seen competitive styles like Boxing, Wrestling, TKD, Bjj, MT, etc. being used effectively outside the confines of the training hall. I'm curious as to why the same hasn't occurred with the non competitive styles.



Because people in the non-competitive styles do not go out looking to challenge everyone and get it on camera. So you have seen TKD (which I am sure you have put down many occasions) being used effectively outside the confines of the training hall?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Since when is Karate nonsport?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goju-Ryu competition right there.



When not all styles or schools compete.


----------



## RTKDCMB

First - *WHY ARE WE YELLING?*



TFP said:


> *SO IF IM IN A BAR AND SOMEONE ASKS ME TO STEP OUTSIDE, THAT ISN'T A  SELF DEFENSE SITUATION BECAUSE WE BOTH AGREED TO GO TO GO OUT THERE AND  FIGHT? *



No it is not, if someone asks you to step out side you can say no. If he waits for you to go outside to go somewhere else and then attacks you, that is a self defence situation. 



TFP said:


> *I HAVE USED A LEGIT FISHHOOK TWICE IN STREET FIGHTS AND  BITH TIMES IT WAS STANDING.*



 You were lucky you didn't lose a finger or two, sticking your finger in someones mouth is good way to get your fingers bitten off.




TFP said:


> *ACTUALLY THIS STATEMENT JUST SHOWS YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT.  THE CAGE ACTUALLY HELPS THE STRIKER.  GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO  KEAN AGAINST AS SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TAKE THEM DOWN, CAN AND IS STILL  USED TO HOLD ONTO TO STOP SOMEONE FROM TAKING THEM DOWN AND IS OFTEN  USED TO "WALL WALK" THERE WAYNBACK TO THERE FEET ONCE ON THE GROUND.*



And holding onto the cage to prevent a takedown is illegal in MMA competitions and can result in a loss of a point and possibly the fight and the cage can be used to smoosh the strikers face onto the cage giving him less of a chance to strike. And you accuse him of having a lack of knowledge on the subject?



TFP said:


> *LOL, OH MY!!!!!!!  YES, SETTING ROYCE UP FOR A SECOND ROUND MATCHUP  VS A 225LB, RIPPED CATCH WRESTLING BOXER AND KING OF PANCRASE NAMED KEN  SHAMROCK SURE WAS GIVING HIM THE EASY ROAD.   THISE SNEAKY GRACIES!!!!!!*



Yes and matching up Royce Gracie with a boxer silly enough to have one boxing glove and no grappling experience whatsoever, who tapped at the first sign of trouble, whilst matching up Gerrad Gordeu (a striker who almost won the whole event) with 400lb man mountain in the first UFC, that wasn't giving him the easy road at all was it?


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks pretty recognizable to me.



Er... not really much to do with SENC-33's point, you realise... but hey, let's look at them anyway.

None of them look much like self defence. The first one is ground, but not BJJ that I saw... really just rather unskilled ground n' pound. There was no position, there were no sweeps, no reversals, no attempts at anything other than the guy on top sitting up and striking, the guy underneath trying to cover up. The second and third were simply challenge fights, with what looked like someone with some training attempting to use competition techniques where they're really not the best plan. The first guy had some skills, sure, but it wasn't anything other than a challenge match (we'll get to what that is for you, by the way). The last one did almost nothing with his triangle attempts other than limit the striking capability of his opponent... far more was done without it. But, again, not anything but a challenge match.



ballen0351 said:


> What facts?





Hanzou said:


> That learning to fight from the ground position is beneficial for self defense.
> That many fights end up in the clinch, and go to the ground, or with someone falling to the ground.
> That the potential for damage or injury occurs when you're on the ground.
> That the quickest way to end a confrontation outside of getting a lucky knockout punch (or kick), is to choke them unconscious.
> 
> Given some of the examples I've seen personally or heard of on this forum, I still believe that Bjj is the best way for someone to learn that method of fighting.


[/QUOTE]

Learning to fight from the ground can be beneficial, it's not definitively true though. Learning to get up from the ground is far more beneficial.
"Many fights" don't end up on the ground, and even those that do don't really feature ground fighting in that format.
There is potential for damage on the ground... sure. Only there? Nope. Is that where there is the most potential? Nope. High school Judo focuses on ground over throwing (stand up) because, well, it's safer. Sorry.
No, that's not the quickest way, especially when it takes you 30 seconds to get into position.

I agree that BJJ is one of the best approaches to learn ground fighting. But ground fighting isn't everything, or indeed, even the most important outside of it's context.



Hanzou said:


> I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.



"Common"? Really? Any backup to that statement? And no, it's not a great choke to use... it's far too dependant on situational circumstances and not the easiest to pull off.



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that someone should only be using Triangle Chokes to stop a rape? I simply said that the Triangle Choke is a great technique to use in a SD situation. I even used an example of said SD situation where a triangle was used to stop an attack.



 Only? Nope. But you have suggested that it's a good go-to... in fact, you're suggesting it here again. Oh, and for the record, the reports are a little unclear about exactly what was used (the description given is pretty much always "choked with her thighs", not precisely the way I'd describe a triangle). Mind you, the reports aren't really that clear on a few things, personally, I'm taking it with a number of grains of salt... for a few reasons.



Hanzou said:


> The reasoning behind that style of randori is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is that you never see that type of randori being put to use outside of a heavily controlled setting like a demo, a dojo, etc. I've never seen anyone perform an Aikido throw after someone punches them. Never. I've seen Judokas do it. I've seen wrestlers do it. Never seen an Aikidoka perform it against someone looking to smash their face in. I'm simply asking why that is? I think that's a fair question to ask, don't you?



Er... what? The reasoning behind that style of randori is completely relevant if you claim to understand what's going on there. If you had the first clue about it, for example, you wouldn't be asking why it's only seen in Aikido dojo... As far as your "fair question", no, I don't really think so. For one thing, you're looking only at technique, not approach. Next, how many Aikidoka do you follow around waiting for fights to break out?



Hanzou said:


> Yet it is the sport-based systems that appear most adept at being able to perform their art in a non-compliant situation (like a street fight). Again, why is that?



Really, I'd call that a false connection, personally. 



Hanzou said:


> If you're training to break someone's arm, and you break someone's arm while they're fully resisting you, I would say your training is effective.



Right... nope. I wouldn't say that means anything, really... unless you can cite the exact methods used, and describe why. "An armbar that I learnt in class" doesn't cut it.



Hanzou said:


> So where does the testing of the techniques come into play?



You're not going to understand this, but in kata.



Hanzou said:


> They would certainly be less fantastical if we saw them being utilized outside the confines of a demonstration or a dojo.



Learn what the context is, first. Then you can begin to have an informed opinion.



Hanzou said:


> Sounds very practical.



And, the point is missed again... entirely. You wanted to know what happened, so I told you what it was. Expecting everything to fit the one, single context or shape is to completely miss what's actually right in front of you.



Hanzou said:


> I'm interested to hear why you believe that sparring would be impractical in a fighting system. Especially when sparring has proven to be an effective means of practice for centuries, even within classical styles.



It's unrealistic, teaches false realities, promotes unrealistic responses in order to fit a false construct, relies on personal interpretation/implementation rather than a deliberate instilling of skills/methods, is far too random in attaining specific results rather than generic ones, and so on. I'll deal with the second half in a bit.



Hanzou said:


> Last I checked, the Navy is considered military.



Yeah... and last I checked, a merchant ship wasn't part of the Navy... but that's all by the by.



Hanzou said:


> So all of the Aikido throws shown here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't actually in Aikido?



Terminology is a tricky thing...



Hanzou said:


> Well, where are the Aikidoka competing in the UFC or MMA competitons? Where are all the videos of someone using Aikido to defend themselves in a street fight?



So, Aikido, an overtly non-competitive art, not being part of a competition is a stroke against them? I mean, why don't we see BJJ practitioners involved in Kendo tournaments? And seriously, videos requested again? You know, there aren't any videos of me in a fight... but hey, I've been in them. Now, how could that be?



Hanzou said:


> Never, because my training partners are smart enough to tap. However, if they didn't tap, I would probably break their arm.



Do you actually think so? I've had students and training partners not tap... of course, I retained enough control to not actual damage them... but to let them know that there are better plans they could have.



Hanzou said:


> So someone rushing towards you with their arm extended and hand open is viewed as a "realistic attack"?



Do you really think it is viewed that way? Here's a hint... it's not. This is why you actually understanding what the randori methods are is completely relevant. At the moment, you're asking why a tennis player doesn't bounce a ball off a wall during a game to out play his opponent, because all you've ever played is squash.



Hanzou said:


> Boxers also spar against other boxers who have the same goal in mind: Knock the other guy out.
> 
> So when a trained boxer ends up in a fight with a non-boxer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Its brutally effective, and looks similar to what they do when they practice.
> 
> Where are the similar Aikido clips?_



See, that's the issue... having the same goal in mind is one of the big thing that differentiates reality from sports. As far as boxings effectiveness, no-one's disputed that. Nor, for that matter, has anyone disputed BJJ's. The difference is that boxing is closer to being applicable. 



Hanzou said:


> Pankration for starters;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration
> 
> Its about 2500 years old give or take a century.
> 
> There's even a cool image of a trainer overlooking two fighters sparring each other.



Pankration? Really? How much do you know about it, beyond Wiki's description?



Hanzou said:


> I'm merely pointing out that we've seen competitive styles like Boxing, Wrestling, TKD, Bjj, MT, etc. being used effectively outside the confines of the training hall. I'm curious as to why the same hasn't occurred with the non competitive styles.



And, of course, we're curious as to why you believe non competitive systems haven't done the same thing.



Hanzou said:


> These guys must have controlled the dump;



The same clips again? Your argument doesn't get any better with repetition. 

And, to your comment there... no. Doesn't particularly look that way.



Hanzou said:


> The point of that story was a woman defending herself from a rapist using the Triangle Choke. Her occupation is pretty irrelevant.



That was your point, sure. The point of showing that the story wasn't entirely what you were claiming was to show that perhaps you weren't reading that closely. Other points that have been made is that a single instance does not a pattern or reliable construct make.



Hanzou said:


> Who to believe; K-man or Aikido? I think I'll go with Aikido knowing what its techniques are, and what they're called.



Er... you do realize that K-man is an Aikido practitioner, right? I mean, he is training Aikido, so he's probably going to have some idea of the terminology, and how it's applied within the art... just sayin'.... 



Hanzou said:


> If you're targeting the wrist. In Bjj I'm targeting the elbows.



If it's me, I'm targeting the wrists, or the elbows, or the shoulders, or the fingers, or the neck, or the ankle, or the knees.... and, in all cases, when I aim for joint locks with full force, it's for destruction. Pure and simple. I don't apply things to get a tap-out or submission. I don't apply them to get compliance (well, sometimes I do, but not in the context of full force), I aim for destruction. Hell, look at the names we use... Kote Hishigi (Crushing the Wrist), Oni Kudaki (Destroy the Demon), Ude Ori (Break the Arm), and so on... As I said, terminology is important...



Hanzou said:


> Okay, but we're talking about Aikido, not your hybrid MA style.



Er... not really correct there, mate. K-man teaches Karate, and trains in Aikido... there isn't any "hybrid" style there...



Hanzou said:


> Wrong thread chief. In this thread we're talking about classical MAs that sparred. Since Muay Thai dates back to the 16th century, I'd consider it a classical MA that definitely enjoys sparring.



Yeah... I'm highly doubtful of that history, personally. It just doesn't mesh, really. So I'd disagree, as it's not a classical martial art...



TFP said:


> *GOD BLESS YOU CHRIS, I KNEW YOU WERE GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE GUYS!!! I SUPPOSE SINCE YOU CAN'T DROP A NUKE ON YOUR OPPONENT IN A STREET FIGHT IT MAKES IT NOT REAL DUE TO "RULES". OH WAIT! NOW YOUR CHANGING YOU STANCE MID SENTENCE AND SAYING THERE WERE ONLY "RESTRICTIONS" IN THE EARLY UFC's! WHICH IS IT BUDDY? I WILL TELL, NO RULES IS WHICH ONE IT WAS.*



Ooh, shouting. Fun.

"One of those guys"? A realist? Sure, yeah, I am. My research and study is into actual, real world violence. And, for the record, I hardly changed my stance mid-sentence, as I'd already said it previously (page 60, post 865). And there are always rules, so no, the idea that "THERE WERE NO RULES!!!!" is frankly marketing, and not reality. 



TFP said:


> *SO IF IM IN A BAR AND SOMEONE ASKS ME TO STEP OUTSIDE, THAT ISN'T A SELF DEFENSE SITUATION BECAUSE WEMBOTH AGREED TO GO TO GO OUT THERE AND FIGHT?*



That's right, it's not a self defence situation, it's a challenge match. It's a step up from what's referred to as the Monkey Dance, and is a form of social violence as opposed to asocial violence (familiar with those terms? If not, you might be a little out of luck in this conversation...). It's not self defence. It's just poor decision making if you actually go out to meet the guy.



TFP said:


> *CHRIS, YOU'RE HONESTLY GOING TO SIT HERE AND SAY THE "LACK OF RULES" HELPED THE GRAPPLERS!!! LIKE, THE STRIKERS NEEDED RULES TO HELP EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD!?!?!*



I agree that it sounds bizarre, but, well, yeah.



TFP said:


> *WELL I GOTTA DISAGREE, ROYCE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS BIT AND STILL WON HIS FIGHT, AND I HAVE USED A LEGIT FISHHOOK TWICE IN STREET FIGHTS AND BITH TIMES IT WAS STANDING.*



Er... you did note where I said it wouldn't "immediately defeat a grappler", yeah? And your use of a fishhook doesn't really come into it... as you could only have used it in a grappling situation (close, clinch work).



TFP said:


> *THIS IS A GOOD POINT!*



Ah, you recognized one. Good start.



TFP said:


> *ACTUALLY THIS STATEMENT JUST SHOWS YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT. THE CAGE ACTUALLY HELPS THE STRIKER. GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO KEAN AGAINST AS SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TAKE THEM DOWN, CAN AND IS STILL USED TO HOLD ONTO TO STOP SOMEONE FROM TAKING THEM DOWN AND IS OFTEN USED TO "WALL WALK" THERE WAYNBACK TO THERE FEET ONCE ON THE GROUND.*



You really should remember that I was talking about the initial set-up, yeah? It was an alien aspect of the environment, so such things simply weren't done, but it was used by the grappling/groundfighting competitors.



TFP said:


> *LOL, OH MY!!!!!!! YES, SETTING ROYCE UP FOR A SECOND ROUND MATCHUP VS A 225LB, RIPPED CATCH WRESTLING BOXER AND KING OF PANCRASE NAMED KEN SHAMROCK SURE WAS GIVING HIM THE EASY ROAD. THISE SNEAKY GRACIES!!!!!!*



Yep... and what happened? Did you listen to Ken afterwards?



TFP said:


> *WHICH IS WHY THE GRACIES STOPPED FIGHTING. TO MANY RULES MADE THE UFC UNREALISTIC AS A TRUE SENSE OF COMBAT.*



Ha! Really? Nope.



TFP said:


> *JUST BECAUSE THERE IS STANDUP GRAPPLING DOESNT MEAN THE STUFF ON THE GROUND ISN'T ALSO GRAPPLING.
> 
> OH AND HERE IS DEFINITION.
> grappling - the act of engaging in close hand-to-hand combat; "they had a fierce wrestle"; "we watched his grappling and wrestling with the bully"
> hand-to-hand struggle, wrestle, wrestling, grapple
> struggle - strenuous effort; "the struggle to get through the crowd exhausted her"
> 2.	grappling - the sport of hand-to-hand struggle between unarmed contestants who try to throw each other down.*



How about you read things a little closer, then? What I said was that grappling does not mean ground fighting, not that ground fighting isn't grappling... subtle, I know... you might also note that your definitions don't state anything about groundwork either.... in fact, they specifically state "struggle between unarmed contestants who try to throw each other down"... which you can't do unless you're standing, of course. Good try, though.



TFP said:


> *LOOKS LIKE MAYBE YOU ARE WRONG........AGAIN.*



Again? You're going to try that without having a prior occasion? Hmm....



TFP said:


> I will be back for more, I actually have to go judge some MMA fights.:drinkbeer



Sure.


----------



## SENC-33

If the average ground fighter is going to insist on taking another person to the ground in a self defense situation he/she had better be prepared for more things going wrong than right. A person in a street fight isn't going to tap or yell uncle so you better be prepared to injure them in some form or fashion (if you can even manage to get them in a proper lock). If they have a weapon such as a pocket knife and they are able to get to it good luck to you and if there are multiple attackers willing to jump in you are likely to get hurt badly.......

Now I know what the response will be....."We train for those situations" and my response is a simple "I doubt it". The majority of BJJ guys have been lured into a false sense of reality because the Gracie's had some success (mostly in a controlled environment)


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring.



Not sure if I commented on this, but I will now.  Let me ask you...why do you care?  I'll say the same thing to you, as I say to others who say what you just did...if you're happy with how you train, if you have no intentions of every leaving your school or training with people who dont train like you, then again, why do you care?  In my 20+yrs of training, trust me when I say, I've seen A LOT of things that are pure crap and more than a little suspect, but ya know what....I really don't care.  Oh sure, knowing that people are giving their hard earned money to BS teachers, makes me shake my head, and I can offer suggestions, but in the end, I know what I do, I know who I train with, and I know what I can/can't do, so really, anything else really means nothing.  

I have my thoughts and methods of how I train things, and many of my training partners share the same views.  But, just because *I* think something is the best way to do something or that something should be trained a certain way, doesnt mean that anyone else will agree, and again, thats fine.  Chris Parker, who I only know from this forum, and I, have talked about a huge range of things with him, both on the forum and in PM.  We agree, we disagree, but in the end, I don't think less of him or hate him because we disagree.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> And Steve? "Too deadly"? Really? Tell me, how often have you broken someone's arm with an armlock? If you haven't, how do you know if you can pull it off? It's more than just the mechanics, of course...



I see what you're saying Chris.  But, if we think about it, this statement really applies to just about anything in the arts, no?  I mean, unless we actually poke someone in the eye or kick them in the balls, we're not going to know whether we can pull it off or not, no?


----------



## RTKDCMB

MJS said:


> I mean, unless we actually poke someone in the eye or kick them in the balls, we're not going to know whether we can pull it off or not, no?



No matter what training you have there is no way know for sure if anything we learn can be used successfully in a real life self defence situation. We can only think in terms of probabilities. If something does not work us in class then is is highly probable that it will not work outside of it, if something works for us in class then it is often more probable (but not always) that it will work outside as well. During my first 4 or 5 years of training I used the low section block in class to block front kicks, side kicks and training knife stabs and such and it worked quite well quite often. When it actually came time for me to need to use it to stop someone from kicking me in the groin in a real life street fight (well actually car-park), surprise surprise it worked then too (all 3 times in fact) and if that worked then there is a reasonable probability that other things I have used in class will work too, but then nothing is certain.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> Not sure if I commented on this, but I will now.  Let me ask you...why do you care?  I'll say the same thing to you, as I say to others who say what you just did...if you're happy with how you train, if you have no intentions of every leaving your school or training with people who dont train like you, then again, why do you care?  In my 20+yrs of training, trust me when I say, I've seen A LOT of things that are pure crap and more than a little suspect, but ya know what....I really don't care.  Oh sure, knowing that people are giving their hard earned money to BS teachers, makes me shake my head, and I can offer suggestions, but in the end, I know what I do, I know who I train with, and I know what I can/can't do, so really, anything else really means nothing.
> 
> I have my thoughts and methods of how I train things, and many of my training partners share the same views.  But, just because *I* think something is the best way to do something or that something should be trained a certain way, doesnt mean that anyone else will agree, and again, thats fine.  Chris Parker, who I only know from this forum, and I, have talked about a huge range of things with him, both on the forum and in PM.  We agree, we disagree, but in the end, I don't think less of him or hate him because we disagree.



I don't know where you got the idea that I cared or that I "hated" Chris Parker because we disagree on training methods. My response was my personal opinion. Like I've always said, people are free to train anyway they like.


----------



## Hanzou

SENC-33 said:


> If the average ground fighter is going to insist on taking another person to the ground in a self defense situation he/she had better be prepared for more things going wrong than right. A person in a street fight isn't going to tap or yell uncle so you better be prepared to injure them in some form or fashion (if you can even manage to get them in a proper lock). If they have a weapon such as a pocket knife and they are able to get to it good luck to you and if there are multiple attackers willing to jump in you are likely to get hurt badly.......
> 
> Now I know what the response will be....."We train for those situations" and my response is a simple "I doubt it". The majority of BJJ guys have been lured into a false sense of reality because the Gracie's had some success (mostly in a controlled environment)



I'd just like to point out that its pretty hard to reach for a pocket knife when your arms are controlled. Dominant positioning means exactly that.

If they don't tap or scream mercy they go to sleep or their bone snaps. It's pretty simple.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> No matter what training you have there is no way know for sure if anything we learn can be used successfully in a real life self defence situation. We can only think in terms of probabilities. If something does not work us in class then is is highly probable that it will not work outside of it, if something works for us in class then it is often more probable (but not always) that it will work outside as well. During my first 4 or 5 years of training I used the low section block in class to block front kicks, side kicks and training knife stabs and such and it worked quite well quite often. When it actually came time for me to need to use it to stop someone from kicking me in the groin in a real life street fight (well actually car-park), surprise surprise it worked then too (all 3 times in fact) and if that worked then there is a reasonable probability that other things I have used in class will work too, but then nothing is certain.



I agree with you.  I was simply pointing out that the statement made, covers a wide array of things.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> I don't know where you got the idea that I cared or that I "hated" Chris Parker because we disagree on training methods. My response was my personal opinion. Like I've always said, people are free to train anyway they like.



I wasn't implying that you did hate him.  And if people are free to train anyway they like, why are you making the posts that you are??


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> I'd just like to point out that its pretty hard to reach for a pocket knife when your arms are controlled. Dominant positioning means exactly that.
> 
> If they don't tap or scream mercy they go to sleep or their bone snaps. It's pretty simple.


Once they tap, what happens?


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> I wasn't implying that you did hate him.  And if people are free to train anyway they like, why are you making the posts that you are??



You need to be a bit more specific. Which posts are you referring to?



frank raud said:


> Once they tap, what happens?



You transition into a body lock or a pin if you still need to maintain control. If not, you can release, and take a walk.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> You need to be a bit more specific. Which posts are you referring to?



Hmm..oh, lets see:

"Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring."

Like I asked...why do you care whether or not people do/don't do this??


----------



## frank raud

"I don't know where you got the idea that I cared or that I "hated" Chris Parker because we disagree on training methods."
"I was talking about Bjj, not Aikido"
"Where did I say that someone should only be using Triangle Chokes to stop a rape?"
"You misread my quote"
"That was a quote taken out of the context"
"Spinedoc, you've greatly misunderstood my posts if you believe that I want everyone to train in Bjj."
"You missed my point"
"I didn't say that Bjj is more traditional because its more progressive"
"My point, (the one you seem to be missing)"
"I would love to see posts from this thread where I stated or implied any such thing. "
"Please post the quote where I stated or implied that other MAs ain't "_____".  "
"Where did I say that the founder of Goju Ryu never studied Judo?"
"You seem to be, since you keep attributing things to me that I never said"
"I never said any of that"


Reading comprehension, people . Please work on it.​


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> You need to be a bit more specific. Which posts are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> You transition into a body lock or a pin if you still need to maintain control. If not, you can release, and take a walk.


If you take a walk, does the weapon disappear? As the common statement on street defense is the other guy has friends, how long do you want to be tied up with one guy? In the words of Rorion Gracie "More than one, get a gun."


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou said:


> I'd just like to point out that its pretty hard to reach for a pocket knife when your arms are controlled. Dominant positioning means exactly that.
> 
> If they don't tap or scream mercy they go to sleep or their bone snaps. It's pretty simple.



Let me guess you have a youtube video? That's about the extent of your experience in my opinion


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> If you take a walk, does the weapon disappear? As the common statement on street defense is the other guy has friends, how long do you want to be tied up with one guy? In the words of Rorion Gracie "More than one, get a gun."



Considering that I was answering a question about what to do if someone has submitted to you, I would assume in that scenario that the weapon and the friends have already been accounted for.



RTKDCMB said:


> Because people in the non-competitive styles do not go out looking to challenge everyone and get it on camera.



So you think sport-based MA stylists walk around looking for fights? Maybe we just have more active social lives?

As for TKD, I've seen instances where people get knocked out with a well placed kick to the face. I have yet to see someone get tossed through the air via an Aikido throw.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> Hmm..oh, lets see:
> 
> "Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring."
> 
> Like I asked...why do you care whether or not people do/don't do this??



I was under the impression that we were having a discussion about martial arts. Its not about whether I care what people are doing or not doing.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> First - *WHY ARE WE YELLING?*
> 
> 
> just easier hitting bold than doing these colors.
> No it is not, if someone asks you to step out side you can say no. If he waits for you to go outside to go somewhere else and then attacks you, that is a self defence situation.
> 
> ok, what if you walk outside and someone is waiting for you and says he is going to beat you up?
> 
> 
> You were lucky you didn't lose a finger or two, sticking your finger in someones mouth is good way to get your fingers bitten off.
> 
> yeah, or maybe I just know what I'm doing.......
> 
> 
> Yes and matching up Royce Gracie with a boxer silly enough to have one boxing glove and no grappling experience whatsoever, who tapped at the first sign of trouble, whilst matching up Gerrad Gordeu (a striker who almost won the whole event) with 400lb man mountain in the first UFC, that wasn't giving him the easy road at all was it?
> 
> 
> lol, nice try but your sounding very desperate here..... See I'm not the one that made the "easy road claim, you are!  You can bring up Gerrards match ups all you want but you will fail miserably in your attempt.  Teli had little to no actual combat experience and did not go onto become one of the best early UFC fighters of all time, get into the UFC Hall of Fame and is known as a legend of the sport.   Sorry bud, no way to compare Teli to Ken Shamrock.
> 
> So no, as much as I really, really want it to be true, Royce did not get a favorable road to the finals.


:cofeespit:


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> .
> 
> Except forcing someone to submit isn't holding back. If someone surrenders to you, then you've defeated them. Every situation doesn't require you to snap someone's arm in half.
> 
> 
> 
> .




There are accounts of GJJ guys not going for joint locks, but instead blood chokes because there attackers/opponents would have to much adrenaline and continue to attempt to fight with the broken arm,   There also reports of the Gracies getting tired of there attacker/opponents "surrendering", the Gracies letting go of the hold only to have that opponents continue to want to fight.

The solution?  They would blood choke the guy out, then snap his arm while he was asleep.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> So, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.  Please clarify something for me. Going on what you just said, am I safe to assume that you feel that stand up arts have their place?  You then state that style vs style, BJJ is head and shoulders above the rest.  So if that's the case, then why bother with stand up?



Yes standup arts have there place for sure!  I love standup arts!!!

Thing is, there is rarely an art-vs-art battle anymore as most arts are cross training.  BJJ is head and shoulders above IMO, but it is far from complete.  I've stated before my disdain for BJJ's failure to emphasize wrestling type takedowns.

I've also stated way back when in this thread that I think a seasoned, athletic, standup fighter would most likely beat your average sport BJJ Blue Belt.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Yes and matching up Royce Gracie with a boxer silly enough to have one boxing glove and no grappling experience whatsoever, who tapped at the first sign of trouble, whilst matching up Gerrad Gordeu (a striker who almost won the whole event) with 400lb man mountain in the first UFC, that wasn't giving him the easy road at all was it?



That "silly boxer" was a National Golden Gloves champion, and had a record of 29-5 when he fought Gracie at UFC 1. Yeah, he got tooled on the ground, because he never trained to fight on the ground. You really expect a boxer to learn ground fighting?

The idea that Gerrad Gordeu "almost won the whole event" when he tapped out to Gracie in less than 2 minutes is a pretty silly. Once they hit the canvas, it was all over.



TFP said:


> There are accounts of GJJ guys not going for joint locks, but instead blood chokes because there attackers/opponents would have to much adrenaline and continue to attempt to fight with the broken arm, There also reports of the Gracies getting tired of there attacker/opponents "surrendering", the Gracies letting go of the hold only to have that opponents continue to want to fight.
> 
> The solution? They would blood choke the guy out, then snap his arm while he was asleep.



That makes sense, especially since air chokes tend to cause the opponent to panic. Blood chokes tend to be a lot quicker and smoother.

Snapping their arms while they sleep is pretty messed up though. Sounds like something Relson would do.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You transition into a body lock or a pin if you still need to maintain control. If not, you can release, and take a walk.



And then he can be free to attack you again.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> The solution?  They would blood choke the guy out, then snap his arm while he was asleep.



And then it would go from self defence to assault.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> And then he can be free to attack you again.



Possibly, but possibly not. It all depends on the situation. If you really think this guy is going to come at you again, then put him to sleep. Choking someone out is the most humane way of taking someone out of a fight completely. 

I would only cripple someone if it was a last resort.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> That "silly boxer" was a National Golden Gloves champion, and had a record of 29-5 when he fought Gracie at UFC 1. Yeah, he got tooled on the ground, because he never trained to fight on the ground. You really expect a boxer to learn ground fighting?



He may have been an impressive boxer but he was still silly enough to enter a nhb event against a seasoned grappler wearing a single boxing glove.



Hanzou said:


> The idea that Gerrad Gordeu "almost won the whole event" when he tapped out to Gracie in less than 2 minutes is a pretty silly. Once they hit the canvas, it was all over.




You do understand the meaning of the word 'almost' don't you? I would say winning every fight except for the last one to be almost winning the event.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> He may have been an impressive boxer but he was still silly enough to enter a nhb event against a seasoned grappler wearing a single boxing glove.



Cut the guy some slack. No one was really doing ground work back then, not even the arts that had ground work within them. That's how Bjj dominated that tournament; NO ONE was prepared for it.




> You do understand the meaning of the word 'almost' don't you? I would say winning every fight except for the last one to be almost winning the event.



Not when he gets completely dominated in the last fight.


----------



## TFP

Chris Parker said:


> Ooh, shouting. Fun.
> Sorry, I honestly didn't know you guys here took that as "yelling".  It was just easier to do that  than this silly color stuff.
> 
> "One of those guys"? A realist? Sure, yeah, I am. My research and study is into actual, real world violence. And, for the record, I hardly changed my stance mid-sentence, as I'd already said it previously (page 60, post 865). And there are always rules, so no, the idea that "THERE WERE NO RULES!!!!" is frankly marketing, and not reality.
> lol, so silly IMO.
> 
> That's right, it's not a self defence situation, it's a challenge match. It's a step up from what's referred to as the Monkey Dance, and is a form of social violence as opposed to asocial violence (familiar with those terms? If not, you might be a little out of luck in this conversation...). It's not self defence. It's just poor decision making if you actually go out to meet the guy.
> fair enough.  But IMO if you choose to fight and defend yourself that is also a "self defense" situation.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it sounds bizarre, but, well, yeah.
> hmm....
> 
> 
> 
> Er... you did note where I said it wouldn't "immediately defeat a grappler", yeah? And your use of a fishhook doesn't really come into it... as you could only have used it in a grappling situation (close, clinch work).
> yeah sure, but point is it happened.
> 
> 
> You really should remember that I was talking about the initial set-up, yeah? It was an alien aspect of the environment, so such things simply weren't done, but it was used by the grappling/groundfighting competitors.
> 
> ok
> 
> Yep... and what happened? Did you listen to Ken afterwards?
> 
> what?  That b.s. About thinking Royce was a Karate guy?  Total B.S.  Jason Delucia warned Ken backstage before the fight about the Gracies and there were TV's in the locker rooms for Ken to watch Royce's first fight.
> Nice try, but that doesn't change the fact that Royce did not have the easy road that alot of people would like to claim he did.
> 
> Ha! Really? Nope.
> no, that is an actual fact.  It's been discussed and documented over and over as the reason the Gracies stopped fighting in the UFC.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you read things a little closer, then? What I said was that grappling does not mean ground fighting, not that ground fighting isn't grappling... subtle, I know... you might also note that your definitions don't state anything about groundwork either.... in fact, they specifically state "struggle between unarmed contestants who try to throw each other down"... which you can't do unless you're standing, of course. Good try, though.
> 
> No, those both spoke of wrestling, which is ground fighting.  It's fun to hide behind "subtlies" but it doesn't make you look good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> true story.  I'm a fight promoter/Ref/Judge


----------



## TFP

SENC-33 said:


> If the average ground fighter is going to insist on taking another person to the ground in a self defense situation he/she had better be prepared for more things going wrong than right. A person in a street fight isn't going to tap or yell uncle so you better be prepared to injure them in some form or fashion (if you can even manage to get them in a proper lock). If they have a weapon such as a pocket knife and they are able to get to it good luck to you and if there are multiple attackers willing to jump in you are likely to get hurt badly.......
> 
> Now I know what the response will be....."We train for those situations" and my response is a simple "I doubt it". The majority of BJJ guys have been lured into a false sense of reality because the Gracie's had some success (mostly in a controlled environment)



Decent point IMO.


----------



## TFP

frank raud said:


> Once they tap, what happens?



Well that is 100% up to the grappler.  Reread that!  100% up to the guy who is 100% in control.  Like I already stated, the Gracies used to finish the blood choke, then snap the arm of the unconcious attacker so he doesn't wake up embaressed and seek another go-round.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> That makes sense, especially since air chokes tend to cause the opponent to panic. Blood chokes tend to be a lot quicker and smoother.
> 
> Snapping their arms while they sleep is pretty messed up though. Sounds like something Relson would do.



Ha or Ryan!!!!  Had to do with fighting  someone, beating him by choking him out and then them waking up, embarrassed and pissed and re attacking the Gracie fighter.  Maybe a pimp outside a club was the first......


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> just easier hitting bold than doing these colors.



I find it easier to cut and paste the 





> bits at the beginning and end of each remark you want to respond to.
> 
> 
> 
> TFP said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, what if you walk outside and someone is waiting for you and says he is going to beat you up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things, until first attack has begun there is an opportunity to avoid violence but if you believe there is an imminent danger of them attacking you then you can physically defend yourself and then it will be self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> TFP said:
> 
> 
> 
> See I'm not the one that made the "easy road claim, you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wasn't me. The one you were referring to was Chris Parker's post that you responded to in post 1016
> 
> 
> 
> TFP said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can bring up Gerrards match ups all you want but you will fail  miserably in your attempt.  Teli had little to no actual combat  experience and did not go onto become one of the best early UFC fighters  of all time, get into the UFC Hall of Fame and is known as a legend of  the sport.   Sorry bud, no way to compare Teli to Ken Shamrock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then lets compare Kimo (no formal martial arts training) to all the other fighters in the first round of UFC 3.
Click to expand...


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> If you really think this guy is going to come at you again, then put him to sleep.



So why don't you just do that in the first place?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Well that is 100% up to the grappler.  Reread that!  100% up to the guy who is 100% in control.  Like I already stated, the Gracies used to finish the blood choke, then snap the arm of the unconcious attacker so he doesn't wake up embaressed and seek another go-round.



Nobody is ever 100% in control, that kind of control is an illusion.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> So why don't you just do that in the first place?



Because even that isn't necessary all of the time. Sometimes a simple pin or submission will do the trick.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I'd just like to point out that its pretty hard to reach for a pocket knife when your arms are controlled.



The problem is what occurs *before *the arms are controlled.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Well that is 100% up to the grappler.  Reread that!  100% up to the guy who is 100% in control.  Like I already stated, *the Gracies used to finish the blood choke, then snap the arm of the unconcious attacker so he doesn't wake up embaressed and seek another go-round.*


Can you provide any evidence of this? I have looked everywhere I can think of to find even one event where this happened.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> The problem is what occurs *before *the arms are controlled.



This video shows the level of control you have from *guard*. 






Its important to note that guard isn't even a dominant position.


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Nobody is ever 100% in control, that kind of control is an illusion.



I've been literally *100%* controlled before.  I know the feeling and it literally one of themworst feeling ever, especially if the guy controlling you is not respecting the "tap".


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> So you think sport-based MA stylists walk around looking for fights?



Yeah 100's of YouTube videos showing challenge matches, including the many you have posted have shown that to be true.



Hanzou said:


> As for TKD, I've seen instances where people get knocked out with a well placed kick to the face. I have yet to see someone get tossed through the air via an Aikido throw.



And please enlighten us on how many fights involving Aikido you have seen.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> Can you provide any evidence of this? I have looked everywhere I can think of to find even one event where this happened.



This wasn't at "an event".  The accounts I heard were streetlights/self defense matters (I know Chris says the Gracies sand GJJ doesn't actual do this).  I will try and find the interviews again, but basically the main one was outside a night club.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> I was under the impression that we were having a discussion about martial arts. Its not about whether I care what people are doing or not doing.



Well, it is about whether or not you care, when you make the comments that you're making.  Furthermore, I'm not the only one that's saying it to you.  K-Man has pointed it out many times.  You just don't want to admit it.  Additionally, I really haven't seen too many on topic posts from you.  Your current ones are the same nature that you've made in that other thread.


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> This wasn't at "an event".  The accounts I heard were streetlights/self defense matters (I know Chris says the Gracies sand GJJ doesn't actual do this).  I will try and find the interviews again, but basically the main one was outside a night club.



Well, unless it was on a youtube video, it can't have happened.....:roflmao:


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Yes standup arts have there place for sure!  I love standup arts!!!
> 
> Thing is, there is rarely an art-vs-art battle anymore as most arts are cross training.  BJJ is head and shoulders above IMO, but it is far from complete.  I've stated before my disdain for BJJ's failure to emphasize wrestling type takedowns.
> 
> I've also stated way back when in this thread that I think a seasoned, athletic, standup fighter would most likely beat your average sport BJJ Blue Belt.



Ok, thank you for your reply!   Let me ask you this...why do you feel that the seasoned stand up fighter would beat the average BJJ blue belt?  Due to lack of experience in the finer points of BJJ?  What if it was a BJJ purple?


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


>



Just a quick off topic note.  I believe the yelling comments stemmed from the all caps, not the bold color.  

Back to our regularly scheduled cluster.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


>



no, that is an actual fact.  It's been discussed and documented over and over as the reason the Gracies stopped fighting in the UFC.


So, what is the real reason why they stopped fighting?


----------



## TFP

Spinedoc said:


> Well, unless it was on a youtube video, it can't have happened.....:roflmao:



Touche':highfive:


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Ok, thank you for your reply!   Let me ask you this...why do you feel that the seasoned stand up fighter would beat the average BJJ blue belt?  Due to lack of experience in the finer points of BJJ?  What if it was a BJJ purple?



IMO it's more a sport vs. Fighting experience issue than it is a BJJ as an art issue.

I feel that BJJ is getting very watered down with the insane growth of Sport BJJ.  I think someone who is athletic and has actually been in some serious fights whom has some skill is going to be dangerous for your average Blue Belt to contain and control.

You have to realize that the scene in a BJJ gym in North America is vastly different than one in Brazil.  In BJJ and even MMA gyms you used to have young 20 year old Lions,  now you mostly have 35yr old office workers.

The whole business model/ way of running a BJJ program has changed drastically because of this.


No, a purple IMO would do pretty well!   Most Blues don't have to go hard vs Browns and up, are somewhat coddled, purples are thrown to the fire over and over vs. Browns and Blacks.


This is all just opinion of course!


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> I find it easier to cut and paste the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then lets compare Kimo (no formal martial arts training) to all the other fighters in the first round of UFC 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!   First off I'm not sure if just UFC's 1 and 2 were a lottery bracket (meaning random seeding) or if UFC 3 was also random or if they were chosen Brackets.
> 
> i would guess chosen as it seems they wanted Royce on one side and Ken in the other.
> 
> now onto Kimo was not untrained in martial arts.  He was actually a very accomplished amateur wrestler and played college football as a Linebacker and was a known street fighter.  Now on Royce's side was Kimo Who we discussed and Harold Howard who IMO was a stud and a very accomplished fighter with a wealth of experience actually competing on a national level in both Karate and Jiu-Jitsu!  He was 6'2", 240lbs.  ( I really wish we could have seen him and Royce go at it both fresh.  I think he would of given Royce a run for his money).  The guy was a Jiu-Jitsu champion and instructor to go along with his standup fighting and he was simple a game fighter.
> 
> thats a tough Bracket!
> 
> now on the other side you had Ken, Yarbough ( somewhat a joke), Keith Hackney (similar to Howard IMO) and Leninger a legit competitor and grappler.
> 
> i honestly think both sides of the Bracket were very even.  And if you look at the history you would have to agree.  Hackney, Kimo, Royce, Ken all went on to have success in the UFC and NHB.
Click to expand...


----------



## TFP

Also
for the post to MJS (you can't edit your posts after 60 minutes on this site!?!?). I wanted to mention that as an average Blue Belt most have not mastered there holds yet in a live roll let alone a real hyper aggressive adrenaline rush of a real fight where someone is trying to hurt you!   As an average Blue you are getting good at defending and positional dominance tho.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> Also
> for the post to MJS (you can't edit your posts after 60 minutes on this site!?!?). I wanted to mention that as an average Blue Belt most have not mastered there holds yet in a live roll let alone a real hyper aggressive adrenaline rush of a real fight where someone is trying to hurt you! As an average Blue you are getting good at defending and positional dominance tho.



Yeah, that's incorrect. By the time you reach Blue belt, you should have been in Bjj for about 2 years. The stuff you're talking about (learning holds in a live roll, getting good at defending, positional dominance) is handled while you're a white belt. In my school, 2-3 stripe Blue belts are pretty much junior instructors, teaching brand new students the basics. 

If you're going to a Bjj school worth its salt, you should be able to handle most SD situations by the time you hit Blue.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> IMO it's more a sport vs. Fighting experience issue than it is a BJJ as an art issue.
> 
> I feel that BJJ is getting very watered down with the insane growth of Sport BJJ.  I think someone who is athletic and has actually been in some serious fights whom has some skill is going to be dangerous for your average Blue Belt to contain and control.
> 
> You have to realize that the scene in a BJJ gym in North America is vastly different than one in Brazil.  In BJJ and even MMA gyms you used to have young 20 year old Lions,  now you mostly have 35yr old office workers.
> 
> The whole business model/ way of running a BJJ program has changed drastically because of this.
> 
> 
> No, a purple IMO would do pretty well!   Most Blues don't have to go hard vs Browns and up, are somewhat coddled, purples are thrown to the fire over and over vs. Browns and Blacks.
> 
> 
> This is all just opinion of course!






TFP said:


> Also
> for the post to MJS (you can't edit your posts after 60 minutes on this site!?!?). I wanted to mention that as an average Blue Belt most have not mastered there holds yet in a live roll let alone a real hyper aggressive adrenaline rush of a real fight where someone is trying to hurt you!   As an average Blue you are getting good at defending and positional dominance tho.



Thanks for your replies!   Regarding what you said in the difference between the gyms here and Brazil, do you feel that that would make a difference with the blue belts there or about the same as here?  As for the forum posts...yes, there is a time limit.  It's interesting what you say about the blues though.  I get the impression from other posts, that a blue is going to be just as much as a terror as a higher rank.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that's incorrect. By the time you reach Blue belt, you should have been in Bjj for about 2 years. The stuff you're talking about (learning holds in a live roll, getting good at defending, positional dominance) is handled while you're a white belt. In my school, 2-3 stripe Blue belts are pretty much junior instructors, teaching brand new students the basics.
> 
> If you're going to a Bjj school worth its salt, you should be able to handle most SD situations by the time you hit Blue.



Lol, it's interesting that you mention a school worth it's salt and in the same breath mention blue belts as "junior instructors".   IMO that's kinda an oxymoron.   Unless your talking about having a couple seasoned Blues take the brand new guys aside to teach them some very basic fundamentals so that the knew guys don't hold up the rest of the class.

i guess really it just depends on the quality of the school, the number of colored belts, etc.   But no, having Blue belts teach moves does in fact not speak highly of the "salt if your school".

now I could go and find sources of numerous high level guys stating what you should be focusing on as a blue and what the blue belt level is all about and it's exactly what I said.  You should know your positional defense and escapes and have a good grasp of submission defense.   Now of course in the typical North American culture of instant gratification you have a ton if white belts and early blue belts working on there Berimbolo and inverted Del la Riva guards..... And not focusing on there basic techniques.   

But it this doesn't change the fact about what a Blue Belt should be.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Thanks for your replies!   Regarding what you said in the difference between the gyms here and Brazil, do you feel that that would make a difference with the blue belts there or about the same as here?  As for the forum posts...yes, there is a time limit.  It's interesting what you say about the blues though.  I get the impression from other posts, that a blue is going to be just as much as a terror as a higher rank.




Imo the Blues in Brazil for the most part are much better, much more seasoned and take a lot longer to get.  The whole way belts are given out is changing for North America!  

 How could anyone think a Blue Belt is going to be as much of a terror as a Purple or Brown!?   I mean if course there are some stud Blues out there who beat Purples and gives Browns a good roll.   But if your gym is doing it right, no the Blues arnt beating up on the Purples and Browns.

remember the time someone is at each belt is important to keep in mind!  Each belt color is a couple years to get thru, so one Blue May be 3 months into that color as another Blue is a year and a half.   Those two blues should be vastly different in skill.

BLUE BELT-

<________1____________________________2___________>

fighter 2 is so much farther along in his Blue Belt experience than fighter 1.  They are both Blue but there skill
le so should be different.

dont get me wrong, blue belts are tough for sure and have learned enough to defend themselves against untrained attackers for sure.  I'm not saying your average Blue Belt can't defend himself or won't choke you out.  

Im im saying your average North American Blue belt who comes in to train 2 maybe 3 times a week for an hour each time and who has never been in an actual fight may be in for a surprise.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Imo the Blues in Brazil for the most part are much better, much more seasoned and take a lot longer to get.  The whole way belts are given out is changing for North America!




I'd say you're probably spot on.  I'd say the same thing about the stand up arts as well.  During my journey, up until 2yrs, ago, all of my teachers were American.  My current teacher is Japanese.  He's definitely old school.  What you said about the belts in Brazil, holds true for my teacher.   



> How could anyone think a Blue Belt is going to be as much of a terror as a Purple or Brown!?   I mean if course there are some stud Blues out there who beat Purples and gives Browns a good roll.   But if your gym is doing it right, no the Blues arnt beating up on the Purples and Browns.



LOL!  How could anyone think that?  All you have to do is just read a few of the posts in this thread, and you'll see it. And to clarify, I'm not part of a BJJ gym...at least not currently.  Down the road..who knows. 



> remember the time someone is at each belt is important to keep in mind!  Each belt color is a couple years to get thru, so one Blue May be 3 months into that color as another Blue is a year and a half.   Those two blues should be vastly different in skill.
> 
> BLUE BELT-
> 
> <________1____________________________2___________>
> 
> fighter 2 is so much farther along in his Blue Belt experience than fighter 1.  They are both Blue but there skill
> le so should be different.
> 
> dont get me wrong, blue belts are tough for sure and have learned enough to defend themselves against untrained attackers for sure.  I'm not saying your average Blue Belt can't defend himself or won't choke you out.
> 
> Im im saying your average North American Blue belt who comes in to train 2 maybe 3 times a week for an hour each time and who has never been in an actual fight may be in for a surprise.



Ok.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> Lol, it's interesting that you mention a school worth it's salt and in the same breath mention blue belts as "junior instructors".   IMO that's kinda an oxymoron.   Unless your talking about having a couple seasoned Blues take the brand new guys aside to teach them some very basic fundamentals so that the knew guys don't hold up the rest of the class.



That's exactly what I said. Also that shouldn't be too far out of the ordinary since a purple belt (the belt after blue) can teach a class of white and blue belts.

Hence;



> Purple belt is the intermediate adult ranking in Brazilian jiu-jitsu.[SUP][2][/SUP] The purple belt level practitioner has gained a large amount of knowledge, and purple belts are generally considered qualified to instruct lower ranked students. In other martial arts, students with a similar amount of experience are often ranked as a black (instructor) level belt.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_jiu-jitsu_ranking_system



> i guess really it just depends on the quality of the school, the number of colored belts, etc.   But no, having Blue belts teach moves does in fact not speak highly of the "salt if your school".



Yet you just said this;



> Unless your talking about having a couple seasoned Blues take the brand new guys aside to teach them some very basic fundamentals so that the knew guys don't hold up the rest of the class.



So which is it chief?



> now I could go and find sources of numerous high level guys stating what you should be focusing on as a blue and what the blue belt level is all about and it's exactly what I said.  You should know your positional defense and escapes and have a good grasp of submission defense.   Now of course in the typical North American culture of instant gratification you have a ton if white belts and early blue belts working on there Berimbolo and inverted Del la Riva guards..... And not focusing on there basic techniques.
> 
> But it this doesn't change the fact about what a Blue Belt should be.



A Blue belt should be able to handle themselves in most SD situations...

Unless your school puts out substandard blue belts.


----------



## Dirty Dog

_*Attention all users:
*_
Threads such as this one have a tendency to get people fired up. This is not a bad thing. Not at all. Passion is good.

However, when those passions lead to people ignoring that banner up there that says "*Friendly Martial Arts Community*", they need to be curbed in.

This thread has resulted in quite a few reported posts. The members of the moderation team have posted several reminders and attempted to nudge the thread back into the realm of friendly discussion.

In short, the sniping, the pot shots and the general unfriendliness need to stop.

Thank you,

Mark Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> That's exactly what I said. Also that shouldn't be too far out of the ordinary since a purple belt (the belt after blue) can teach a class of white and blue belts.
> Maybe I miss understood you.  I think of "junior instructor" as someone who teaches, not the most trusted couple Blues who can take a few noobs aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you just said this;
> 
> yes a purple can teach, not really a Blue unless your school is lacking higher belts.  Thus your school isn't as "Salty" as it should be!
> 
> 
> So which is it chief?
> 
> Purple teach, Blue.......... Not so much
> 
> 
> A Blue belt should be able to handle themselves in most SD situations...
> 
> Unless your school puts out substandard blue belts.
> 
> 
> [/Qthey maybe "should be able to" but I honestly question if they can.  It's not a slight on BJJUOTE]


----------



## TFP

Dirty Dog said:


> _*Attention all users:
> *_
> Threads such as this one have a tendency to get people fired up. This is not a bad thing. Not at all. Passion is good.
> 
> However, when those passions lead to people ignoring that banner up there that says "*Friendly Martial Arts Community*", they need to be curbed in.
> 
> This thread has resulted in quite a few reported posts. The members of the moderation team have posted several reminders and attempted to nudge the thread back into the realm of friendly discussion.
> 
> In short, the sniping, the pot shots and the general unfriendliness need to stop.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Mark Cochran
> Dirty Dog
> MT Senior Moderator




Sounds good,  I'm slowly learning what is Ok and what isn't.


----------



## TFP

Really awesome VID I just found.  Some of younmay have seen it, but it's new to me.

Two neat things here....

1. A great example of how most fights actually go to the ground.  You have two of the premier Kung Fu fighters in the world and the fight hits the ground over and over and over.

2. Watch till the end to see why being on the ground ain't always a good thing.

[YT]xnfDeUJkXrQ[/YT]


Badass one armed Akido fighter putting it on line in a NHB fight.
[YT]pLqovX4G8Z0[/YT]


----------



## Spinedoc

TFP said:


> Really awesome VID I just found.  Some of younmay have seen it, but it's new to me.
> 
> Two neat things here....
> 
> 1. A great example of how most fights actually go to the ground.  You have two of the premier Kung Fu fighters in the world and the fight hits the ground over and over and over.
> 
> 2. Watch till the end to see why being on the ground ain't always a good thing.
> 
> [YT]xnfDeUJkXrQ[/YT]
> 
> 
> Badass one armed Akido fighter putting it on line in a NHB fight.
> [YT]pLqovX4G8Z0[/YT]



You need to show the conclusion to that one armed Aikido fighters fight......Check it out.....pretty bad ***.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Minor technical clarification:
He is not one armed. He is one HANDED. There is at least some portion of the arm. I can't say for sure from these videos, but I would say most likely an amputation at the elbow.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Really awesome VID I just found.  Some of younmay have seen it, but it's new to me.
> 
> Two neat things here....
> 
> 1. A great example of how most fights actually go to the ground.  You have two of the premier Kung Fu fighters in the world and the fight hits the ground over and over and over.
> 
> 2. Watch till the end to see why being on the ground ain't always a good thing
> 
> Badass one armed Akido fighter putting it on line in a NHB fight.





Spinedoc said:


> You need to show the conclusion to that one armed Aikido fighters fight......Check it out.....pretty bad ***.


Damn it guys! Why did you post those vids? Everyone knows Aikido doesn't work, so why go and dispel that illusion?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Damn it guys! Why did you post those vids? Everyone knows Aikido doesn't work, so why go and dispel that illusion?



Looks like he proved the Gracies right. Take the stronger opponent to the ground, control him, and submit him.


----------



## TFP

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that's incorrect. By the time you reach Blue belt, you should have been in Bjj for about 2 years. The stuff you're talking about (learning holds in a live roll, getting good at defending, positional dominance) is handled while you're a white belt. In my school, 2-3 stripe Blue belts are pretty much junior instructors, teaching brand new students the basics.
> 
> If you're going to a Bjj school worth its salt, you should be able to handle most SD situations by the time you hit Blue.



read and learn my friend!
http://www.onthemat.com/articles/Progression_in_Brazilian_JiuJitsu_10_13_2005.html


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Looks like he proved the Gracies right. Take the stronger opponent to the ground, control him, and submit him.


Hmm! Maybe the Gracies took something from Aikido. Daito Ryu was around a long time before them and Aikido is distilled Daito Ryu.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Hmm! Maybe the Gracies took something from Aikido. Daito Ryu was around a long time before them and Aikido is distilled Daito Ryu.



LoL! Doubtful since Bjj and Aikido are about the same age. 

You don't find something wrong with an Aikidoka doing what essentially looks like sloppy Judo and Bjj? What happened to all that Steven Segal stuff?

If thats the result why do Aikido? Just do Judo or Bjj.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> You don't find something wrong with an Aikidoka doing what essentially looks like sloppy Judo and Bjj? What happened to all that Steven Segal stuff?
> 
> If thats the result why do Aikido? Just do Judo or Bjj.


Most BJJ and Judo done "live" and "under pressure" looks sloppy.


----------



## Hanzou

lklawson said:


> Most BJJ and Judo done "live" and "under pressure" looks sloppy.



Or like randori in class....


----------



## Kframe

I noticed that he had nearly complete control of the stand up. He did eat a few shots, but I attribute that to the lack of a hand. He pretty much could toss that guy at will. Truly awesome video..


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> LoL! Doubtful since Bjj and Aikido are about the same age.
> 
> You don't find something wrong with an Aikidoka doing what essentially looks like sloppy Judo and Bjj? What happened to all that Steven Segal stuff?
> 
> If thats the result why do Aikido? Just do Judo or Bjj.


Why do you keep bagging Aikido when you know nothing about it?  Don't you know Aikido has finishes that go to the ground? 

My comment was a throw away line as there is absolutely no link between what the Aikido guy did and BJJ save that he finished with an arm bar common to many arts. Most contests are 'sloppy' at the best of times. Competing with a disability even more so. But rather than say "That was a really good effort", you call what he did sloppy Judo and BJJ. 
:idunno:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Why do you keep bagging Aikido when you know nothing about it?  Don't you know Aikido has finishes that go got the ground?
> 
> My comment was a throw away line as there is absolutely no link between what the Aikido guy did and BJJ save that he finished with an arm bar common to many arts. Most contests are 'sloppy' at the best of times. Competing with a disability even more so. But rather than say "That was a really good effort", you call what he did sloppy Judo and BJJ.
> :idunno:



I'm simply asking why Aikido in combat looks nothing like Aikido in demonstration. Is this;

http://youtu.be/VneLI4fcMUk?t=23s

Simply make believe?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I'm simply asking why Aikido in combat looks nothing like Aikido in demonstration. Is this;
> 
> http://youtu.be/VneLI4fcMUk?t=23s
> 
> Simply make believe?


Where have you seen aikido in combat to make that statement?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Where have you seen aikido in combat to make that statement?



The one-armed Aikidoka vid that was posted earlier for starters.

However, if you have some video to the contrary, I'd love to see it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The one-armed Aikidoka vid that was posted earlier for starters.
> 
> However, if you have some video to the contrary, I'd love to see it.



Oh so a few clips on YouTube makes you an expert I guess I forgot that


----------



## Kframe

Hanzou why cant you give that One armed guy some props man? How can you not see any aikido in that video when I clearly saw it and I don't even practice it..   The takes downs he uses for starters, are definitely not Judo or wrestling takedowns. Especially the last 3 in the second video I most enjoyed the single arm to throat take down he did. 

Secondly the way he was moving was different then anything I have seen in my experience with mma.  His striking was also very aikido'ish, as he used them to set up his takedowns.. 

Fact remains he controlled that fight, and made the other dude look like a chump, and you still cant give him any props?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm simply asking why Aikido in combat looks nothing like Aikido in demonstration. Is this;
> 
> http://youtu.be/VneLI4fcMUk?t=23s
> 
> Simply make believe?



Again and again you post rubbish and again you dis aikido. Seagal training for an MMA fight like that? Come on! The guys with him were taking Ukemi. I will repeat for you, ukemi is part of 'blending' that is a huge part of Aikido training. Those guys are not being 'thrown'. If you had the slightest understanding of Aikido you might understand the training methodologies. You are fixed in your mind so that even when people try to explain things to you, you don't take it on board.



Hanzou said:


> The one-armed Aikidoka vid that was posted earlier for starters.
> 
> However, if you have some video to the contrary, I'd love to see it.


Again you are bashing Aikido against forum rules. (1.10.2 No Art bashing.) give it a break, it is getting tedious.


----------



## jks9199

lklawson said:


> Most BJJ and Judo done "live" and "under pressure" looks sloppy.



Most anything done "live and under pressure" ends up looking considerably sloppier than when done on a complaint partner...

The question becomes are the elements and principles identifiably present in their actions.


----------



## Steve

If I say that the aikidoka was awesome, can I point out that the other guy wasn't very good on the ground without seeming like a defensive nuthugger?  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kframe

Steve said:


> If I say that the aikidoka was awesome, can I point out that the other guy wasn't very good on the ground without seeming like a defensive nuthugger?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I was wondering when this would pop up. The inevitable "well he was a crappy mixed martial artist" statement.  The exact same statement TMA usually give when they are shown a example of there guys getting whomper stomped.   

Yes I agree, he didn't look spectacular. I wonder if it was staged?? He didn't throw any low round kicks, very few if any kicks at all. His punch's were limited and he didn't do anything other then 1/2.    

Yes he sucked, but however, he had a massive advantage in the working use of 2 hands. Still give mad props to the aikidoka for his amazing showing..


----------



## Spinedoc

Steve said:


> If I say that the aikidoka was awesome, can I point out that the other guy wasn't very good on the ground without seeming like a defensive nuthugger?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD




No, you can say that. The point is, taking Ukemi is an integral part of Aikido training. Trying to point to a training video and then say...."well, wait, it doesn't look like that in a real fight"...is ignoring the art behind Aikido. 

Think of it this way......In any activity, it can often look better in practice. I think the best example for Aikido is the NFL.

Here's why. Have you ever been in, or watched an NFL practice? It's boring.....and plays look perfect. Why? Cause the QB is redshirted, and the other players aren't playing at "full contact" most of the time....Plus, you have to work out the plays, so you run them, and man, you can have a horrible QB or RB look like the best player in the world during practice. But, when you watch those same plays in an actual game? They never look perfect, receivers get knocked off their routes, QB gets hit or pressured, ball is coming out late, and often loopy or slightly off on the pass. Still works, but nowhere CLOSE to as beautiful in practice. 

Aikido is like that. And it works, and until you spend time training in Aikido, and learning the art behind it, you won't ever understand. BTW, I found out something important at Aikido last night....

That is, when Nikyo is applied perfectly......it friggin hurts like hell. Jeepers.

Mike


----------



## Steve

That's all good guys.  But there was one point in the second clip where the aikidoka had the guy in a bully style head lock on the mat.  The MMA guy had a deep undertook and literally all he had to do to reverse position was to turn his hips over and clear his head.  I was like, "noooooooo!!!!!!  Take the back!!!!!!!"

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> That's all good guys.  But there was one point in the second clip where the aikidoka had the guy in a bully style head lock on the mat.  The MMA guy had a deep undertook and literally all he had to do to reverse position was to turn his hips over and clear his head.  I was like, "noooooooo!!!!!!  Take the back!!!!!!!"


I think that we have to accept not all Aikidoka are like Steven Seagal, not all BJJ guys are like Royce Gracie, not all Kung Fu guys are like Bruce Lee and not all Karate guys are like Chuck Norris. Most of us train to be the best we can be at what we do. Some of us might be overweight, some might be older, some might live with disability. Most of us have no desire to compete in competition and we all have different motivation for training which may even influence the style of martial art we have chosen. I would never post anything on YouTube as it will always be taken out of context by some idiot trying to make a point. 

We were discussing it at Aikido this morning. People post stuff that yells, "look at me", and I might look and cringe. The person who has posted the video reckons that what they were doing was great, but I look at it from a different perspective and say that was not right, or that was not realistic or that will never work ... and that is from someone who trains in that system. But what really pisses me off is when there is material that is good technique that demonstrates balance and timing and is an example of good training and someone with no training in the style rubbishes it.

The thing that is important though is, no matter how terrible the video, it is not representative of the system it portrays and even more important, the person in the video has got up off his ****, gone down to a dojo and started training unlike the millions of couch potatoes and armchair experts who have nothing better to do with their time than to criticise others.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido is like that. And it works, and until you spend time training in Aikido, and learning the art behind it, you won't ever understand. BTW, I found out something important at Aikido last night....
> 
> That is, when Nikyo is applied perfectly......it friggin hurts like hell. Jeepers.
> 
> Mike


Can't wait to hear your comment when they apply yonkyo perfectly!


----------



## Spinedoc

K-man said:


> I think that we have to accept not all Aikidoka are like Steven Seagal, not all BJJ guys are like Royce Gracie, not all Kung Fu guys are like Bruce Lee and not all Karate guys are like Chuck Norris. Most of us train to be the best we can be at what we do. Some of us might be overweight, some might be older, some might live with disability. Most of us have no desire to compete in competition and we all have different motivation for training which may even influence the style of martial art we have chosen. I would never post anything on YouTube as it will always be taken out of context by some idiot trying to make a point.
> 
> We were discussing it at Aikido this morning. People post stuff that yells, "look at me", and I might look and cringe. The person who has posted the video reckons that what they were doing was great, but I look at it from a different perspective and say that was not right, or that was not realistic or that will never work ... and that is from someone who trains in that system. But what really pisses me off is when there is material that is good technique that demonstrates balance and timing and is an example of good training and someone with no training in the style rubbishes it.
> 
> The thing that is important though is, no matter how terrible the video, it is not representative of the system it portrays and even more important, the person in the video has got up off his ****, gone down to a dojo and started training unlike the millions of couch potatoes and armchair experts who have nothing better to do with their time than to criticise others.
> :asian:



One of the things that has always attracted me to Aikido was the humility that is implicit within the art. Summarized by O'Sensei....:

_"Bury me wearing the white belt, so I will forever know I am a beginner". Morihei Ueshiba._


----------



## Hanzou

Kframe said:


> I was wondering when this would pop up. The inevitable "well he was a crappy mixed martial artist" statement.  The exact same statement TMA usually give when they are shown a example of there guys getting whomper stomped.
> 
> Yes I agree, he didn't look spectacular. I wonder if it was staged?? He didn't throw any low round kicks, very few if any kicks at all. His punch's were limited and he didn't do anything other then 1/2.
> 
> Yes he sucked, but however, he had a massive advantage in the working use of 2 hands. Still give mad props to the aikidoka for his amazing showing..



There are many MMA fighters who have limited to zero ground fighting training.

As I said before, this fight merely proves the Gracies right. The Aikidoka couldn't compete in taking shots, so he took him to the mat where he had the advantage over a stronger opponent.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> No, you can say that. The point is, taking Ukemi is an integral part of Aikido training. Trying to point to a training video and then say...."well, wait, it doesn't look like that in a real fight"...is ignoring the art behind Aikido.
> 
> Aikido is like that. And it works, and until you spend time training in Aikido, and learning the art behind it, you won't ever understand.



Well then why is Bjj or Judo not like that? For example, Royce Gracie, Anderson Silva, Chris Holdsworth, and Rhonda Rousey's takedowns and submissions look like something straight out of a Judo/Bjj textbook or demonstration. 

Kman stated that everyone can't do Aikido like Steven Seagal. I'm starting to wonder if even Steven Seagal can do Aikido like Steven Seagal. This includes competition Aikido which also looks nothing like demonstration Aikido, or textbook Aikido. 

Why is this the case?

When NFL players play football, it DOES look like textbook or demonstration football. And you see some truly beautiful plays when everything works out for the offense or the defense. So yeah, your comparison was pretty terrible.


----------



## SENC-33

Hanzou why don't you just post some youtube video of yourself? Lets see how great YOUR ground work is.......It would give you the perfect opportunity to promote the gracie family as well.


----------



## Hanzou

Kframe said:


> Hanzou why cant you give that One armed guy some props man? How can you not see any aikido in that video when I clearly saw it and I don't even practice it..   The takes downs he uses for starters, are definitely not Judo or wrestling takedowns. Especially the last 3 in the second video I most enjoyed the single arm to throat take down he did.
> 
> Secondly the way he was moving was different then anything I have seen in my experience with mma.  His striking was also very aikido'ish, as he used them to set up his takedowns..
> 
> Fact remains he controlled that fight, and made the other dude look like a chump, and you still cant give him any props?



I disagree with you. The takedowns he was using were definitely Judo/Wrestling takedowns. Why? Because in every case he went down with his opponent and immediately entered side control. You ever see any demonstrations of Aikidoka wrestling their opponent to the ground, then immediately laying on top of them, and begin fighting them on the ground? I thought the point of Aikido ground fighting was to get up as quickly as possible? Also where were the wrist grabs? Where were those spectacular throws? Instead, the Aikidoka griped his opponents shirt, neck, arm, elbow, and reaped his foot over and over again. That's a good old fashion Judo/Bjj takedown bro.

As for giving the one-armed man "props", sure, I'll give him credit for showing that the main fighting philosophy behind Bjj is one that is proven over and over again.


----------



## Kframe

Hanzou said:


> I disagree with you. The takedowns he was using were definitely Judo/Wrestling takedowns. Why? Because in every case he went down with his opponent and immediately entered side control. You ever see any demonstrations of Aikidoka wrestling their opponent to the ground, then immediately laying on top of them, and begin fighting them on the ground? I thought the point of Aikido ground fighting was to get up as quickly as possible? Also where were the wrist grabs? Where were those spectacular throws? Instead, the Aikidoka griped his opponents shirt, neck, arm, elbow, and reaped his foot over and over again. That's a good old fashion Judo/Bjj takedown bro.
> 
> As for giving the one-armed man "props", sure, I'll give him credit for showing that the main fighting philosophy behind Bjj is one that is proven over and over again.



You cant seriously think that those were judo take downs? Go back and watch that video you posted about aikido throws and educate your self.  Judo does not have a monopoly on being in side control after a throw..


----------



## Hanzou

Kframe said:


> You cant seriously think that those were judo take downs? Go back and watch that video you posted about aikido throws and educate your self.



LoL! Okay then, please show me some Aikido reaping throws. I'll even help you out, they look something like this;


http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/kouchigari.htm
http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/kosotogari.htm
http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/osotogari.htm

If you need to refer back to the video, they were performed at 0:54 in the first video, and about 1:02 in the second video. 

The point? Reaping throws are practical, and easy to pull off. Much easier than catching someone's wrist in midair and putting them in a wrist lock.



> Judo does not have a monopoly on being in side control after a throw..



The point is that when the poop hits the fan, both guys clinch, wrestle each other to the ground, and get into a submission fight. 

The Aikidoka's guillotine attempt for example.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Kman stated that everyone can't do Aikido like Steven Seagal. I'm starting to wonder if even Steven Seagal can do Aikido like Steven Seagal. .



 I am pretty sure Steven Seagal can do everything thing like Steven Seagal considering he is Steven Seagal, unless he is not feeling himself. :hmm:


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> When NFL players play football, it DOES look like textbook or demonstration football. And *you see some truly beautiful plays when everything works out* for the offense or the defense. So yeah, your comparison was pretty terrible.



Exactly....now how often does that actually happen. These players are all good enough that broken plays can still look good. The point is, they never, EVER look as good as practice. QB's don't get hit or knocked down in practice.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> LoL! Okay then, please show me some Aikido reaping throws. I'll even help you out, they look something like this;
> 
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/kouchigari.htm
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/kosotogari.htm
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/osotogari.htm



I hate to burst your bubble but those techniques are not exclusive to Judo. Each one of those is basically a leg sweep found in a multitude of martial arts including mine.



Hanzou said:


> The point? Reaping throws are practical, and easy to pull off. Much easier than catching someone's wrist in midair and putting them in a wrist lock.



Practical - usually, easy - not always and it does put you in convenient punching or stabbing distance of your attacker. A wrist lock can put you in a safer position against getting hit or stabbed and they usually hurt them more. And they are not that hard to pull off when you know what you are doing.



Hanzou said:


> The Aikidoka's guillotine attempt for example.



Not a technique exclusive to MMA or BJJ.



Hanzou said:


> Aikido certainly doesn't do it.



And you would know because you are an expert in Aikido?


----------



## RTKDCMB

SENC-33 said:


> Hanzou why don't you just post some youtube video of yourself? Lets see how great YOUR ground work is.......It would give you the perfect opportunity to promote the gracie family as well.



I have asked him that on several occasions but lying down and thinking about how other martial arts suck is not ground work.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> Exactly....now how often does that actually happen. These players are all good enough that broken plays can still look good. The point is, they never, EVER look as good as practice. QB's don't get hit or knocked down in practice.



That depends on the teams playing. Take the recent Florida St vs Duke game. Florida completely dominated Duke, and the quarterback was rarely touched. It looked like Florida was having a practice.

Again, it's a terrible comparison. Football practice resembles actual football play. Aikido practice doesn't resemble actual Aikido in play at all.


----------



## ballen0351

Have you all not learned by now if its a take down its judo it doesn't matter of your art has a similar or the same takedown its Judo that it no ifs ands or buts

If its a ground technique its BJJ it doesn't matter if your art has the same thing its BJJ.  Even if its Judo it's not Judo its BJJ well unless it didn't work then its something else but if it worked its BJJ.  
Get with the program guys.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I hate to burst your bubble but those techniques are not exclusive to Judo. Each one of those is basically a leg sweep found in a multitude of martial arts including mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Practical - usually, easy - not always and it does put you in convenient punching or stabbing distance of your attacker. A wrist lock can put you in a safer position against getting hit or stabbed and they usually hurt them more. And they are not that hard to pull off when you know what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a technique exclusive to MMA or BJJ.
> 
> 
> 
> And you would know because you are an expert in Aikido?



We're diverging from the point. The point is that when we enter an actual fight situation, the standing opponents clinch, and then attempt to take each other to the ground and attempt to dominate each other.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> We're diverging from the point. The point is that when we enter an actual fight situation, the standing opponents clinch, and then attempt to take each other to the ground and attempt to dominate each other.


No they don't your just wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No they don't your just wrong.



It happened in that Aikido vs MMA vid, It happened at the UFC, it's happened in numerous street fighting vids, and it happens in boxing and MMA. It happens over and over again.


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> That depends on the teams playing. Take the recent Florida St vs Duke game. Florida completely dominated Duke, and the quarterback was rarely touched. It looked like Florida was having a practice.
> 
> Again, it's a terrible comparison. Football practice resembles actual football play. Aikido practice doesn't resemble actual Aikido in play at all.



How do you know?  What are you basing your statement on?  For that matter -- did you play football growing up?  There's plenty of parts of football practice that have only a slight resemblance to game play -- like linemen driving a blocking sled around.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> We're diverging from the point. The point is that when we enter an actual fight situation, the standing opponents clinch, and then attempt to take each other to the ground and attempt to dominate each other.



By actual fight situation you are describing is either a sporting contest, a fight between 2 people who do MMA (or BJJ) or two unskilled opponents. Both of those last two can look the same to someone who does not know much about MMA or BJJ. That is half of your problem, trying to make sense of martial arts like Aikido and Goju and not truly understanding what you are actually looking at.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> It happened in that Aikido vs MMA vid, It happened at the UFC, it's happened in numerous street fighting vids, and it happens in boxing and MMA. It happens over and over again.



Where do people clinch and go to the ground in boxing?  There are thousands of UFC fights that end in a standing position hell there are awesome knockout compilation clips with standing KO after KO after KO.  Thousands of YouTube clips of fights that never go to the ground.  You know the same you tube that if its not there it didn't happen according to you.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Where do people clinch and go to the ground in boxing?  There are thousands of UFC fights that end in a standing position hell there are awesome knockout compilation clips with standing KO after KO after KO.  Thousands of YouTube clips of fights that never go to the ground.  You know the same you tube that if its not there it didn't happen according to you.



They don't go to the ground because they can't. However they do clinch, constantly. I'm sure if they were allowed to do takedowns, they would.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> They don't go to the ground because they can't. However they do clinch, constantly. I'm sure if they were allowed to do takedowns, they would.



I'm confused now since just a few posts up you said they do clinch and go down to gain control.  Now you say they cant.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Is this 75 page novel all about the whole "All fights go to the ground" Gracie nutridder fantasy? Sheesh. 
Wasn't this debunked years ago? People still believe this claptrap?
Oy Vey!


----------



## ballen0351

The Last Legionary said:


> Is this 75 page novel all about the whole "All fights go to the ground" Gracie nutridder fantasy? Sheesh.
> Wasn't this debunked years ago? People still believe this claptrap?
> Oy Vey!


Why yes even boxers wish they could take people down but sadly they cant


----------



## The Last Legionary

ballen0351 said:


> Why yes even boxers wish they could take people down but sadly they cant



Might want to, but in the Sport of Boxing there are rules.



> [h=2]Rules[/h]
> 
> To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a 24-foot ring, or as near that size as practicable.
> No wrestling or hugging (clinching) allowed.
> The rounds to be of three minutes' duration, and one minute's time between rounds.
> If either man falls through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, 10 seconds to be allowed him to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner, and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the 10 seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his award in favour of the other man.
> A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.
> No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.
> Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest; so that the match must be won and lost, unless the backers of both men agree to draw the stakes.
> The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.
> Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction.
> A man on one knee is considered down and if struck is entitled to the stakes.
> That no shoes or boots with spikes or sprigs be allowed.
> The contest in all other respects to be governed by revised London Prize Ring Rules.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules

I like #2. No Cuddling. :lol:

The boxers might want to try a take down. They might also want to kick the other guy in the junk with a pair of Irainian Bedroom Slippers. But the rules prevent that.  Just like the UFC rules are designed to work against TMA.



> The following acts constitute fouls in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts and may result in penalties, at the discretion of thereferee, if committed:
> 
> 
> Butting with the head
> Eye gouging of any kind
> Biting
> Spitting at an opponent
> Hair pulling
> Fish hooking
> Groin attacks of any kind
> Putting a finger into any orifice or any cut or laceration of an opponent
> Small joint manipulation
> Striking downward using the point of the elbow
> Striking to the spine or the back of the head
> Kicking to the kidney with a heel
> Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
> Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh
> Grabbing the clavicle
> Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
> Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
> Stomping a grounded opponent
> Holding the fence
> Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent
> Using abusive language in fenced ring/fighting area
> Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent
> Attacking an opponent on or during the break
> Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee
> Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the round
> Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury
> Throwing opponent out of ring/fighting area
> Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee
> Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck
> Interference by the corner
> Applying any foreign substance to the hair or body to gain an advantage


http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations

Now how many of those things such as elbow strikes, small joint manipulations, etc are key components to the TMA?  

Lets try a reversal.  New UFC rule - No Takedowns.  If a fighter falls or is knocked down, they get a 10 count like in boxing.  :lol:


----------



## TFP

The Last Legionary said:


> Now how many of those things such as elbow strikes, small joint manipulations, etc are key components to the TMA?
> 
> :lol:


You're late to the party, but.........


How were the "rules" of the early UFC's biased against "traditional" martial arts


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> Or like randori in class....


Which is half of the point of randori.  Another important point of randori is that it's not shiai.


----------



## lklawson

jks9199 said:


> Most anything done "live and under pressure" ends up looking considerably sloppier than when done on a complaint partner...


Which should, by this point, go without saying.  However, I've watched how this thread evolved so maybe it does require saying after all.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> You're late to the party, but.........
> 
> 
> How were the "rules" of the early UFC's biased against "traditional" martial arts



What about it Gracie won 50% of the 1st 6 UFCs. Good for him what's it prove?  That Gracie was a great fighter with in the UFC rules


----------



## lklawson

Kframe said:


> I was wondering when this would pop up. The inevitable "well he was a crappy mixed martial artist" statement.


It's one thing when a fanboi says, "he was no good on the ground."  It's another thing when an experienced, trained, certified grappling instructor says it.  One means it's just a fanboi and may or may not be accurate.  The other qualifies as an informed statement of fact.

I mean, if I were to tell you that the water pump on your car is bad, then, at the very least, go get a second opinion from a pro because I'm just a guy who shade-tree-mechanic'd some years back.  But if I tell you that your Linux kernel is old and full of bugs and vulnerabilities then you'd better darn well install a new kernel or start filling out the Incident Report.

Steve is an expert in ground grappling.  If he says the other guy wasn't doing very well, then he wasn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> What about it Gracie won 50% of the 1st 6 UFCs. Good for him what's it prove?  That Gracie was a great fighter with in the UFC rules


My post was to question if he thought the early UFC's favored the grappler over the striker.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> No they don't your just wrong.


Very frequently, yes, they actually do.  This especially happens when one guy starts losing the stand-up fight and starts getting his face beaten in.  It's natural.  Clinches happen all the time when one fighter (or both) get tired.  It's dirt common in Boxing.  Takedown-to-groundfight is also a lot more common now than many realize because of the influence of MMA.

Sorry, but, now.  He's not wrong, it does happen with regularity.  All the time?  Obviously not.  90% of the time?  Not likely. 10% of the time?  Also not likely.  How often?  Hard to say: http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/90percentmyth/90percentmyth.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> What about it Gracie won 50% of the 1st 6 UFCs. Good for him what's it prove?  That Gracie was a great fighter with in the UFC rules


This is a great stat considering he only fought in 4 UFC tournaments, winning 3 and unable to continue in one after winning vs Kimo.......  But I guess counting 6 makes your stat sound better.:ticked:


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Where do people clinch and go to the ground in boxing?


Glad you asked.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/kirk-lawso...m-2nd-edition/paperback/product-18632709.html







Boxing used to be chock full of takedowns, trips, throws, chokes, and even (gasp!) pressure point attacks.

But, aside from a few hundred years of boxing history, even in modern boxing, boxers clinch all the time when one of them is tired and needs a rest or one of them is just tired of getting hit.


----------



## lklawson

Hanzou said:


> They don't go to the ground because they can't. However they do clinch, constantly. I'm sure if they were allowed to do takedowns, they would.


As is evidenced by most of boxing history.


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Steve is an expert in ground grappling.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Awesome!  Do you know what style and rank


----------



## lklawson

The Last Legionary said:


> Might want to, but in the Sport of Boxing there are rules.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules


You might want to expand into other Boxing rules as well, such as the predecessors to MoQ, Broughton's rules and the London Prize Ring rules both of which allowed grappling, chokes, trips, throws, and a lot of "dirty boxing" by today's standards.



> I like #2. No Cuddling. :lol:


"Hugging" in context actually referred to wrestling.  Cornish "Close Hugg Wrestling" was an important wrestling style of the time and appears as part of a rough-and-tumble "fighting for bouncers" kinda wrestling and boxing manual titled, "Inn-Play" by an aristocrat named Parkyns in 1727.



> The boxers might want to try a take down. They might also want to kick the other guy in the junk with a pair of Irainian Bedroom Slippers.


Which was legal in some Boxing rules, particularly what we know of prior to Broughton.




> Now how many of those things such as elbow strikes, small joint manipulations, etc are key components to the TMA?


Elbow strikes were common in Boxing, as was the backfist, and the spinning backfist.  There was also elbow locks and no-gi chokes.



> Lets try a reversal.  New UFC rule - No Takedowns.  If a fighter falls or is knocked down, they get a 10 count like in boxing.


Which boxing?  You seem to think there was only one form.  That's a little like thinking there's only one form of Karate and it's named Tae Kwon Do.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Awesome!  Do you know what style and rank


http://www.stevebjj.com/about/

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Glad you asked.
> 
> http://www.lulu.com/shop/kirk-lawso...m-2nd-edition/paperback/product-18632709.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boxing used to be chock full of takedowns, trips, throws, chokes, and even (gasp!) pressure point attacks.
> 
> But, aside from a few hundred years of boxing history, even in modern boxing, boxers clinch all the time when one of them is tired and needs a rest or one of them is just tired of getting hit.


That's not what he said he said they take people to the ground and control them and they don't.  Sorry but your antique boxing isn't reality anymore


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> This is a great stat considering he only fought in 4 UFC tournaments, winning 3 and unable to continue in one after winning vs Kimo.......  But I guess counting 6 makes your stat sound better.:ticked:



Even 3 of 4 ok what does it prove other then he was good.  Means nothing else.  Some people are just head and shoulders above everyone else.  Does it mean BJJ was better no not at all it just that he was better.  Like all sports some people are just tthat good


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Very frequently, yes, they actually do.  This especially happens when one guy starts losing the stand-up fight and starts getting his face beaten in.  It's natural.  Clinches happen all the time when one fighter (or both) get tired.  It's dirt common in Boxing.  Takedown-to-groundfight is also a lot more common now than many realize because of the influence of MMA.
> 
> Sorry, but, now.  He's not wrong, it does happen with regularity.  All the time?  Obviously not.  90% of the time?  Not likely. 10% of the time?  Also not likely.  How often?  Hard to say: http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/90percentmyth/90percentmyth.html
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Again sorry that's just not the case in most real life fights. *


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> http://www.stevebjj.com/about/
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



thanks for the info! James Foster is great lineage!!  Especially now that he is back under Lotus!  

On a side note, as a purple under Foster I'm sure he would be the first to say he is not a "master" at grappling.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Even 3 of 4 ok what does it prove other then he was good.  Means nothing else.  Some people are just head and shoulders above everyone else.  Does it mean BJJ was better no not at all it just that he was better.  Like all sports some people are just tthat good




I just simply disagree!  No big deal, after Royce and the Gracie's left, there was an era of the wrestlers dominating the scene.   This IMO just proved that without a working knowledge of ground fighting you were in trouble.  There is a reason the standup fighters didn't do well until hey grasped grappling.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> I just simply disagree!  No big deal, after Royce and the Gracie's left, there was an era of the wrestlers dominating the scene.   This IMO just proved that without a working knowledge of ground fighting you were in trouble.  There is a reason the standup fighters didn't do well until hey grasped grappling.


Then why does anyone still learn anything else in MMA if all you need is a little Gracie magic


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> That's not what he said he said they take people to the ground and control them and they don't.


Sure they did.



> Sorry but your antique boxing isn't reality anymore


Except to the people who still do it.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Again sorry that's just not the case in most real life fights. *


Next time, actually read the link before commenting upon it's contents.  That way it won't be obvious that you have no clue what is being claimed.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> thanks for the info! James Foster is great lineage!!  Especially now that he is back under Lotus!
> 
> On a side note, as a purple under Foster I'm sure he would be the first to say he is not a "master" at grappling.


I don't remember using the term "master."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Sure they did.
> 
> Except to the people who still do it.



That's not boxing as most people know it today.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Then why does anyone still learn anything else in MMA if all you need is a little Gracie magic


Which isn't at all what TFP claimed.  You're getting TFP and Hanzou confused.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Next time, actually read the link before commenting upon it's contents.  That way it won't be obvious that you have no clue what is being claimed.



I don't need to read 15 years of law enforcement give me an idea of what happens in real fights.  I've been to enough of them


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> That's not boxing as most people know it today.


So what?  Hakko Ryu isn't what most people today know as Ju Jutsu, but it still is.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I don't need to read 15 years of law enforcement give me an idea of what happens in real fights.  I've been to enough of them


Running home to "I'm a cop so I am right" doesn't change the fact that you made an inaccurate innuendo about something you didn't read and got caught.  It's just distraction.  Next time, actually read the link before commenting upon it's contents.   That way it won't be obvious that you have no clue what is being  claimed.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> You're late to the party, but.........
> 
> 
> How were the "rules" of the early UFC's biased against "traditional" martial arts



If you ever get an honest answer to this question, I will be amazed.

Simple answer; They weren't biased against traditional martial arts. They still aren't. If removing fish hooks, biting, groin shots, and hair pulling completely invalidates your martial art's effectiveness, then you're not learning much of a martial art.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Running home to "I'm a cop so I am right" doesn't change the fact that you made an inaccurate innuendo about something you didn't read and got caught.  It's just distraction.  Next time, actually read the link before commenting upon it's contents.   That way it won't be obvious that you have no clue what is being  claimed.


I didn't run to anything.  His claim was most strikers clinch and go to the ground.  That's false.  Most fights don't even get that far.  Few shoves a wild swing or two and its broken up.  So before you get your undies in a bunch because I didn't read your little blog remember that what HE said was wrong.  I never said fights didn't go to the ground some do even if half do its not what he said.  So I don't need to run anywhere and you didn't catch anything


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> If you ever get an honest answer to this question, I will be amazed.
> 
> Simple answer; They weren't biased against traditional martial arts. They still aren't. If removing fish hooks, biting, groin shots, and hair pulling completely invalidates your martial art's effectiveness, then you're not learning much of a martial art.



But its no longer that art.  If my art uses groin shots small joint manipulation throat shots eye gouges as a portion of the art and you remove them then its no longer my art its just a fraction of the art.


----------



## ballen0351

Double post


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I didn't run to anything.  His claim was most strikers clinch and go to the ground.  That's false.  Most fights don't even get that far.  Few shoves a wild swing or two and its broken up.  So before you get your undies in a bunch because I didn't read your little blog remember that what HE said was wrong.  I never said fights didn't go to the ground some do even if half do its not what he said.  So I don't need to run anywhere and you didn't catch anything


Hell, you don't even know what you're arguing against!  You made the stupid mistake of *assuming* you know what my position is *without bothering to find out* and then arguing against that.

Now your stuck trying to argue your false and inaccurate assumptions and your position of subject matter authority on something you clear have no idea about the contents is that "I'm a cop and I say so."  Dayum.

So, here you sit, making veiled homosexual inferences about my "panties" and you apparently don't even know what a blog is or how it's different from an article.

You don't know what my position is because you never bothered to find out and just assumed wrong.  Next time, actually read the link before commenting upon it's contents.    That way it won't be obvious that you have no clue what is being   claimed.


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Hell, you don't even know what you're arguing against!  You made the stupid mistake of *assuming* you know what my position is *without bothering to find out* and then arguing against that.
> 
> Now your stuck trying to argue your false and inaccurate assumptions and your position of subject matter authority on something you clear have no idea about the contents is that "I'm a cop and I say so."  Dayum.
> 
> So, here you sit, making veiled homosexual inferences about my "panties" and you apparently don't even know what a blog is or how it's different from an article.
> 
> You don't know what my position is because you never bothered to find out and just assumed wrong.  Next time, actually read the link before commenting upon it's contents.    That way it won't be obvious that you have no clue what is being   claimed.



I don't care about your position.  Your position has nothing to do with his false statement.  You don't like what I say ignore it that's what the ignore button it for

Peace favor your undies


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> I don't care about your position.  Your position has nothing to do with his false statement.  You don't like what I say ignore it that's what the ignore button it for
> 
> Peace favor your undies


Sad.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> But its no longer that art.  If my art uses groin shots small joint manipulation throat shots eye gouges as a portion of the art and you remove them then its no longer my art its just a fraction of the art.



Bjj has spine dislocations, knee breaks, ankle breaks, wrist breaks, and moves that could potentially kill someone. If I enter a Bjj tournament that doesn't allow most of that, am I still doing Bjj? What if I use Bjj to control them, but stop short of applying the force to dislocate their spine, am I still doing Bjj?

Come on man...


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Bjj has spine dislocations, knee breaks, ankle breaks, wrist breaks, and moves that could potentially kill someone. If I enter a Bjj tournament that doesn't allow most of that, am I still doing Bjj? What if I use Bjj to control them, but stop short of applying the force to dislocate their spine, am I still doing Bjj?
> 
> Come on man...



No your doing a sport version on BJJ not all arts have a Sport version


----------



## ballen0351

Besides if I spent all my time learning an Art why would I want to change it to fit a set of rules to compete when my art was never intended to be competitive in the first place?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> LoL! Okay then, please show me some Aikido reaping throws. I'll even help you out, they look something like this;
> 
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/kouchigari.htm
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/kosotogari.htm
> http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/osotogari.htm
> 
> Despite your obvious extensive knowledge of Aikido, these are not Aikido throws, so takedowns in Aikido do not look like that. You lifted them all from a judo site. However, as been pointed out they do exist in other styles and they do exist in my 'hybrid' karate. They are actually in the 'hybrid'  kata that Goju people perform.
> 
> The fight shown was described as NHB. The fact that the aikido guy used a reap to take down his opponent is irrelevant or are you saying that in say UFC an Aikidoka could not use any technique that was not in an Aikido syllabus, if there was such a thing? That is patently ludicrous like many of your assertions.
> 
> If you need to refer back to the video, they were performed at 0:54 in the first video, and about 1:02 in the second video.
> 
> The point? Reaping throws are practical, and easy to pull off. Much easier than catching someone's wrist in midair and putting them in a wrist lock.
> 
> Catching a wrist in mid air is actually a lot easier than I would have thought before I started aikido. However, catching a wrist in mid air with one hand is considerably more difficult and retaining the grip with one hand, nearly impossible. As to applying a wrist lock with only one hand, very difficult.
> 
> 
> The point is that when the poop hits the fan, both guys clinch, wrestle each other to the ground, and get into a submission fight.
> 
> Both guys *might* clinch and both guys *might* go to the ground. Submission fight is sport which is if you remember back that far is what the thread was about before you turned it into "BJJ is great, Aikido sucks" thread. In the main, Aikido is not sport.
> 
> But even so, a number of Aikido submission holds are performed on the ground so to say that the Aikidoka in the video was on the ground out of the context of Aikido is not true.
> 
> The Aikidoka's guillotine attempt for example.
> 
> I'd love to see how how good your Guillotine choke would be with one hand. I missed your edit which from a subsequent post suggested we don't practise those in aikido. Obviously we do. Apart from the obvious reason for practising chokes is that we need chokes to practise escapes from chokes.





Hanzou said:


> That depends on the teams playing. Take the recent Florida St vs Duke game. Florida completely dominated Duke, and the quarterback was rarely touched. It looked like Florida was having a practice.
> 
> Again, it's a terrible comparison. Football practice resembles actual football play. Aikido practice doesn't resemble actual Aikido in play at all.
> 
> As Kirk said, Randori is not Shiai. In Randori one is practising receiving, or rolling out of a throw, and the other is practising blending of strength or force. Nothing to do with fighting as such. Surely with your huge knowledge of Aikido you can understand that.
> 
> How stupid is it to say "Aikido practice doesn't resemble actual Aikido in play at all"? Training in randori is not fighting. Training to apply nikyo is exactly as you fight, training Iriminage  is exactly as you fight (Seagal's favourite), training sankyo is exactly as it is performed in say a knife disarm, the 'heavy hands' we practise is exactly the way we strike and same for kote gaeshi etc. Give me a break. :hb:





Hanzou said:


> We're diverging from the point. The point is that when we enter an actual fight situation, the standing opponents clinch, and then attempt to take each other to the ground and attempt to dominate each other.



No *we* don't, at least not intentionally. *We *try to finish the fight quickly without going to the ground ourselves. That is the difference between sport and TMA. And if *we*&#8203; go to the ground, normally *we* try to regain our feet ASAP because in an actual fight situation, *we* recognise the fact that in most cases the ground is not the best place to be.



Hanzou said:


> It happened in that Aikido vs MMA vid, It happened at the UFC, it's happened in numerous street fighting vids, and it happens in boxing and MMA. It happens over and over again.



Again, you cannot recognise the difference between sport and reality based MA. In sporting contests most go to the ground for a variety of reasons. 

Let's explore the idea that most fights go to the ground. In most sporting contests the contestants are of a similar standard. Therefore many of their skills are cancelled out and the resort to whatever they can do to gain the advantage. That may well take the contest to the ground because they perceive that to be their strength. Many street fights would also be between untrained people of similar ability. In this situation of course size would give an advantage. Once again, in a situation, where skills are negated, it could very well go to the ground.

Now let's have a scenario where there is a highly trained stand up fighter like say Tyson. Against an untrained fighter in the pub, do you really think he would want to take the fight to the ground? That is a nonsense. Now shift the scenario slightly to a martial artist, of any persuasion, of reasonable ability, against an untrained person or even against someone with some limited MA training. Most would have no thought of taking a real fight to the ground. Of course it could happen by accident but highly unlikely by design.



Hanzou said:


> They don't go to the ground because they can't. However they do clinch, constantly. I'm sure if they were allowed to do takedowns, they would.



lol



lklawson said:


> Which is half of the point of randori.  Another important point of randori is that it's not shiai.


Exactly!


----------



## Jean Marais

I wonder why they call it Art? Is it a form of self expression? Can I sportly express my competitiveness? I always think of art as the novel self made creation of something beautiful (at least to myself) which requires innovation and skill.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> If you ever get an honest answer to this question, I will be amazed.
> 
> Simple answer; They weren't biased against traditional martial arts. They still aren't. If removing fish hooks, biting, groin shots, and hair pulling completely invalidates your martial art's effectiveness, then you're not learning much of a martial art.


Why list the tiny bits that you use to enhance and not mention perhaps my main strike, the point of the elbow or the strikes to the spine or back of head, head butts, stomps, eye gouges, groin strikes etc. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Bjj has spine dislocations, knee breaks, ankle breaks, wrist breaks, and moves that could potentially kill someone. If I enter a Bjj tournament that doesn't allow most of that, am I still doing Bjj? What if I use Bjj to control them, but stop short of applying the force to dislocate their spine, am I still doing Bjj?
> 
> Come on man...


Please show me on YouTube any of the above. I mean, if it's not on YouTube it doesn't exist.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Then why does anyone still learn anything else in MMA if all you need is a little Gracie magic


Well I was talking pre MMA,  style vs style.  Now once these other fighters started learning the ground, learning TDD, etc then it changed the landscape from style vs style to "Mixed-Martial-Arts".   GJJ isn't magic, it's just what works, along with other ground fighting arts.   The is, if you don't know enough ground fighting you are going to be in trouble if you run across someone that does.

 I'm not saying anything is wrong with striking styles, but IMO you had better mix in a healthy does of grappling training.


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> I don't remember using the term "master."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Correct, you did not........  I miss spoke.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Well I was talking pre MMA,  style vs style.  Now once these other fighters started learning the ground, learning TDD, etc then it changed the landscape from style vs style to "Mixed-Martial-Arts".   GJJ isn't magic, it's just what works, along with other ground fighting arts.   The is, if you don't know enough ground fighting you are going to be in trouble if you run across someone that does.
> 
> I'm not saying anything is wrong with striking styles, but IMO you had better mix in a healthy does of grappling training.


And you better equally mixnin a healthy does of striking if all you got is a  ground game


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Well I was talking pre MMA,  style vs style.  Now once these other fighters started learning the ground, learning TDD, etc then it changed the landscape from style vs style to "Mixed-Martial-Arts".   GJJ isn't magic, it's just what works, along with other ground fighting arts.   The is, if you don't know enough ground fighting you are going to be in trouble if you run across someone that does.
> 
> I'm not saying anything is wrong with striking styles, but IMO you had better mix in a healthy does of grappling training.


I don't think anyone has an issue with that. Many of us have benefitted from cross training even if only to better understand our own system. What the UFC and MMA pointed out in dramatic fashion was that if you really want to compete in a mixed environment against properly trained opponents you need to lift your ground skills significantly. Whether or not that requirement translates into the RBSD scene is open to conjecture. No one is saying that you don't need basic skills but I would maintain that I don't need the grappling skills of a BJJ black belt to be proficient at what I do.
:asian:


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> But its no longer that art.  If my art uses groin shots small joint manipulation throat shots eye gouges as a portion of the art and you remove them then its no longer my art its just a fraction of the art.


GJJ uses all of these tactics as well, not to mention hey were not banned for the early UFC's.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> GJJ uses all of these tactics as well, not to mention hey were not banned for the early UFC's.



You keep clinging to this UFC nonsense like it means anything its still a sport nobody was trying to hurt anyone they were trying to win a game.  It means nothing beyond that.  Its not and end all be all.  Plus they were banned UFC1 rules included



> Despite being billed as having "no rules" there were limitations on what the fighters could do, including no biting, no eye gouging and no strikes to the groin.


----------



## Kframe

Ballen I hate to disagree with your quote, but there is a video that CLEARLY shows some striker in UFC4  getting taken down and his only defense was to repeatedly punch the other guys Jewels. 



 It was allowed. 

I think you were refereeing to UFC 1 and ya it was illegal in that but subsequently Changed. 

That looked painfull.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> Why list the tiny bits that you use to enhance and not mention perhaps my main strike, the point of the elbow or the strikes to the spine or back of head, head butts, stomps, eye gouges, groin strikes etc. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.


Non of those were illegal in the early UFC's!!!!!!!!!!   You keep ignoring this fact, those were allowed!


----------



## ballen0351

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ules-from-no-holds-barred-to-highly-regulated


And though the fights were advertised as having no rules, that wasn't entirely true. At the inaugural UFC event, there were three rules: no biting, eye gouging or groin strikes.*

Ironically, these were the same rules employed for the ancient Greek sport of Pankration, a precursor to modern mixed martial arts.*





Kframe said:


> Ballen I hate to disagree with your quote, but there is a video that CLEARLY shows some striker in UFC4  getting taken down and his only defense was to repeatedly punch the other guys Jewels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That looked painfull.



Your not disagreeing with me your disagreeing with every article I've read on the internet maybe the internet is wrong


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> And you better equally mixnin a healthy does of striking if all you got is a  ground game


Untrue!  100% categorically false!   Proven over and over by a majority.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Non of those were illegal in the early UFC's!!!!!!!!!!   You keep ignoring this fact, those were allowed!



And only 8 people fought in the first UFC hardly a great sample of martial arts what's the point?


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Untrue!  100% categorically false!   Proven over and over by a majority.



Oh OK. Sorry lol


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Ballen I hate to disagree with your quote, but there is a video that CLEARLY shows some striker in UFC4  getting taken down and his only defense was to repeatedly punch the other guys Jewels.
> 
> 
> 
> It was allowed.
> 
> I think you were refereeing to UFC 1 and ya it was illegal in that but subsequently Changed.
> 
> That looked painfull.


By the way I only saw 1 groin shot the rest were hips and legs.  What happened next?


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> You keep clinging to this UFC nonsense like it means anything its still a sport nobody was trying to hurt anyone they were trying to win a game.  It means nothing beyond that.  Its not and end all be all.  Plus they were banned UFC1 rules included


You just simply do not know he facts.  I don't know how else to put it to you nicely.  Biting was 100% allowed in the early UFC's.  Infact it was used vs Royce in the eay UFC's and didn't work.

lol, and the fighters in the early UFC's were trying to hurt one another, it wasn't thought of as a "sport" back then.  It was a simple one-vs-one combat situation.  People were looking to take out there opponent, period.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ules-from-no-holds-barred-to-highly-regulated
> 
> 
> And though the fights were advertised as having no rules, that wasn't entirely true. At the inaugural UFC event, there were three rules: no biting, eye gouging or groin strikes.*
> 
> Ironically, these were the same rules employed for the ancient Greek sport of Pankration, a precursor to modern mixed martial arts.*



Those were suggests rules with no disqualification if they were used.  So no, those weren't rules.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> You just simply do not know he facts.  I don't know how else to put it to you nicely.  Biting was 100% allowed in the early UFC's.  Infact it was used vs Royce in the eay UFC's and didn't work.
> 
> lol, and the fighters in the early UFC's were trying to hurt one another, it wasn't thought of as a "sport" back then.  It was a simple one-vs-one combat situation.  People were looking to take out there opponent, period.



OK bleacher report is wrong you are right I guess because Bleacher report (you know the professional sports reporters). Say biting was illegal.  Lol I will trust them over you no offense but I know nothing about you so I'll go with the vetted sports reporters


And no they were not looking to hurt anyone.  If they were then BJJ sucks since people kept coming back for more lol


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> And only 8 people fought in the first UFC hardly a great sample of martial arts what's the point?


My point is simple.  The excuse of " they took away so and so's arts main weapons" as an excuse as to why the striking arts didn't do well is really not an excuse at all.

oh and thee was more than 1 UFC .......


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Those were suggests rules with no disqualification if they were used.  So no, those weren't rules.



Ok I'll believe the reporters you believe what ever you want lol.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> My point is simple.  The excuse of " they took away so and so's arts main weapons" as an excuse as to why the striking arts didn't do well is really not an excuse at all.



Not giving an excuse just saying it means nothing 8 people is hardly a sample size to prove anything


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> OK bleacher report is wrong you are right I guess because Bleacher report (you know the professional sports reporters). Say biting was illegal.  Lol I will trust them over you no offense but I know nothing about you so I'll go with the vetted sports reporters



No worries, you don't know me from Joe Schmo.   But here is a quote that you may find interesting.  I will link the article so just because it's actually a really great read!  All bickering aside, it's a great insight into what was the early UFC's.



> While the fencing company realized the more pragmatic Octagon schematic, fighters debated how best to survive in the ring with virtually no restriction. Gouging, groin strikes and biting were prohibited, but infractions would only result in a fine, not a disqualification.
> 
> 
> Royce Gracie: That&#8217;s one of the things I brought up to my brothers, &#8220;What if the guy cheats? There&#8217;s no punishment.&#8221; If the guy bites, and I cannot continue, he wins.
> 
> Gordeau: No rules are no rules.
> 
> Gordeau: I sign the paper and I go. The rest stayed there to explain what is allowed and what is not allowed. Real Americans, they talk a lot. But if you have no rules, you are finished explaining in two seconds.



http://www.realfightermag.com/article.php?ArticleID=5096


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Ok I'll believe the reporters you believe what ever you want lol.


See above post.....opcorn:


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Not giving an excuse just saying it means nothing 8 people is hardly a sample size to prove anything


Those are two seperate are things, first it was stated that the "rules" mean it's only half an art.   Then when that was debunked it's well there were only 8 guys to which I responded there were many more UFC's and other NHB fights, so more than 8.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Those are two speed are things, first it was stated that the "rules" mean it's only half an art.   Then when that was debunked it's well there were only 8 guys to which I responded there were many more UFC's and other NHB fights, so more than 8.


And again there are Rules so its not debunked and yes 8 is hardly a sample size. And of all the other fights they ALL have rules and BJJ didn't win them all so again pointless.


----------



## Kframe

ballen0351 said:


> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ules-from-no-holds-barred-to-highly-regulated
> 
> 
> And though the fights were advertised as having no rules, that wasn't entirely true. At the inaugural UFC event, there were three rules: no biting, eye gouging or groin strikes.*
> 
> Ironically, these were the same rules employed for the ancient Greek sport of Pankration, a precursor to modern mixed martial arts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your not disagreeing with me your disagreeing with every article I've read on the internet maybe the internet is wrong



Yet you ignore the video were it is clearly UFC 4? How in hell can you do that?


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> Yet you ignore the video were it is clearly UFC 4? How in hell can you do that?



I didnt ignore it I responded to it look at my post above

And your ignoring the rules just because a ref missed a call


----------



## Kframe

IDK what video you were watching, but I saw a lot of groin shots there. So did everyone who commented on it on a recent sherdog forum..


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> And again there are Rules so its not debunked and yes 8 is hardly a sample size. And of all the other fights they ALL have rules and BJJ didn't win them all so again pointless.


:s38:  keep hiding in the dark, the light (truth) is scary.

 Honestly don't know what else to say, I only answer your questions with facts and have you ignore them for so long.


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> IDK what video you were watching, but I saw a lot of groin shots there. So did everyone who commented on it on a recent sherdog forum..



Dude first two shots were upper hip third shot hit the mat when the guy lifted his leg his leg his the 4th shot was hidden by the leg and then the last shot was def in the groin.  Then the clip stopped.  What happened next?  Was he DQed?  Did he loose?  Did he win?

And sherdog forum really that's your proof?  LOL


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> :s38:  keep hiding in the dark, the light (truth) is scary.
> 
> Honestly don't know what else to say, I only answer your questions with facts and have you ignore them for so long.



Keep arguing with the real reporters not me.  I didn't make the rules they did.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> And your ignoring the rules just because a ref missed a call



:erg:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> :erg:



Most informative post your done all day lol


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Dude first two shots were upper hip third shot hit the mat when the guy lifted his leg his leg his the 4th shot was hidden by the leg and then the last shot was def in the groin.  Then the clip stopped.  What happened next?  Was he DQed?  Did he loose?  Did he win?
> 
> And sherdog forum really that's your proof?  LOL


Hackney won on the ground via choke.:ultracool


----------



## Kframe

The guy who did the groin shot was not dq'ed and he won the match. As the guy getting hit there couldn't maintain his head lock. He tapped out soon after the groin shot.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Hackney won on the ground via choke.:ultracool



Who's hackney?


----------



## ballen0351

Kframe said:


> The guy who did the groin shot was not dq'ed and he won the match. As the guy getting hit there couldn't maintain his head lock. He tapped out soon after the groin shot.



So groin shots work?  I seem to recall about 50 pages ago someone saying groin shots and biting and neck shots don't work.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Who's hackney?


Keith Hackney is the guy with the sweet mullet, punching the guy in the red trunks in the groin repeatedly.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> So groin shots work?  I seem to recall about 50 pages ago someone saying groin shots and biting and neck shots don't work.


Did you miss my post regarding the "rules" of the early UFC's


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Did you miss my post regarding the "rules" of the early UFC's



What post the one that said there WERE in fact rules in the UFC?  So all this nonsense that striking arts were not limited because it was NHB is in fact not true.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Keith Hackney is the guy with the sweet mullet, punching the guy in the red trunks in the groin repeatedly.



Ahhh ok I'm not a big UFC fan so I'm not up on all these guys.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So groin shots work?  I seem to recall about 50 pages ago someone saying groin shots and biting and neck shots don't work.



Its not that they don't work, it's that they shouldn't be relied on to get you out of sticky situations. There are more efficient (and smarter ways) to get out of holds, mounts, and control positions. Furthermore, its risky to do "dirty tactics" when you don't have the dominant position. 

As Bas Rutten says "I got you in a choke, you bite my arm, I snap your neck."


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> So all this nonsense that striking arts were not limited because it was NHB is in fact not true.



Yes. :ea72:


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Its not that they don't work, it's that they shouldn't be relied on to get you out of sticky situations. There are more efficient (and smarter ways) to get out of holds, mounts, and control positions. Furthermore, its risky to do "dirty tactics" when you don't have the dominant position.
> 
> As Bas Rutten says "I got you in a choke, you bite my arm, I snap your neck."



Yeah smartest way to get out of it is to not get in it in the first place.

Also if bas has me in a choke around me teeth its not much of a choke.  He's a silly man


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Those are two seperate are things, first it was stated that the "rules" mean it's only half an art.   Then when that was debunked it's well there were only 8 guys to which I responded there were many more UFC's and other NHB fights, so more than 8.



There were 4 UFC's that could be classified as no rules (even though the were some), after they started adding rules which brought the competition further away from the art versus art format. So 40 martial artists fought in the first 4 UFC's, how many martial arts schools were around in 1993? How many people were doing martial arts in 1993? So 40 out of literally hundreds of martial arts schools and millions of martial artists is insignificant in terms of sample size (and so is the amiount of people who have competed in the UFC as a whole for that matter). In the first UFC Royce Gracie defeated only 3 people and somehow that is offered up as proof the BJJ beats everything?


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Non of those were illegal in the early UFC's!!!!!!!!!!   You keep ignoring this fact, those were allowed!


I think you might have the wrong guy. I'm the one that said the first UFCs were real tests, or close to real. In those first fights the other fighters had a reasonable chance but to say there were no rules is a little bit out. Despite the fact that you were technically allowed to use a downward elbow to the spine, would anyone really do it in a sport setting knowing that the guy you hit could be crippled for life? Given the opportunity would you drive your elbow into his temple knowing that you might kill him? So there were rules, even if unwritten.

My arguement was that *after* the rules were introduced the contest was turned the way of the grappler. So I hope you can see I was not ignoring anything and you used a lot of exclamation marks unnecessarily. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Dude first two shots were upper hip third shot hit the mat when the guy lifted his leg his leg his the 4th shot was hidden by the leg and then the last shot was def in the groin.  Then the clip stopped.  What happened next?  Was he DQed?  Did he loose?  Did he win?
> 
> And sherdog forum really that's your proof?  LOL


He won. If you care to go back through the thread you will find where I posted the whole fight. After pounding the groin Hackney reached up and started squeezing Son's larynx. That was the end of the fight and pretty much the end of the no rules bit.
:asian:


----------



## frank raud

1993 called and ask for it's thread back.


----------



## K-man

frank raud said:


> 1993 called and ask for it's thread back.


Have you a time machine? We are only up to 1215. Perhaps you could let us know how the thread progressed, was Hanzou finally banned, did we pass 200 pages and did we ever resolve the issue? 
:asian:


----------



## lklawson

Jean Marais said:


> I wonder why they call it Art?


I'll tell you why, but you may not find the answer particularly helpful or satisfying.

The term "Martial Art" is a western civilization term which predates the introduction of Asian martial arts to the west.  Dating back to Medieval times and going up past the Renaissance, the term "art" was applied to "skills," both mental and physical.  A highly skilled brick layer would be an "artist" skilled in the "art" of brick laying.  Not because his brick laying is beautiful or is conveying a message, emotion, commentary, or any other stuff that we now think "art" is supposed to do, but because it is a skill that is better expressed the more skillfully it is performed.  Philosophers were skilled in the "arts" of philosophy.  Fighters were skilled in the "arts" of "Mars."

Ju Jutsu is the "gentle skills."  Karate is "Chinese Hand/Empty Hand."

Fencing is the "Art of Defense."



> Is it a form of self expression?


Is an Electrician's work a form of self expression?  If you answer 'yes' then so is a martial art.



> I always think of art as the novel self made creation of something beautiful (at least to myself) which requires innovation and skill.


Which is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the way "martial art" was applied to what we should now refer to as "martial skills" or, better yet, "fighting skills."

That would allow us to go back to arguing with each other about what a "real fight" is and whether or not System X, Y, or Z is any good for it.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

K-man said:


> I don't think anyone has an issue with that. Many of us have benefitted from cross training even if only to better understand our own system. What the UFC and MMA pointed out in dramatic fashion was that if you really want to compete in a mixed environment against properly trained opponents you need to lift your ground skills significantly. Whether or not that requirement translates into the RBSD scene is open to conjecture. No one is saying that you don't need basic skills but I would maintain that I don't need the grappling skills of a BJJ black belt to be proficient at what I do.
> :asian:


I regret that I can only hit "thanks" on this once.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> There were 4 UFC's that could be classified as no rules (even though the were some), after they started adding rules which brought the competition further away from the art versus art format. So 40 martial artists fought in the first 4 UFC's, how many martial arts schools were around in 1993? How many people were doing martial arts in 1993? So 40 out of literally hundreds of martial arts schools and millions of martial artists is insignificant in terms of sample size (and so is the amiount of people who have competed in the UFC as a whole for that matter). In the first UFC Royce Gracie defeated only 3 people and somehow that is offered up as proof the BJJ beats everything?



What about the Gracie in action fights and the open Gracie Challenge?   Thing is we can sit back with our heads in the sand saying "nothing is proven!  Nothing is proven!"  Or we can look at a clan that put together an art and challenged the martial arts world with it.  No more hyperbole, no more talk, no more nonsense, no more death touches and  no more "chi".  Just fighting and testing.

and it's fine if certain arts didn't want to take the challenge, didn't feel a need to etc.   but if you wanted to deny GJJ's claims. There was an open format to do it, for real.


----------



## TFP

And maybe it's just the way I was brought up in the fighting world.  It was a very practical, no nonsense type of fight training.  First with a bonafide street fighter, then a JKD specialist that allowed open expression, then the era of the Gracie Challenge and style vs style actually fighting.   Then Catch Wrestling, MMA standup, No Gi BJJ/Judo and straight BJJ.

sorry but the whole my art or my moves are to deadly and dangerous nonsense just doesn't fly anymore.


----------



## Hanzou

TFP said:


> And maybe it's just the way I was brought up in the fighting world. It was a very practical, no nonsense type of fight training. First with a bonafide street fighter, then a JKD specialist that allowed open expression, then the era of the Gracie Challenge and style vs style actually fighting. Then Catch Wrestling, MMA standup, No Gi BJJ/Judo and straight BJJ.
> 
> sorry but the whole my art or my moves are to deadly and dangerous nonsense just doesn't fly anymore.



Unfortunately you still haven't gotten an honest answer to your question. I think its good to ask it again.

"How are NHB rules biased against "traditional" martial arts?"


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately you still haven't gotten an honest answer to your question. I think its good to ask it again.
> 
> "How are NHB rules biased against "traditional" martial arts?"


You show me a real no rules fight and you will have your answer.  ANY sporting event will have rules even if unwritten nobody's going to try to gouge out your eyes or start dropping elbows on your throat.  Its not a real fight its a game.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> You show me a real no rules fight and you will have your answer.  ANY sporting event will have rules even if unwritten nobody's going to try to gouge out your eyes or start dropping elbows on your throat.  Its not a real fight its a game.



The guy Royce beat in UFC 1,  the guy who bit him fought as if it "was a real fight".  Heater in another organization eye gouged a fighter.  He fought real, he fought "dirty".  So I guess we have our answer.


also already posted by myself, but here again is Royce vs Delucia, no rules......

http://youtu.be/jd1KDz1X7iE


oh and I find it funny how people were screaming "there are rules in th UFC!"   And when I show evidence there were actually not rules in the first UFC's, now it's "well man has a socially acceptable amount of rules" so it's still rules.....:BSmeter::BSmeter:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> The guy Royce beat in UFC 1,  the guy who bit him fought as if it "was a real fight".  Heater in another organization eye gouged a fighter.  He fought real, he fought "dirty".  So I guess we have our answer.
> 
> 
> also already posted by myself, but here again is Royce vs Delucia, no rules......
> 
> http://youtu.be/jd1KDz1X7iE
> 
> 
> oh and I find it funny how people were screaming "there are rules in th UFC!"   And when I show evidence there were actually not rules in the first UFC's, now it's "well man has a socially acceptable amount of rules" so it's still rules.....:BSmeter::BSmeter:


There were rules I've already showed you the evidence.  You also keep acting like the UFC was a real fight.  Its a GAME nobody was trying to hurt anyone.  If they were then people would have actually been hurt.  They were not hurt and kept coming back.  If it was really a no holds barred match and people really wanted to hurt each other then where are the broken limbs gouged eyes crushed throats broken spleens.  There were none because NOBODY wanted to hurt each other.  Because its NOT real its a sport.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> ANY sporting event will have rules even if unwritten nobody's going to try to gouge out your eyes or start dropping elbows on your throat.  Its not a real fight its a game.


Both of these were elements of old school boxing which "had rules."  Like the earlier mentioned Pankration people sometimes died.  I think you are misusing the word "game" to imply less danger than there actually may have been.


----------



## lklawson

So, if it has "rules" then it's not a real fight, it's just a "game?"


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Both of these were elements of old school boxing which "had rules."  Like the earlier mentioned Pankration people sometimes died.  I think you are misusing the word "game" to imply less danger than there actually may have been.



I don't think so its a football "game" and they are dangerous.  Game does not mean no danger it means sporting event


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> So, if it has "rules" then it's not a real fight, it's just a "game?"



Its not a fight in terms of needing to defend yourself or get hurt or worse.  Its a fight in terms of there is a ref and medical staff and rules to protect both fighters plus an understanding that nobody's really trying to injure you.  Cause pain yes but cause injury not so much


----------



## ballen0351

Or if you prefer a hockey game I think they are more dangerous then football.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Its not a fight in terms of needing to defend yourself or get hurt or worse.  Its a fight in terms of there is a ref and medical staff and rules to protect both fighters plus an understanding that nobody's really trying to injure you.  Cause pain yes but cause injury not so much


So if there are rules, then it's a game, right?


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> So if there are rules, then it's a game, right?



Yes I'm not sure what you don't understand that you need to keep asking over and over.  If it has rules its a sport or game.  Like hockey football boxing Ufc they are all sporting events or games


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Yes I'm not sure what you don't understand that you need to keep asking over and over.  If it has rules its a sport or game.  Like hockey football boxing Ufc they are all sporting events or games


The early UFC's were no game, no matter how much you want to act like they were.


----------



## ballen0351

game
g&#257;m/
noun
1.
a form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.


So um what were they then?


TFP said:


> The early UFC's were no game, no matter how much you want to act like they were.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Yes


Then you're wrong.



> I'm not sure what you don't understand that you need to keep asking over and over.


I wanted to be sure that's what you were claiming.



> If it has rules its a sport or game.  Like hockey football boxing Ufc they are all sporting events or games


I'll go tell all of the militaries, past and present, that they're just playing a game.
This was the "rules" of the "game" that the U.S. Civil War was played under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieber_Code
This is the "rules" of the "game" that WWI, WWII, Korean Conflict, etc. were all played under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

Having rules doesn't make it a "game."  It just makes it having rules.


----------



## K-man

lklawson said:


> So if there are rules, then it's a game, right?


Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died in both.  So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more damaging forms of attack.
:asian:


----------



## Tenacious_Red

This is interesting. Would it be safe to say that it is not a game, but a sport? An art? A discipline? And just like we separate sparring from an actual competition, we can also separate the form and practice from street fighting, and define as an exercise (weak description, though at a loss for proper terminology at the moment) to keep the mind and body sharp for incidents that can be physically endangering?


----------



## Tenacious_Red

ballen0351 said:


> game
> g&#257;m/
> noun
> 1.
> a form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
> 
> 
> So um what were they then?




I can see by using this definition that MA can be easily determined as a game, HOWEVER, for those of us who practice in a form that is a defensive art, where we don't compete, but train to live, that takes competition out, so where does a game play into it then?


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Then you're wrong.
> 
> I wanted to be sure that's what you were claiming.
> 
> I'll go tell all of the militaries, past and present, that they're just playing a game.
> This was the "rules" of the "game" that the U.S. Civil War was played under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieber_Code
> This is the "rules" of the "game" that WWI, WWII, Korean Conflict, etc. were all played under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
> 
> Having rules doesn't make it a "game."  It just makes it having rules.



When you Have rules in a sporting event makes it a game.  War is not a sporting event  I guess I thought you were smart enough to know the difference between war and sport. If you were following along with the actual conversation you would see we were talking about the UFC not war.  

  See there is the "real" world and then there is the "sport" world.  When you sign a contract to fight and agree to go by the rules with a prize at the end see that's called a "game" see games are for entertainment and are not "real" life.

  That doesn't mean a game isn't dangerous and doesn't take guts and bravery to enter and need great skill to be successful.  But its not real and its pretty disrespectful of you to even put war and sport in the same category.  Really sad actually.


----------



## Tenacious_Red

K-man said:


> Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died in both.  So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more damaging forms of attack.
> :asian:



Your post reminded me of this skit my nephew showed me about the rules of warfare and what happens when you're not polite to the British. It was in fact very funny, but the undercurrent was mocking the idea that having rules in war (and perhaps we can throw love in there) have been a paradigm of paradoxical ideologies for years that often seem absurd.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> You show me a real no rules fight and you will have your answer. ANY sporting event will have rules even if unwritten nobody's going to try to gouge out your eyes or start dropping elbows on your throat. Its not a real fight its a game.



We don't even need to get it to that point. What about Vale Tudo, UFC, Pride, Prancrase, MMA, etc? How do the rules in those sporting events work against traditional martial arts?


----------



## ballen0351

Tenacious_Red said:


> I can see by using this definition that MA can be easily determined as a game, HOWEVER, for those of us who practice in a form that is a defensive art, where we don't compete, but train to live, that takes competition out, so where does a game play into it then?


Its the competeing part that is the game or sport or whatever term you want to use.  Its the competing part that makes its not "real". Its for entertainment


----------



## lklawson

K-man said:


> Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died in both.  So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more damaging forms of attack.
> :asian:


People die in boxing and wrestling too.  And in "sport judo" as well.  And, occasionally, even in football.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tenacious_Red

ballen0351 said:


> When you Have rules in a sporting event makes it a game.  War is not a sporting event  I guess I thought you were smart enough to know the difference between war and sport. If you were following along with the actual conversation you would see we were talking about the UFC not war.
> 
> See there is the "real" world and then there is the "sport" world.  When you sign a contract to fight and agree to go by the rules with a prize at the end see that's called a "game" see games are for entertainment and are not "real" life.
> 
> That doesn't mean a game isn't dangerous and doesn't take guts and bravery to enter and need great skill to be successful.  But its not real and its pretty disrespectful of you to even put war and sport in the same category.  Really sad actually.



You have me pondering something that is obviously so simple to grasp, but now I thinking about how rules transpose a function into, "game."  

I do want to say that you make a good point about how we have to separate the real world from the sport world. The sport world is reliant upon ego and sportsmanship (which there again lies a set of unspoken rules between players) and professionals take their sport to a whole other level with training, performance and strategy.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> When you Have rules in a sporting event makes it a game.  War is not a sporting event  I guess I thought you were smart enough to know the difference between war and sport. If you were following along with the actual conversation you would see we were talking about the UFC not war.
> 
> See there is the "real" world and then there is the "sport" world.  When you sign a contract to fight and agree to go by the rules with a prize at the end see that's called a "game" see games are for entertainment and are not "real" life.
> 
> That doesn't mean a game isn't dangerous and doesn't take guts and bravery to enter and need great skill to be successful.  But its not real and its pretty disrespectful of you to even put war and sport in the same category.  Really sad actually.


Oh please.  Stop trying to weasel.

Just man up and admit you were wrong: UFC isn't a "game," it *is *"real fighting," just fighting with rules.  Just like pretty much all "real fighting" has "rules" of some sort.


----------



## Tenacious_Red

lklawson said:


> Oh please.  Stop trying to weasel.
> 
> Just man up and admit you were wrong: UFC isn't a "game," it *is *"real fighting," just fighting with rules.  Just like pretty much all "real fighting" has "rules" of some sort.



It is a tournament of real punches, kicks and elbows...but it is a competition of wit, physical endurance and strength--like a game.


----------



## lklawson

Tenacious_Red said:


> but it is a competition of wit, physical endurance and strength--like a game.


Same as when Alexander invaded Turkey.


----------



## Tenacious_Red

lklawson said:


> Same as when Alexander invaded Turkey.



Ah yes, I was in Persia the day that happened. I believe the win was given to Cleitus the Black.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> We don't even need to get it to that point. What about Vale Tudo, UFC, Pride, Prancrase, MMA, etc? How do the rules in those sporting events work against traditional martial arts?



It depends on the art your talking about.  Either way all these events are sporting events.  If your art wasn't designed for sport then in general changing it to fit the rules its no longer your art.  Its like saying OK enter your bjj guy into my tournament but he can't use chokes or arm bars.  Is it really BJJ anymore ?  Or just a small part of BJJ and not really a true representation of what BJJ really is.  Or like JUDO is judo under today's rules really Judo anymore?  Or is it something else just using the name.  It would be like me starting a goju class getting up to brown belt and then leaving throwing on a black belt and starting my own school and calling it Goju.  Well it kinda is Goju but its only a small part of Goju its not All of Goju.  Or say a blue belt in BJJ starting a school but only knows up to a blue belt.  Is he teaching BJJ well kinda but not really


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Oh please.  Stop trying to weasel.
> 
> Just man up and admit you were wrong: UFC isn't a "game," it *is *"real fighting," just fighting with rules.  Just like pretty much all "real fighting" has "rules" of some sort.


  Its a sport it's a game.  Hell they even call it a ground "game". Judo and BJJ Guys are called "players."  And fighting in a ring is NOTHING like the real world unless real world fights have refs docs a cage to keep other people out a nice padded floor and are preplanned so you can get yourself ready.  

And im not weaseling anything your the one that considers our troops in war on equal ground as a MMA guy in the ring.  Again pretty disrespectful of you


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> People die in boxing and wrestling too.  And in "sport judo" as well.  And, occasionally, even in football.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Correct just because something is a game doesn't make it safe or not dangerous


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> just a very violent sport where the rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more damaging forms of attack.
> :asian:



you mean like starting the fight standing, then being stood up by a ref mid fight at his discretion, then having the fight stopped for a minute and it restarting on the feet?


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> you mean like starting the fight standing, then being stood up by a ref mid fight at his discretion, then having the fight stopped for a minute and it restarting on the feet?



So your saying there is no grappling done while standing?


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> So your saying there is no grappling done while standing?


No I am not.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> No I am not.



So then how does standing people up benefit anyone other then the fans that don't like watching people lay around.  See being a sport it's all about the dollar and the fans provide the dollars so the rules are made to make the fans happy


----------



## lklawson

Tenacious_Red said:


> Ah yes, I was in Persia the day that happened. I believe the win was given to Cleitus the Black.


This made me smile.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Its a sport it's a game.  Hell they even call it a ground "game". Judo and BJJ Guys are called "players."  And fighting in a ring is NOTHING like the real world unless real world fights have refs docs a cage to keep other people out a nice padded floor and are preplanned so you can get yourself ready.
> 
> And im not weaseling anything your the one that considers our troops in war on equal ground as a MMA guy in the ring.  Again pretty disrespectful of you


I'm writing this from Wright-Patterson AFB.

Your claim that it's "disrespectful" is weaseling, hoping to change the subject from how your assertion that "rules = game" has been disproved (easily) to making me defend myself from your claim.  It's a little similar to your earlier statement of "I don't care to find out what your position actually is, but I'm a cop so you're wrong."  You shoulda been a politician.

Again, the existence of rules doesn't mean it's any less of a fight.  Stop weaseling and man up.


----------



## Tenacious_Red

lklawson said:


> [
> Again, the existence of rules doesn't mean it's any less of a fight. QUOTE]
> 
> It's true. Even TheFreeDictionary.com agrees.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fight


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> So then how does standing people up benefit anyone other then the fans that don't like watching people lay around.  See being a sport it's all about the dollar and the fans provide the dollars so the rules are made to make the fans happy


If you don't understand how standing up two fighters, one who is primarily a grappler and one who is primary a striker benefits the striker than I believe any amount of factual reasoning will be lost on you.:flushed:


----------



## Steve

Standing fighters, breaking the clinch, allowing a standing fighter to force a down opponent to stand....  There are rules that clearly benefit strikers.  But, being fair, no knees to the head of a downed opponent and rules like this favor the grappler.

I think the net is striker friendly, just as football rules favor the pass and baseball favors the hitter.  Offense is more exciting, and spectator sports are about filling seats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> I'm writing this from Wright-Patterson AFB.
> 
> Your claim that it's "disrespectful" is weaseling, hoping to change the subject from how your assertion that "rules = game" has been disproved (easily) to making me defend myself from your claim.  It's a little similar to your earlier statement of "I don't care to find out what your position actually is, but I'm a cop so you're wrong."  You shoulda been a politician.
> 
> Again, the existence of rules doesn't mean it's any less of a fight.  Stop weaseling and man up.



You writing from an air force Base means nothing to me I was a Marine and I have lost friends in the war that YOU not me compared to the UFC.  The topic was rules with regards to the UFC that's been the topic for about 20 pages you changed it to the military for some unknown reason since it had nothing to do with the topic.  So you man up and say your sorry for your disrespect.


----------



## Tenacious_Red

Steve said:


> Offense is more exciting, and spectator sports are about filling seats.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



It's true. Every time I see a Rugby scrum I want to re-invent a dangerous game of London Bridge.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Standing fighters, breaking the clinch, allowing a standing fighter to force a down opponent to stand....  There are rules that clearly benefit strikers.  But, being fair, no knees to the head of a downed opponent and rules like this favor the grappler.
> 
> I think the net is striker friendly, just as football rules favor the pass and baseball favors the hitter.  Offense is more exciting, and spectator sports are about filling seats.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I agree i think the rules were not put in place to benefit anyone other then the fans.  It wasn't done to give anyone an advantage.  It was done for entertainment value of a fan base with little patients and lots of alcohol


----------



## Tenacious_Red

ballen0351 said:


> You writing from an air force Base means nothing to me I was a Marine and I have lost friends in the war that YOU not me compared to the UFC.  The topic was rules with regards to the UFC that's been the topic for about 20 pages you changed it to the military for some unknown reason since it had nothing to do with the topic.  So you man up and say your sorry for your disrespect.



I *think* military was brought into the equation as a means to determine how MA were created to help defend countries (though not all originally and specifically, but many) and not be portrayed as a, "game"--which the term game can often be synonymous with, "non-serious."  I have reason to believe either of you are intentionally looking to disrespect any organization, especially those who have sacrificed so much whether we agree with it or not. 

There is a hot potato here being thrown around, and it's OK to let it cool off, because baked potatoes are yummy.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> What about the Gracie in action fights and the open Gracie Challenge?   Thing is we can sit back with our heads in the sand saying "nothing is proven!  Nothing is proven!"  Or we can look at a clan that put together an art and challenged the martial arts world with it.  No more hyperbole, no more talk, no more nonsense, no more death touches and  no more "chi".  Just fighting and testing.
> 
> and it's fine if certain arts didn't want to take the challenge, didn't feel a need to etc.   but if you wanted to deny GJJ's claims. There was an open format to do it, for real.


I think this is greatly exaggerating the 'Gracie effect'. Nothing *is* proven. The Gracies have demonstrated the importance of grappling in competition. Period.

Your reference to death touches and Chi is out of context and when you link that with 'hyperbole' and 'nonsense' it is offensive to those who practise internal arts or Kyusho and demonstrates you have no understanding of the place of those things in TMA.


TFP said:


> And maybe it's just the way I was brought up in the fighting world.  It was a very practical, no nonsense type of fight training.  First with a bonafide street fighter, then a JKD specialist that allowed open expression, then the era of the Gracie Challenge and style vs style actually fighting.   Then Catch Wrestling, MMA standup, No Gi BJJ/Judo and straight BJJ.
> 
> sorry but the whole my art or my moves are to deadly and dangerous nonsense just doesn't fly anymore.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Personally, what I train is very practical, no nonsense self defence. First with sport karate, then traditional karate, then Aikido, then Systema, then Krav. That is perfectly adequate for my needs and is all RBSD.  And I am sorry too because almost all my moves *are* designed to be deadly and dangerous. I might suggest that if yours are not your practice is not what it should be.



Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately you still haven't gotten an honest answer to your question. I think its good to ask it again.
> 
> "How are NHB rules biased against "traditional" martial arts?"



Cracked record or just trolling? This has been answered every time you asked and you keep ignoring the answer. 



Tenacious_Red said:


> This is interesting. Would it be safe to say that it is not a game, but a sport? An art? A discipline? And just like we separate sparring from an actual competition, we can also separate the form and practice from street fighting, and define as an exercise (weak description, though at a loss for proper terminology at the moment) to keep the mind and body sharp for incidents that can be physically endangering?



No. It is a competition. There are rules and there are limited numbers of people that want to compete. It doesn't prove anything but how the best fighter, under those rules, performed on the night.



Hanzou said:


> We don't even need to get it to that point. What about Vale Tudo, UFC, Pride, Prancrase, MMA, etc? How do the rules in those sporting events work against traditional martial arts?



I have answered this question on at least three occasions. Either read the posts and respond or stop trolling.



ballen0351 said:


> Its the competeing part that is the game or sport or whatever term you want to use.  Its the competing part that makes its not "real". Its for entertainment



Totally true. It is a 'real' sporting contest but it is no longer a 'real' fight. Whether it is a game or not is how you perceive it. It is obviously totally real and the whole reason for some people's existence but most of us couldn't give a toss. I had hardly watched any UFC prior to this thread. It just doesn't interest me. Sorry! 



lklawson said:


> People die in boxing and wrestling too.  And in "sport judo" as well.  And, occasionally, even in football.



Deaths in football I would claim are very few if you consider the number of games of football played and are more what I call unexpected. Deaths from wrestling and Judo I think would be not far ahead of football if at all. Deaths from boxing I would think would be higher but the real impact of boxing is the long term brain damage. Gloves don't reduce concussion. The difference between MMA now and the early UFC is that had the no rule contest continued they would have had severe injuries and deaths that would have led to regulation or even a total ban. The smart move was to get in first and reduce the chance of serious injury.



ballen0351 said:


> I agree i think the rules were not put in place to benefit anyone other then the fans.  It wasn't done to give anyone an advantage.  It was done for entertainment value of a fan base with little patients and lots of alcohol


I'm not sure the rules were for the fans, except that they tend to prolong the event. I think the rules do benefit the fighters as they do produce a safer environment but the real beneficiaries are the organisers because without rules MMA would have become an underground activity rather than mainstream.

I agree that rules were not introduced to give anyone an advantage. It is just that the more traditional martial arts were more disadvantaged by the rules than those whose main strength is on the ground.
:asian:


----------



## TFP

Steve said:


> .  But, being fair, no knees to the head of a downed opponent and rules like this favor the grappler.



This is highly debatable IMO.   Yes sprawling on a shot and then kneeing benefits the striker, but positions like North South and top Side Control would be insanely dangerous as a grappler if knees were allowed,  hell even under side control ala Frank Shamrock vs Renzo.

Thoughts?


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> I think this is greatly exaggerating the 'Gracie effect'. Nothing *is* proven. The Gracies have demonstrated the importance of grappling in competition. Period.
> 
> Your reference to death touches and Chi is out of context and when you link that with 'hyperbole' and 'nonsense' it is offensive to those who practise internal arts or Kyusho and demonstrates you have no understanding of the place of those things in TMA.



I don't think it was greatly exaggerated at all, and even if it was a little exaggerated, so what, at least it's something besides boisterous posturing without action.   Which is what the martial arts world had for along time in regards to what really works and which art was the best.

And you know exactly the type of thing I am talking about and it's the "my art is so deadly I can't practice it" crowd,  sorry if you think there is some form of disrespect there.  I'm not talking of the context of "internal arts" and you know it.  I'm talking about fighting so although thats a nice attempt at a side step, but ignoring or deflecting the real point is well..... Pointless.



> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Personally, what I train is very practical, no nonsense self defence. First with sport karate, then traditional karate, then Aikido, then Systema, then Krav. That is perfectly adequate for my needs and is all RBSD.



What is "RBSD"?



> And I am sorry too because almost all my moves *are* designed to be deadly and dangerous. I might suggest that if yours are not your practice is not what it should be



Yet you have no idea your moves actually work.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> What is "RBSD


Reality based self defense



> Yet you have no idea your moves actually work.



Sure we do there are plenty of real life examples where they work.


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> I don't think it was greatly exaggerated at all, and even if it was a little exaggerated, so what, at least it's something besides boisterous posturing without action.   Which is what the martial arts world had for along time in regards to what really works and which art was the best.
> 
> I give full credit to the Gracies for what they have given the martial arts community. It is however nothing to do with what works and what doesn't. My kata contain numerous neck breaks. I can't practise them full power in my training and I couldn't use them at all in competition. Will they work? In theory yes but I hope I never find out for real. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.
> 
> And you know exactly the type of thing I am talking about and it's the "my art is so deadly I can't practice it" crowd,  sorry if you think there is some form of disrespect there.  I'm not talking of the context of "internal arts" and you know it.  I'm talking about fighting so although thats a nice attempt at a side step, but ignoring or deflecting the real point is well..... Pointless.
> 
> I'm sorry, I can only read what you write. I haven't side stepped anything. In fact I have agreed with most of what you have said.
> 
> What is "RBSD"?
> 
> Mmm! That says something.
> 
> Yet you have no idea your moves actually work.


My moves have been taught to me by guys who teach special forces, those who teach police tactical response and undercover police. Why would they teach stuff that doesn't work?
:asian:


----------



## TFP

Ok, so we can for the most part agree that the Gracies did something great and it helped shape and open alot of martial artists eyes but is absolutely not the end all be all in combat or SD.


Now let's talk about these deadly moves and "neck breaks"................   Care to give an example?


----------



## TFP

For anyone interested, here is the full (ball punch) fight,  Keith Hackney was one of the legit martial artists in the early UFC's IMO.

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/


And here is a nice video of that wacky early MMA that was just amsport that no one was trying to actually injure eachother in............

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/


----------



## ballen0351

Your clips aren't working it just sends me to the main YouTube page


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> Now let's talk about these deadly moves and "neck breaks"................   Care to give an example?


What's to talk about? If you apply a neck crank quickly you can have catastrophic consequences. Applied slowly you have submission. I'll post a small piece from Brian VanCise's blog.


> Neck cranks are a dynamic and dangerous method of applying pressure to the spine around the 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae.  They are a neck break and when done can have absolutely devastating consequences.  It is very, very important in my opinion to learn them from a qualified instructor and one that also teaches morality or good behavior.  When ever we practice neck cranks safety is absolutely first.  There is simply no need to do anything fast or in a herky jerky manner.  They are some thing that is needed in your martial training for that chance of a violent encounter that goes way south.
> http://brianvancise.com/2009/04/26/irt-neck-crank-intensive-is-today/


If you practise kata as a fighting system you will find multiple opportunities through the kata for neck cranks. 
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> What about the Gracie in action fights and the open Gracie Challenge?   Thing is we can sit back with our heads in the sand saying "nothing is proven!  Nothing is proven!"  Or we can look at a clan that put together an art and challenged the martial arts world with it.  No more hyperbole, no more talk, no more nonsense, no more death touches and  no more "chi".



Again only SOME martial arts were involved in the challenges and they involved individuals, not the entire art. That is one thing you and Hanzou fail to understand time and time again. Do you think the FDA tests its new drugs on one or two individuals here and there and only from a single ethnic group, no they test on a large scale and even then they never find all the possible problems.



TFP said:


> Just fighting and testing.and it's fine if certain arts didn't want to take the challenge, didn't  feel a need to etc.   but if you wanted to deny GJJ's claims. There was  an open format to do it, for real.



Only those who cared what they claimed and could or wanted to make the trip out to see them would go out of their way to disprove their claims. If they wanted to test their art against me they could just as easily just go up and attack me, that is the only true test of a self defence martial art and the only reason I would use my art to its full extent.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> Your clips aren't working it just sends me to the main YouTube page



Try these......

The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......






Keith Hackney vs Joe Son


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> Again only SOME martial arts were involved in the challenges and they involved individuals, not the entire art. That is one thing you and Hanzou fail to understand time and time again. Do you think the FDA tests its new drugs on one or two individuals here and there and only from a single ethnic group, no they test on a large scale and even then they never find all the possible problems.
> 
> Yes, nit every single person from every single art showed up, that must invalidate what happened....... But they all were invited!
> 
> Only those who cared what they claimed and could or wanted to make the trip out to see them would go out of their way to disprove their claims. If they wanted to test their art against me they could just as easily just go up and attack me, that is the only true test of a self defence martial art and the only reason I would use my art to its full extent.
> 
> I see.....


so basically nothing is nothing......


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Yes, nit every single person from every single art  showed up, that must invalidate what happened....... But they all were  invited!



It does not invalidate what happened it just limits the scope considerably and that is the concept you seem to have trouble grasping. It is often offered as *proof *that BJJ is superior to all other martial arts which is far beyond the scope of the challenges and quite a considerable stretch of logic.:s406:


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> :s406:



than stop filibustering and scram.:jaw-dropping:


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Try these......
> 
> The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......
> http://youtu.be/gvc6GHCEAlE




That is a bit closer to reality but note the referee that steps in when things get too rough for one fighter. In real life there is no guarantee that someone will stop someone from going too far or that tapping out will end the fight. Very entertaining video, some things that can be learned from it:

. The first 15 seconds shows that being on the ground is not a good place to be.
. Striking is very effective.
. Things are more brutal when you don't ban everything.
. Ring girls are hot.
. Not many double leg takedowns when you are allowed to use downward elbows.
. Headbutts make clinching dangerous.
. More victories by striking than grappling.
. The UFC is not what it used to be.



TFP said:


> Keith Hackney vs Joe Son
> http://youtu.be/gIJLEmITPtg



If anyone deserves to get hit in the balls it is Joe Son.


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> You writing from an air force Base means nothing to me I was a Marine


Which is irrelevant.  I included it to show how silly your claim that I was "disrespecting" the military was, so stop dick measuring.



> The topic was rules with regards to the UFC that's been the topic for about 20 pages you changed it to the military for some unknown reason since it had nothing to do with the topic.


For some unknown reason?  Mule Muffins.  You claimed that the rules mean it's a game not a fight.  I asked you twice just to be sure.  The military has to do with the topic that YOU included because even wars have "rules" yet no one, not even you, claims that it is not fighting.  Rules do not mean that it's not a fight.  Just man up and admit it.



> So you man up and say your sorry for your disrespect.


Your interjection of the ludicrous accusation of "disrespect" is nothing but a smokescreen so that you don't have to admit that even war has rules.  Man up.


----------



## lklawson

Tenacious_Red said:


> I *think* military was brought into the equation as a means to determine how MA were created to help defend countries (though not all originally and specifically, but many) and not be portrayed as a, "game"--which the term game can often be synonymous with, "non-serious."


Nope.  It was brought up to to show that even war has "rules" and, thus, the claim that the addition of "rules" mean that it's a "game" and not a "fight" is spurious.



> I have reason to believe either of you are intentionally looking to disrespect any organization, especially those who have sacrificed so much whether we agree with it or not.


It's a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the thesis that "rules = game" is wrong.


----------



## lklawson

K-man said:


> Deaths in football I would claim are very few if you consider the number of games of football played and are more what I call unexpected. Deaths from wrestling and Judo I think would be not far ahead of football if at all. Deaths from boxing I would think would be higher but the real impact of boxing is the long term brain damage. Gloves don't reduce concussion. The difference between MMA now and the early UFC is that had the no rule contest continued they would have had severe injuries and deaths that would have led to regulation or even a total ban. The smart move was to get in first and reduce the chance of serious injury.


The discussion of deaths is a direct response to what you wrote:

​ "Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional  warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died  in both.   So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the  rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more  damaging forms of attack."​
Note that you write, "I have a vague idea people died in both."  Deaths, as a direct result of the event, occur in all of these.  The point is that the answer must be far more nuanced than just "deaths" or, as I think we agree, that the addition of "rules" does not mean it's not a "real fight."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> This is highly debatable IMO.   Yes sprawling on a shot and then kneeing benefits the striker, but positions like North South and top Side Control would be insanely dangerous as a grappler if knees were allowed,  hell even under side control ala Frank Shamrock vs Renzo.
> 
> Thoughts?


North-South?  Maybe dangerous for the bottom man.  Side-Control?  Same thing.  The top man has enough control that he can disengage just enough to put his body into a knee shot.  Neither are particularly dangerous for the top man if knee shots are allowed.  The bottom man is immobilized on his back and simply can't get his body into throwing knee shots.  North-South would be a non-starter for knee shots for the bottom man.  Side-Control would allow only comparatively weak knee shots for the bottom man, maybe analogous to a jab (maybe).  And if the top man sinks his head down on to the bottom man, then the bottom man is going to be hard pressed to make effective shots.  Experiment with it yourself and see.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

RTKDCMB said:


> Only those who cared what they claimed and could or wanted to make the trip out to see them would go out of their way to disprove their claims.


We agree on this.  Prior to UFC1, few people knew or cared what the Gracie Challenge was and it was a small, local, thing that simply didn't offer much incentive for people to travel any distance to go to them.  Nevertheless, there's lots of evidence that if a fighter is not well versed in at least the basics of grappling, then a grappler (both standing and ground) will have a significant advantage.  It's typically difficult and time consuming to beat a person to death with bare fists (and feet).  If the target of a bare handed attacks have even minimal cover up skills, the person punching and kicking is going to have a long row to hoe, baring accident or luck.  Conversely, it is far easier for someone with basic grappling skills to disable, negate, or "smother actions" someone who doesn't at least have basic grappling skills.  The truth is, what UFC proved is that in an unarmed fight, a fighter without basic grappling skills is at a dramatic disadvantage to one with them.  As UFC advanced, the evolution of the styles has shown that certain specific, if basic, grappling skills are all that is required in a high percentage of cases.  This is epitomized in the fighting style referred to as "Sprawl and Brawl."  While it is someone unfairly simplifying the Sprawl and Brawl style, the general gist of it is, "know just enough grappling (i.e.: 'sprawl') to be able to maintain or return to striking (i.e. 'brawl').

In short, what the Gracies and UFC proved is that fighters need to practice grappling skills and that what grappling skills most fighters thought they possessed were either the wrong skills or not practiced in such a manner as to make them functional for the fighter.  *That* was the "Gracie Revolution."



> If they wanted to test their art against me they could just as easily just go up and attack me, that is the only true test of a self defence martial art and the only reason I would use my art to its full extent.


Ambushes generally favor the ambusher and I don't see them as a good test of the fighter or the art.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RTKDCMB

lklawson said:


> Ambushes generally favor the ambusher and I don't see them as a good test of the fighter or the art.



In a complete ambush you are correct, often though you can tell when someone is about to attack you, especially when you have an awareness of the surroundings that you learn to have with martial arts/self defence training.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> than stop filibustering and scram.:jaw-dropping:



You know, talking to yourself is the first sign of madness?


----------



## ballen0351

lklawson said:


> Which is irrelevant.  I included it to show how silly your claim that I was "disrespecting" the military was, so stop dick measuring.
> 
> For some unknown reason?  Mule Muffins.  You claimed that the rules mean it's a game not a fight.  I asked you twice just to be sure.  The military has to do with the topic that YOU included because even wars have "rules" yet no one, not even you, claims that it is not fighting.  Rules do not mean that it's not a fight.  Just man up and admit it.
> 
> Your interjection of the ludicrous accusation of "disrespect" is nothing but a smokescreen so that you don't have to admit that even war has rules.  Man up.



Never mind no point in being rude back to you and getting the thread lock.  Merry Christmas sir


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Try these......
> 
> The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......
> http://youtu.be/gvc6GHCEAlE
> 
> 
> Keith Hackney vs Joe Son
> http://youtu.be/gIJLEmITPtg



Again they are trying to hurt each other not injure.  There is a difference. In a sporting event you want to hurt the guy to win not injure him.  If they were trying to cause injury then they suck at it


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> I think that we have to accept not all Aikidoka are like Steven Seagal, not all BJJ guys are like Royce Gracie, not all Kung Fu guys are like Bruce Lee and not all Karate guys are like Chuck Norris. Most of us train to be the best we can be at what we do. Some of us might be overweight, some might be older, some might live with disability. Most of us have no desire to compete in competition and we all have different motivation for training which may even influence the style of martial art we have chosen. I would never post anything on YouTube as it will always be taken out of context by some idiot trying to make a point.
> 
> We were discussing it at Aikido this morning. People post stuff that yells, "look at me", and I might look and cringe. The person who has posted the video reckons that what they were doing was great, but I look at it from a different perspective and say that was not right, or that was not realistic or that will never work ... and that is from someone who trains in that system. But what really pisses me off is when there is material that is good technique that demonstrates balance and timing and is an example of good training and someone with no training in the style rubbishes it.
> 
> The thing that is important though is, no matter how terrible the video, it is not representative of the system it portrays and even more important, the person in the video has got up off his ****, gone down to a dojo and started training unlike the millions of couch potatoes and armchair experts who have nothing better to do with their time than to criticise others.
> :asian:



Excellent post!  This is why I don't like the idea of people always falling back on YT as the "Bible" of what is/is not good martial arts.  Whie there is quite a bit that's good, there's just as much that's not.  And I also agree with what you said about quality material and then someone craps on it.  I've seen clips of some arts, and I'm looking at them thinking, "Umm...wtf?!?!" but try to look at it with an open mind, especially if it's something that I don't know, ie: Systema.  SENC-33 posted some Systema clips for me, as I had mentioned that I'd seen quite a few but wasn't sure what was really good quality and what wasn't.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> No *we* don't, at least not intentionally. *We *try to finish the fight quickly without going to the ground ourselves. That is the difference between sport and TMA. And if *we*&#8203; go to the ground, normally *we* try to regain our feet ASAP because in an actual fight situation, *we* recognise the fact that in most cases the ground is not the best place to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you cannot recognise the difference between sport and reality based MA. In sporting contests most go to the ground for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Let's explore the idea that most fights go to the ground. In most sporting contests the contestants are of a similar standard. Therefore many of their skills are cancelled out and the resort to whatever they can do to gain the advantage. That may well take the contest to the ground because they perceive that to be their strength. Many street fights would also be between untrained people of similar ability. In this situation of course size would give an advantage. Once again, in a situation, where skills are negated, it could very well go to the ground.
> 
> Now let's have a scenario where there is a highly trained stand up fighter like say Tyson. Against an untrained fighter in the pub, do you really think he would want to take the fight to the ground? That is a nonsense. Now shift the scenario slightly to a martial artist, of any persuasion, of reasonable ability, against an untrained person or even against someone with some limited MA training. Most would have no thought of taking a real fight to the ground. Of course it could happen by accident but highly unlikely by design.
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Exactly!



LOL..funny you should say this, because according to Hanzou, that's the norm....to always do something, especially if it's the strong point of the art.  Sure, I have specific things that I like to do against certain things, ie: a favorite tech against a punch, a fav against a grab, etc, but I also realize that there's going to be times when those things may not be the best option.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Well I was talking pre MMA,  style vs style.  Now once these other fighters started learning the ground, learning TDD, etc then it changed the landscape from style vs style to "Mixed-Martial-Arts".   GJJ isn't magic, it's just what works, along with other ground fighting arts.   The is, if you don't know enough ground fighting you are going to be in trouble if you run across someone that does.
> 
> I'm not saying anything is wrong with striking styles, but IMO you had better mix in a healthy does of grappling training.



I can agree with this.  Thing is though, how much is enough?  I mean, if you took some privates in BJJ for 5 months, just to learn some basic stuff, and drilled the hell out of it, is that enough?  Do we need to spend 1yr in a BJJ gym?  2yrs? 5?  The same can be said about anything though.  Let's play devils advocate.  Technically if the stand up guy needs to know the ground, the ground guy should know some punching. I mean, just because one is skilled in the ground game, doesnt mean that they're always going to be able to take the other guy down.  You mentioned something like this in a post to me.  So, how much boxing should we have?  1 month? 1 yr?


----------



## lklawson

ballen0351 said:


> Again it's not my fault your not smart


Play nice.  I'm not the one who claimed that rules=game.  You did.



> Of course rules in general don't make anything a game.


Well, I'm glad you're finally admitting it.  Finally.



> So try to keep up with the context of the discussion or don't because your disrespectful attitude towards our troops has made you the first and only person I will be placing on my ignore list.  Some advisor you are


Give up the faux outrage.  No one's buying it.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Untrue!  100% categorically false!   Proven over and over by a majority.



how so?  In the early days, we primarily saw just what the UFC was intended to show...style vs style.  2 strikers, 2 grapplers, a grappler and a striker, etc.  As time went on, people smartened up, and realized that everything was important.  Rare are the days when we see a 1 dimensional fighter anymore.  Royce returned to fight Matt Hughes and despite the small amount of boxing that he had done, Matt dominated Royce with strikes.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> .  Infact it was used vs Royce in the eay UFC's and didn't work.



It was?  By who?  It's been so long since I've seen the first UFC, I can't recall.


----------



## lklawson

RTKDCMB said:


> You know, talking to yourself is the first sign of madness?


So may be participation in this thread.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Its not that they don't work, it's that they shouldn't be relied on to get you out of sticky situations. There are more efficient (and smarter ways) to get out of holds, mounts, and control positions. Furthermore, its risky to do "dirty tactics" when you don't have the dominant position.
> 
> As Bas Rutten says "I got you in a choke, you bite my arm, I snap your neck."



Holy ****! The moon and stars really are falling into place..lol...because lately, I've been finding quite a few of your posts that I agree with!   I like the dirty tricks, and I'm all for using them, but yes, as I've said myself, I also like to have a backup plan.  If that dirty trick doesnt work, and that's all you have to fall back on, well, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> I mean, if you took some privates in BJJ for 5 months, just to learn some basic stuff, and drilled the hell out of it, is that enough?


Probably, yes.  Unless you were going into a MMA fight, 6 months to 1 year of dedicated grappling defenses from a skilled grappler (such as a GJJ school), along with maintenance practice, is probably going to cover you in the vast majority of situations the average person is likely to see.



> Let's play devils advocate.  Technically if the stand up guy needs to know the ground, the ground guy should know some punching. I mean, just because one is skilled in the ground game, doesnt mean that they're always going to be able to take the other guy down.  You mentioned something like this in a post to me.  So, how much boxing should we have?  1 month? 1 yr?


Having done (and still doing) both striking and grappling, it's easier for a grappler to learn how to negate (or at least mitigate) most striking than for a striker to learn the basic skill required to mitigate most grappling.  Heck, "cover up and crash to clinch, then work on takedown" is a pretty good, well proven, strategy that's way harder to learn how to beat than to learn how to do.  Yeah, it can be beaten.  But it's kinda like comparing a weapons to armor.  The weapon is almost always easier to use and make than the armor required to stop it.  That's the way crashing to clinch works.  If you're lucky, you'll get in one strike as the person crashing in to clinch (while he's in a "cover up" position).  Once he's got clinch he'll start working for the takedown.  From that position you need to know how to stop the takedowns (which ain't easy) while either trying to strike effectively from clinch (which ain't easy) or forcing a disengage from the clinch (which is even harder).  So, in this limited context, grappling proponents have it "right" (well, sorta).

So, yeah, strikers need to know some grappling and grapplers need to know some striking.  But it's way easier to force a fight to grappling (and/or to the ground) than it is to force a fight to stay standing at at range.  If the guy who prefers a striking game is much better trained and more skilled than the guy who wants to go to grappling, then he's got a better shot at keeping it in his preferred range.

You know what also forces grapplers to not crash guard to the clinch?  A knife.  Paradoxically, a knife also forces grappling.   No one wants to get stabbed so a knife will typically force a person to stay out of range, which will be punching range or greater (depending on the knife).  However, if the other guy is unarmed and, for whatever reason, has to deal with the guy with the knife, the only way to do it successfully is to gain control of the weapon bearing limb.  I.E. "grappling."  

And here's another spot were RBSD proponents has it right.  Grapplers, just because you don't *see* a knife doesn't mean he doesn't *have* a knife.  Season with other various weapons to taste.

This crap is way to complex and nuanced for many of the overly simplistic pronouncements I've seen in this thread.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> Have you a time machine? We are only up to 1215. 1) Perhaps you could let us know how the thread progressed, 2)was Hanzou finally banned, 3)did we pass 200 pages 4)and did we ever resolve the issue?
> :asian:



1) 




2) No.  Not yet anyways. 

3) Oh yeah, well past the 200pg mark. 

4) Hell no!!! LOL!


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> Holy ****! The moon and stars really are falling into place..lol...because lately, I've been finding quite a few of your posts that I agree with!   I like the dirty tricks, and I'm all for using them, but yes, as I've said myself, I also like to have a backup plan.  If that dirty trick doesnt work, and that's all you have to fall back on, well, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.


I think it goes deeper than just having a backup plan if the "dirty trick" doesn't work.  Many of the dirty tricks are lower percentage than some of the other potential responses.  So, potentially, a better plan is to learn and use those other responses as a primary plan and save the "dirty tricks" for the backup plan, or maybe even roll the two together.

I remember in the early "Sport Fighter vs. TMA" arguments, I used to see "I'll just eye gouge or nut grab" him a lot as a response to stopping a grappler.  The assumption was that a grappler was unaware that EMFG's existed and couldn't use them at all.  But the reality is that a person who is conversant with grappling usually ends up in a superior position to not only prevent an EMFG but is actually in a better position to perform one.  Basic grappling skills can actually enhance your ability perform "dirty tricks."

That's the point of not *relying* on "dirty tricks."  It's not that they don't deserve a place in your bag-o-tricks, it's that we need to know how to actually use them and, as it turns out, it's not what a lot of us (myself included) believed they were prior to the "Gracie Revolution."

I haven't given up EMFG's or GroinGrabs from my martial list, I just have better ways to more effectively apply them.  They're higher percentage techniques now.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> What about the Gracie in action fights and the open Gracie Challenge?   Thing is we can sit back with our heads in the sand saying "nothing is proven!  Nothing is proven!"  Or we can look at a clan that put together an art and challenged the martial arts world with it.  No more hyperbole, no more talk, no more nonsense, no more death touches and  no more "chi".  Just fighting and testing.
> 
> and it's fine if certain arts didn't want to take the challenge, didn't feel a need to etc.   but if you wanted to deny GJJ's claims. There was an open format to do it, for real.



And if you didn't want to, and even if you still wanted to deny the claims, you and your art were probably looked at as being a chicken, to use a more polite word.


----------



## frank raud

MJS said:


> how so?  In the early days, we primarily saw just what the UFC was intended to show...style vs style.  2 strikers, 2 grapplers, a grappler and a striker, etc.  As time went on, people smartened up, and realized that everything was important.  Rare are the days when we see a 1 dimensional fighter anymore.  Royce returned to fight Matt Hughes and despite the small amount of boxing that he had done, Matt dominated Royce with strikes.



Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> And if you didn't want to, and even if you still wanted to deny the claims, you and your art were probably looked at as being a chicken, to use a more polite word.


Frankly, yes.  I've seen it happen plenty of times.  "I issued a challenge to you that you never heard about (and didn't care about) and you never showed you coward!"  

But my all time favorite permutation of the theme is the Ashida Kim Challenge.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tenacious_Red

lklawson said:


> Nope.  It was brought up to to show that even war has "rules" and, thus, the claim that the addition of "rules" mean that it's a "game" and not a "fight" is spurious.
> 
> It's a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the thesis that "rules = game" is wrong.



Thank you for the clarification, and I do indeed concur. Rules are just a separate construction from what dictates a, "fight."


----------



## ballen0351

frank raud said:


> Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.



I think that's the point a lot of people are trying to make.  Nobody says you don't need grappling.  They say GJJ isn't the only grappling game in town.  I learned some grappling in Goju and in my opinion its enough to use against most people on the street but I'd get crushed by even a 2 or 3 striped white belt in BJJ or a guy with a few months of Judo or even a little college wrestling.  So I went out and started learning Judo and BJJ.  To me and for me Judo is more appropriate for what I do and what I use it for.  Other folks may find BJJ better for them or Wrestling or Aikido or any of the other arts that have grappling in it.  
Too much credit is given to the gracies in this regard.  Grappling was coming not just GJJ but all forms.  The gracies were just the best to market it and were just superior fighters not so much the style but the person.  Some people are just better.  Ray lewis was one of the best linebackers of all time.  Lots of people play the position but he was just better.  Not because he trained harder or learned something nobody else knew he just had better instincts and could just see the field differently he was special.  I think Gracie in the early UFC was just better he had better instincts and saw openings others may not he was special.  For some guys they just have it.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> My moves have been taught to me by guys who teach special forces, those who teach police tactical response and undercover police. Why would they teach stuff that doesn't work?
> :asian:



Oh come on now..you know it won't work, because its not on youtube! 

Seriously though....isn't it amazing how these things in our art, work well enough, in real world situations, to keep us alive and able to post here.   Just because it's not on YT, just because it's not in competition, doesnt mean that the art is a failure.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Ok, so we can for the most part agree that the Gracies did something great and it helped shape and open alot of martial artists eyes but is absolutely not the end all be all in combat or SD.



Agreed.




> Now let's talk about these deadly moves and "neck breaks"................   Care to give an example?



I wasn't talking about those things, so I'll leave those comments to others.   I will say this though...obviously in training there are things that just can't be practiced, this being one example.  I have many Kenpo techs that have a neck or arm break in them.  Personally, unless it's really a life and death situation, breaking a neck is hardly warranted over the attacker simply punching you.  I can think of numerous other things that I'd do first, before I'd even consider a neck break.



TFP said:


> Try these......
> 
> The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......
> http://youtu.be/gvc6GHCEAlE
> 
> 
> Keith Hackney vs Joe Son
> http://youtu.be/gIJLEmITPtg



Nice clips!!  As for Keith...yes, I agree with what you said earlier...def. one of the best, most legit fighters in the early days.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> how so?  In the early days, we primarily saw just what the UFC was intended to show...style vs style.  2 strikers, 2 grapplers, a grappler and a striker, etc.  As time went on, people smartened up, and realized that everything was important.  Rare are the days when we see a 1 dimensional fighter anymore.  Royce returned to fight Matt Hughes and despite the small amount of boxing that he had done, Matt dominated Royce with strikes.


Can you remind me what I was discounting there?    Or which post # it was?


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> What's to talk about? If you apply a neck crank quickly you can have catastrophic consequences. Applied slowly you have submission. I'll post a small piece from Brian VanCise's blog.
> 
> If you practise kata as a fighting system you will find multiple opportunities through the kata for neck cranks.
> :asian:


Actually a few legitimate looking holds in there.  But I don't believe any are "neck breakers".


----------



## TFP

RTKDCMB said:


> That is a bit closer to reality but note the referee that steps in when things get too rough for one fighter. In real life there is no guarantee that someone will stop someone from going too far or that tapping out will end the fight. Very entertaining video, some things that can be learned from it:
> 
> . The first 15 seconds shows that being on the ground is not a good place to be.
> . Striking is very effective.
> . Things are more brutal when you don't ban everything.
> . Ring girls are hot.
> . Not many double leg takedowns when you are allowed to use downward elbows.
> . Headbutts make clinching dangerous.
> . More victories by striking than grappling.
> . The UFC is not what it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Yeah that was some brutal fighting, and no the UFC and Dana's "Ultimate Boxing" is not at all like what it used to be!!!!



> If anyone deserves to get hit in the balls it is Joe Son


True!  accused of killing his cell mate while serving 15 yeRs for torture, kidnapping & gang rape.

what did you think of Hackneys  fighting style?  Footwork, movement, etc?


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> It was?  By who?  It's been so long since I've seen the first UFC, I can't recall.


Are we talking about biting?  In the finals of UFC 1.


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Actually a few legitimate looking holds in there.  But I don't believe any are "neck breakers".


http://youtu.be/NkMuzwDtSPk

See if this link works this is what I was think about


----------



## TFP

frank raud said:


> Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.


And Royce was on the Roids for that fight.


----------



## RTKDCMB

MJS said:


> Holy ****! The moon and stars really are falling into place..lol...because lately, I've been finding quite a few of your posts that I agree with!   I like the dirty tricks, and I'm all for using them, but yes, as I've said myself, I also like to have a backup plan.  If that dirty trick doesnt work, and that's all you have to fall back on, well, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.



First of all I would like to point out that the term 'dirty tricks' is a term that sport fighters often use to describe some things that are not allowed in their sport. In self defence there are no such things as dirty tricks, only things that need to be done. Dirty tricks are not meant as finishers, there are mainly used as distractions to allow for the use of the finishers or to get away.


----------



## Tenacious_Red

RTKDCMB said:


> First of all I would like to point out that the term 'dirty tricks' is a term that sport fighters often use to describe some things that are not allowed in their sport. In self defence there are no such things as dirty tricks, only things that need to be done. Dirty tricks are not meant as finishers, there are mainly used as distractions to allow for the use of the finishers or to get away.



Agreed!

And I kept thinking, "dirty tricks" meant a good Saturday night. *sigh*


----------



## MJS

lklawson said:


> Probably, yes.  Unless you were going into a MMA fight, 6 months to 1 year of dedicated grappling defenses from a skilled grappler (such as a GJJ school), along with maintenance practice, is probably going to cover you in the vast majority of situations the average person is likely to see.



That's what I figured.  Yeah, I was talking about SD purposes, not the cage.  



> Having done (and still doing) both striking and grappling, it's easier for a grappler to learn how to negate (or at least mitigate) most striking than for a striker to learn the basic skill required to mitigate most grappling.  Heck, "cover up and crash to clinch, then work on takedown" is a pretty good, well proven, strategy that's way harder to learn how to beat than to learn how to do.  Yeah, it can be beaten.  But it's kinda like comparing a weapons to armor.  The weapon is almost always easier to use and make than the armor required to stop it.  That's the way crashing to clinch works.  If you're lucky, you'll get in one strike as the person crashing in to clinch (while he's in a "cover up" position).  Once he's got clinch he'll start working for the takedown.  From that position you need to know how to stop the takedowns (which ain't easy) while either trying to strike effectively from clinch (which ain't easy) or forcing a disengage from the clinch (which is even harder).  So, in this limited context, grappling proponents have it "right" (well, sorta).
> 
> So, yeah, strikers need to know some grappling and grapplers need to know some striking.  But it's way easier to force a fight to grappling (and/or to the ground) than it is to force a fight to stay standing at at range.  If the guy who prefers a striking game is much better trained and more skilled than the guy who wants to go to grappling, then he's got a better shot at keeping it in his preferred range.



Great points.  Of course, this isn't to say it's impossible for the striker to learn this.  If we use Machida (sp) and Liddell (sp) as examples...we really never saw Chuck on the ground.



> You know what also forces grapplers to not crash guard to the clinch?  A knife.  Paradoxically, a knife also forces grappling.   No one wants to get stabbed so a knife will typically force a person to stay out of range, which will be punching range or greater (depending on the knife).  However, if the other guy is unarmed and, for whatever reason, has to deal with the guy with the knife, the only way to do it successfully is to gain control of the weapon bearing limb.  I.E. "grappling."
> 
> And here's another spot were RBSD proponents has it right.  Grapplers, just because you don't *see* a knife doesn't mean he doesn't *have* a knife.  Season with other various weapons to taste.
> 
> This crap is way to complex and nuanced for many of the overly simplistic pronouncements I've seen in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Cant' disagree with that.


----------



## Steve

lklawson said:


> Nope.  It was brought up to to show that even war has "rules" and, thus, the claim that the addition of "rules" mean that it's a "game" and not a "fight" is spurious.
> 
> It's a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the thesis that "rules = game" is wrong.


For what it's worth, I agree with you that there are rules, overt or implicit, governing just about ever human interaction.  Whether called morality, ethics, rules of engagement, code of conduct, courtesy, respect, by laws or whatever else, everything from saying hello politely to war has rules.

So, while there are rules, I think that a distinction can be seen between "war" and "sport."  The stakes are much, much higher in a warzone.  In the same way, even a formal duel governed by strict rules has a much higher stake at risk than an MMA match.


----------



## MJS

lklawson said:


> I think it goes deeper than just having a backup plan if the "dirty trick" doesn't work.  Many of the dirty tricks are lower percentage than some of the other potential responses.  So, potentially, a better plan is to learn and use those other responses as a primary plan and save the "dirty tricks" for the backup plan, or maybe even roll the two together.
> 
> I remember in the early "Sport Fighter vs. TMA" arguments, I used to see "I'll just eye gouge or nut grab" him a lot as a response to stopping a grappler.  The assumption was that a grappler was unaware that EMFG's existed and couldn't use them at all.  But the reality is that a person who is conversant with grappling usually ends up in a superior position to not only prevent an EMFG but is actually in a better position to perform one.  Basic grappling skills can actually enhance your ability perform "dirty tricks."
> 
> That's the point of not *relying* on "dirty tricks."  It's not that they don't deserve a place in your bag-o-tricks, it's that we need to know how to actually use them and, as it turns out, it's not what a lot of us (myself included) believed they were prior to the "Gracie Revolution."
> 
> I haven't given up EMFG's or GroinGrabs from my martial list, I just have better ways to more effectively apply them.  They're higher percentage techniques now.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



LOL,,,yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say.   Thanks for putting my thoughts into the words I was seeking.


----------



## lklawson

Steve said:


> So, while there are rules, I think that a distinction can be seen between "war" and "sport."  The stakes are much, much higher in a warzone.  In the same way, even a formal duel governed by strict rules has a much higher stake at risk than an MMA match.


I don't disagree at all.  My complaint was with the simplistic statement that rules = game.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> In Bjj, the Triangle Choke re-emerged because a Brazilian was flipping through an old Judo book from the 1920s, and decided to use the technique during a Bjj match. The choke was so effective that it was quickly added into the Bjj curriculum.



BJJ is a derivative of Judo.  It was a student of Kano who moved to Brazil and taught the Gracies.  I believe his name was Maeda (?).  So it"s not at all surprising that a specific Judo tech would be found in BJJ.


----------



## MJS

frank raud said:


> Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.



Of course.  I didn't mean to sound like I was down-playing his grappling skills.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kframe said:


> I keep coming back to the striking defense. You would think a lineage of karate, say GOJO or Shorin, would have set ways of dealing with attacks throught the entirety of the system. Sadly you can take 4 different schools from the same Lineage and they will have 4 different applications of the same defense.  The fact that karate cant even agree with it self on how to use the defenses is just odd....



This is actually proper karate.  The curriculum is meant to teach you how the principles work, and what the techniques are.  How one actually uses the techniques in application is wide open, only limited by one's imagination and their vision for what is possible.  To believe that a common curriculum must have a single application always in agreement with what everyone else is doing, is simply erroneous and illustrates a lack of understanding.  The curriculum teaches you some possibilities, not set solutions. It is meant to help you see what is possible, and help you use that vision to be effectively spontaneous.  What you do with it is up to you.



> Yet so many places train so softly..



this can be a legitimate criticism, but is more appropriately aimed at the individual, or even the instructor or the school.  But not the style itself.  Anyone, of any style, TMA or MMA or whatever, can bring the training intensity up, and can train realistically.  Or not.


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Can you remind me what I was discounting there?    Or which post # it was?



Sure.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1614389#post1614389


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Are we talking about biting?  In the finals of UFC 1.



Yeah I was curious about the biting and who bit or tried to bite, Royce.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> True!  accused of killing his cell mate while serving 15 yeRs for torture, kidnapping & gang rape.



He was looking at about 300 years at one stage.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> http://youtu.be/NkMuzwDtSPk
> 
> See if this link works this is what I was think about



I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.



Right not something you can train at full speed.  Not something you would use in a comp either


----------



## Jean Marais

To me the sport is a form of simulation. Not bad all things considered. The simulation has to fit the art though. Also, you don't need to test every aspect in the same simulation. For the effectiveness of eye gouging, I would try a dummy, not a person...maybe not as realistic, but we have limits. Nontheless, simulation is an essencial tool for developement, both of an art and of personal abillity. If you want to simulate a fight between two different arts, it will be tricky to come up with a simulation that does not favour one or the other in a reasonably safe way. Anyway, I find testing your art's effectiveness is an important way to be continously improoving it and yourself. You may not be able to test all elements, however more often than not, you will learn something that will advance you. 

Some TMA don't "participate" in some of the simulations against other styles, but it doesn't mean that they don't run simulations at all. Finding a common measuring stick simulation that does not hamper some aspects of an art, will probably never happen. There is no such thing as the perfect simulation. We do the best we can and learn as much as we can from those tests.


----------



## frank raud

TFP said:


> And Royce was on the Roids for that fight.



Are you suggesting that Hughes didn't dominate Gracie in every possible way during that fight, that maybe it was just a lucky punch that took him out?


----------



## K-man

lklawson said:


> Oh please.  Stop trying to weasel.
> 
> Just man up and admit you were wrong: UFC isn't a "game," it *is *"real fighting," just fighting with rules.  Just like pretty much all "real fighting" has "rules" of some sort.



Depending on the object of the fight. If it is to win a 'sporting contest' it is one thing. If it is to 'destroy' an opponent, it is totally different. The fact that UFC fighters were not trying to kill or permanently disable means that there were unwritten rules as well as the stated rules.



Tenacious_Red said:


> It is a tournament of real punches, kicks and elbows...but it is a competition of wit, physical endurance and strength--like a game.



The punches and kicks were real but the elbows were restricted. As I have stated previously, my most preferred technique in a life threatening situation would be striking with the point of the elbow. Its potential to damage is why it is against MMA rules. 



TFP said:


> you mean like starting the fight standing, then being stood up by a ref mid fight at his discretion, then having the fight stopped for a minute and it restarting on the feet?



Most fights start standing up. The grapplers strength is to clinch and the strikers objective is yo maintain distance. I would suggest of those two it is easier to achieve the clinch.



TFP said:


> If you don't understand how standing up two fighters, one who is primarily a grappler and one who is primary a striker benefits the striker than I believe any amount of factual reasoning will be lost on you.:flushed:



I would like to see your reasoning! Wrestling starts standing and judo starts standing. Why is MMA different. 



TFP said:


> This is highly debatable IMO.   Yes sprawling on a shot and then kneeing benefits the striker, but positions like North South and top Side Control would be insanely dangerous as a grappler if knees were allowed,  hell even under side control ala Frank Shamrock vs Renzo.
> 
> Thoughts?



Unless the person shooting is highly trained they are likely to get really badly injured against a reasonably trained martial artist. *Ballen*'s post of Tom Hill demonstrates what I mean.



lklawson said:


> The discussion of deaths is a direct response to what you wrote:
> "Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional  warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died  in both.   So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the  rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more  damaging forms of attack."​
> Note that you write, "I have a vague idea people died in both."  Deaths, as a direct result of the event, occur in all of these.  The point is that the answer must be far more nuanced than just "deaths" or, as I think we agree, that the addition of "rules" does not mean it's not a "real fight."


Obviously 'vague idea' was tongue firmly placed to the outer region of the oral cavity. But 'real' fight still needs to be defined. If by 'real' it is meant to go all out to win a competition, yes it is real. If by 'real' you mean to injure or totally destroy an opponent, perhaps not so real. As I said, it depends on intent.



lklawson said:


> In short, what the Gracies and UFC proved is that fighters need to practice grappling skills and that what grappling skills most fighters thought they possessed were either the wrong skills or not practiced in such a manner as to make them functional for the fighter.



In a sporting environment. 



ballen0351 said:


> Again they are trying to hurt each other not injure.  There is a difference. In a sporting event you want to hurt the guy to win not injure him.  If they were trying to cause injury then they suck at it



What he said! 



lklawson said:


> So may be participation in this thread.



Amen Brother! :cheers:



lklawson said:


> I think it goes deeper than just having a backup plan if the "dirty trick" doesn't work.  Many of the dirty tricks are lower percentage than some of the other potential responses.  So, potentially, a better plan is to learn and use those other responses as a primary plan and save the "dirty tricks" for the backup plan, or maybe even roll the two together.
> 
> I remember in the early "Sport Fighter vs. TMA" arguments, I used to see "I'll just eye gouge or nut grab" him a lot as a response to stopping a grappler.  The assumption was that a grappler was unaware that EMFG's existed and couldn't use them at all.  But the reality is that a person who is conversant with grappling usually ends up in a superior position to not only prevent an EMFG but is actually in a better position to perform one.  Basic grappling skills can actually enhance your ability perform "dirty tricks."
> 
> That's the point of not *relying* on "dirty tricks."  It's not that they don't deserve a place in your bag-o-tricks, it's that we need to know how to actually use them and, as it turns out, it's not what a lot of us (myself included) believed they were prior to the "Gracie Revolution."
> 
> I haven't given up EMFG's or GroinGrabs from my martial list, I just have better ways to more effectively apply them.  They're higher percentage techniques now.



I don't believe there are any dirty tricks. In RBSD there are just techniques. For example I was taught a kick to the groin in my early days. Kin geri to those who know Goju. I barely mention it nowadays. The chance of it doing anything in a real fight is low. If I am in the situation to attack the groin it will be a shin kick. Attacking the eyes is a valid technique, not so much to actually strike the eyes, bonus if that happens, but to elicit the flinch response and get the opponent's arm where I want it. If I am in a choke, sure I will go for the eyes. Spitting does nothing, but it is a distraction. Hair pulling, sure. It can be used to control your opponent's position. As for biting. Whether or not Bas actually said what he is quoted as saying or whether that is folk law, biting may well have a place in self defence. If you are in a choke and you can bite it is a valid distraction. 



MJS said:


> And if you didn't want to, and even if you still wanted to deny the claims, you and your art were probably looked at as being a chicken, to use a more polite word.



Regardless of who beat who, UFC never demonstrated one art was better than another. It demonstrated that, at one particular point of time, one fighter was better than another.



TFP said:


> Actually a few legitimate looking holds in there.  But I don't believe any are "neck breakers".



Then let's leave it that way.  What you don't know won't hurt you. What I teach has no place in sport anyway and FWIW there are numerous neck cranks in each kata.



RTKDCMB said:


> I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.



Actually no. It takes little effort to break the neck. There are certain things that I will not post on an open forum that change the dynamic. 



ballen0351 said:


> Right not something you can train at full speed.  Not something you would use in a comp either


Exactly!


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> North-South?  Maybe dangerous for the bottom man.  Side-Control?  Same thing.  The top man has enough control that he can disengage just enough to put his body into a knee shot.  Neither are particularly dangerous for the top man if knee shots are allowed.  The bottom man is immobilized on his back and simply can't get his body into throwing knee shots.  North-South would be a non-starter for knee shots for the bottom man.  Side-Control would allow only comparatively weak knee shots for the bottom man, maybe analogous to a jab (maybe).  And if the top man sinks his head down on to the bottom man, then the bottom man is going to be hard pressed to make effective shots.  Experiment with it yourself and see.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I see what you mean here and it makes sense to you because you have a lack of knowledge of grappling."  Here is the problem.......  You're assuming the "grappler" is on the bottom in those positions.   In reality he grappler is most likely the one on too in North South and on top in side control.  

So now rethink those positions from the idea of a grappler taking a striker down, getting on top of him and holding him down while knees to the head are legal.   It's kinda terrifying.


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> I think Gracie in the early UFC was just better he had better instincts and saw openings others may not he was special.  For some guys they just have it.




Thing is, Royce wasn't even in the top 3 or 4 in his family at the time, and here IMO is the big difference, Royce had those qualities over the other fighters because he had to a and tons of real, live combat experience.  His ***** was tested and tried and he was battle tested.  He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight.   No fancy forms and flows for him, just real fighting.


----------



## TFP

MJS said:


> Sure.
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1614389#post1614389


Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO.   As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts.

you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.

again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.


----------



## TFP

frank raud said:


> Are you suggesting that Hughes didn't dominate Gracie in every possible way during that fight, that maybe it was just a lucky punch that took him out?


Lol, I'm saying Hughes dominated the whole fight, standing and ground and did so even while Royce Gracie cheated by using illegal performance enhancing drugs which makes that do inaction all the more impressive!


----------



## K-man

TFP said:


> He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight.   *No fancy forms* and flows for him, just real fighting.


Now we are back to the OP. It's only taken 89 pages. 

Fancy forms are for competition. Nothing more nothing less. Anyone that says that it demonstrates technique, balance etc. is missing the point of Kata. Kata can look messy and still be performed well, just as you can drive a dirty car, just a dirty car won't win a car show.

Throwing in forms like this demonstrates your ignorance of TMAs. We have had threads discussing kata so I won't waste time going deeply into it here. Suffice to say, in karate, kata are fighting systems. Every technique is designed to be a finishing move, if that move fails the next technique is your fail safe and so on. Kata is designed to show you how to disable or kill your attacker (and don't throw up the 'more deadly' stuff). That is just the way it is. What happens in MMA might be 'real' fighting in a sporting sense. Kata gives you the tools to fight in a real life or death situation, providing you have learned to use it that way.  To most people kata are just what you see performed in competition and what you need to grade. If that is what your training teaches you then forget kata as it is a total waste of time, or get yourself a better teacher.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

TFP said:


> Thing is, Royce wasn't even in the top 3 or 4 in his family at the time, and here IMO is the big difference, Royce had those qualities over the other fighters because he had to a and tons of real, live combat experience.  His ***** was tested and tried and he was battle tested.  He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight.   No fancy forms and flows for him, just real fighting.


So you don't think shamrock was tried and tested?  All of the hard work and trading is part of it but natural ability rises to the top.


----------



## TFP

K-man said:


> .
> 
> 
> Most fights start standing up. The grapplers strength is to clinch and the strikers objective is yo maintain distance. I would suggest of those two it is easier to achieve the clinch.
> 
> True most fights start standing, my problem is the the ref choosing to bring the fight back to the fight whenever he wants and also the fact that there are rounds which also disrupt the grappling and gives the standup guy a free ride back to his feet
> 
> I would like to see your reasoning! Wrestling starts standing and judo starts standing. Why is MMA different.
> 
> Starting standing is fine, but once the fight hits the ground it should be the fighter who gets himself back up off the mat, not the ref and not the end of a round.
> 
> Unless the person shooting is highly trained they are likely to get really badly injured against a reasonably trained martial artist. *Ballen*'s post of Tom Hill demonstrates what I mean.
> not sure I remember that one, I will go back and look.


Thanks


----------



## TFP

ballen0351 said:


> So you don't think shamrock was tried and tested?  All of the hard work and trading is part of it but natural ability rises to the top.



Not sure what you mean here.  Yes Ken was somewhat seasoned, but again he was a grappler and a fighter.  There is no absolute, I think in Kens case he was out grappled by Royce and GJJ's system.   Ken was a much, much better natural fighter, but Royces system (GJJ) and his experience got him thru that first fight with a win, after that Ken's mind failed him.  To put it simply, Royce was in Ken's head big time and Ken never recovered mentally from that first defeat.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO.



 :bs:




TFP said:


> As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts. you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.



In the UFC maybe, in real life highly debatable. Define pure striker. Grappling is fine and good and should be a part of any well rounded martial art, but all the grappling in the world will not help you if you get knocked out trying to go for a clinch. If you think that no striker can control the distance when faced with a grappler you are sadly mistaken.



TFP said:


> again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.



:bs:

You know what they say about opinions?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TFP said:


> True most fights start standing, my problem is the  the ref choosing to bring the fight back to the fight whenever he wants  and also the fact that there are rounds which also disrupt the  grappling and gives the standup guy a free ride back to his feet
> 
> Starting standing is fine, but once the fight hits  the ground it should be the fighter who gets himself back up off the  mat, not the ref and not the end of a round.



The fights usually get restarted when nothing starts happening on the ground and the audience starts to get bored. If the grappler can not finish their opponent on the ground withing a few seconds then the grappling is inefficient.


----------



## RTKDCMB

K-man said:


> Actually no. It takes little effort to break the neck. There are certain things that I will not post on an open forum that change the dynamic.



Leverage for one, forcing the neck to move in a way it is not designed another. My point is it would not be very likely for the neck to be broken by moving it in a direction it was designed to do by accident. If it was then there would be a lot more accidental deaths and serious injuries in professional and amateur wrestling. It would definitely not be as easy as it is in the movies. You would have to do it on purpose and with a lot of force. Still something to be carefully practiced though.


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> Leverage for one, forcing the neck to move in a way it is not designed another. My point is it would not be very likely for the neck to be broken by moving it in a direction it was designed to do by accident. If it was then there would be a lot more accidental deaths and serious injuries in professional and amateur wrestling. It would definitely not be as easy as it is in the movies. You would have to do it on purpose and with a lot of force. Still something to be carefully practiced though.


This is not the place to discuss the how, but yes, we practise it slowly and carefully.
:asian:


----------



## MJS

TFP said:


> Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO.   As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts.
> 
> you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.
> 
> again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.



Well, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, mainly for the reasons that RTKDCMB already listed.


----------



## MJS

RTKDCMB said:


> The fights usually get restarted when nothing starts happening on the ground and the audience starts to get bored. If the grappler can not finish their opponent on the ground withing a few seconds then the grappling is inefficient.



Which is something that we saw on a routine basis, in the early UFCs.  The "Superfight", which, was far from Super, showed just that...a grappler that took more than a few seconds, to finish the fight.


----------



## Flying Crane

TFP said:


> again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.



i guess the only thing to say is, you have a right to your opinion, and thank you for sharing it.  after 90 pages, is there anything more to say, that hasn't already been said?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Flying Crane said:


> i guess the only thing to say is, you have a right to your opinion, and thank you for sharing it.  after 90 pages, is there anything more to say, that hasn't already been said?



I'm sure we can think of something.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> The fights usually get restarted when nothing starts happening on the ground and the audience starts to get bored. If the grappler can not finish their opponent on the ground withing a few seconds then the grappling is inefficient.


I agree with the first part, but the length of time it takes to "finish" an opponent has nothing to do with efficiency.

It takes a little time to level a mountain.  Patience and strategy are as much a part of grappling as anything else.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## seasoned

*A must read:*

 If you find during your discourses here at MT that there  is a point of view that you simply cannot reconcile yourselves to, then  the simplest of approaches is not to take part in those threads. 

As moderators our job is to maintain the integrity of the site and help the site to continue to remain the friendly martial arts community it is. It is important to remember that not only are the Mods taking note of interaction among members, but also many nonparticipants. 

Likewise, if there is a particular poster that you cannot respond to  civilly or that you feel has breached the regulations of the forum in  some fashion, then there are two tools available to you to cope with  this:

(1) If you cannot get along with someone else, then place them on your  Ignore List.

(2) If a breach of the regulations has occurred then use the RTM function so  that the Staff can deal with the problem.

The temptation to "have it out" in a public forum should be resisted at  all costs.

Wes Yager (seasoned)
Senior MT Moderator


----------



## TFP

Sounds good, I think my work here is done.  It's looked something similar to this

:matrix:


Honestly tho, good discussion.


----------



## Mauthos

Just out of curiosity a lot of people have mentioned Matt Hughes vs Royce Gracie as a way of proving that you need a well rounded skillset to compete in the UFC and that one 'pure' style fighter, whether that be BJJ or Kick Boxing for example, will probably be dominated and defeated.

Does no one remember that Matt Hughes also beat Renzo Gracie by TKO in the UFC proving that you definitely need more than 1 type of martial art under your belt to win?  Both men are mainly grapplers, Matt Hughes - wrestling and obviously Renzo Gracie - BJJ.  Both didn't use their grappling at all iirc, in fact I think Matt only took Renzo down once in the second round and then pretty much won by using strong low leg kicks.  (In my opinion it was a relatively boring fight and neither fighter was particularly impressive, but that's just my opinion)


----------



## lklawson

K-man said:


> I don't believe there are any dirty tricks. In RBSD there are just techniques. For example I was taught a kick to the groin in my early days. Kin geri to those who know Goju. I barely mention it nowadays. The chance of it doing anything in a real fight is low. If I am in the situation to attack the groin it will be a shin kick. Attacking the eyes is a valid technique, not so much to actually strike the eyes, bonus if that happens, but to elicit the flinch response and get the opponent's arm where I want it. If I am in a choke, sure I will go for the eyes. Spitting does nothing, but it is a distraction. Hair pulling, sure. It can be used to control your opponent's position. As for biting. Whether or not Bas actually said what he is quoted as saying or whether that is folk law, biting may well have a place in self defence. If you are in a choke and you can bite it is a valid distraction.


Sure.  But the phrase "dirty tricks" sums up a class of techniques which, when used independent of other combinations, is more-or-less low percentage but are often viewed as massively destructive fight enders.  The two most common are eye pokes and groin grabs.  There's a reason that they're viewed as "dirty."  It's because they can be, in fact, quite injurious.  However, as I wrote, they're often quite hard to achieve as an independent technique.  They are, or at least were, frequently referenced as a quick way to stop "Sport Fighters."  However, as I wrote earlier, the assumption that "Sport Fighters" can't take advantage of "dirty tricks" themselves is, at best, self delusion.  Further, as I also earlier wrote, basic grappling skills will frequently allow a person to make these "dirty tricks" much higher percentage while the same basic grappling skills can help to dramatically limit the opponent's ability to perform these "dirty tricks."  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> I see what you mean here and it makes sense to you because you have a lack of knowledge of grappling."


You should know that I'm a long time Judoka and study C&E and a smidge of CaCC as well.  I teach Judo (an "assistant instructor" in my view) at the local Y under 7th Dan, Bob Spraley.  Did you think I republished all of those old CaCC manuals because I like looking at B&W pics of men in speedos?



> Here is the problem.......  You're assuming the "grappler" is on the bottom in those positions.


No.  I was actually "assuming" that both top and bottom position are grapplers.  You don't get good side-control by accident.  And north-south is a non-intuitive control position to take.



> In reality he grappler is most likely the one on too in North South and on top in side control.


Which is exactly what I wrote.



> So now rethink those positions from the idea of a grappler taking a striker down, getting on top of him and holding him down while knees to the head are legal.   It's kinda terrifying.


I think you must have gotten confused.  What I wrote is the guy on the bottom position of a north-south or a side-control is going to have a hard time doing effective knee-strikes because his body movement is being smothered by the top man and because the position of the top man doesn't present effective targets for the bottom man to throw knees at.  Conversely, the top man is in a very good position to throw knees at the bottom man because he can shift his body and get some full-body movement into it, including, if desired, momentarily disengage from the bottom man in order to really get some body english into the knee strike.

One of us needs to re-read what I wrote because either you misunderstood what I wrote or I did a really terrible job of writing it the first time.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

RTKDCMB said:


> If the grappler can not finish their opponent on the ground withing a few seconds then the grappling is inefficient.


That depends on what you mean by "inefficient."  One of the major advantages to ground work for a skilled grappler is that it gives him the ability to dramatically limit his opponent's ability to strike heavily.  It's a good way to be very defensive without having to be equally offensive.  This has the further advantage of granting the man *time* to work.  If the opponent is smothered out and can't effectively attack, they you can take your sweet time getting a perfect sub, or just stall him while he wears himself out.  That's pretty darned efficient when you think about it.  Just not necessarily "fast."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

MJS said:


> Which is something that we saw on a routine basis, in the early UFCs.  The "Superfight", which, was far from Super, showed just that...a grappler that took more than a few seconds, to finish the fight.


"Fast" does not necessarily always equate to "efficient."   Surely we've all read Aesop's Fables, right?   

 Peace favor your sword, 
Kirk


----------



## TFP

Mauthos said:


> Just out of curiosity a lot of people have mentioned Matt Hughes vs Royce Gracie as a way of proving that you need a well rounded skillset to compete in the UFC and that one 'pure' style fighter, whether that be BJJ or Kick Boxing for example, will probably be dominated and defeated.
> 
> Does no one remember that Matt Hughes also beat Renzo Gracie by TKO in the UFC proving that you definitely need more than 1 type of martial art under your belt to win?  Both men are mainly grapplers, Matt Hughes - wrestling and obviously Renzo Gracie - BJJ.  Both didn't use their grappling at all iirc, in fact I think Matt only took Renzo down once in the second round and then pretty much won by using strong low leg kicks.  (In my opinion it was a relatively boring fight and neither fighter was particularly impressive, but that's just my opinion)



This is IMO just shows the importance of good grappling (Hughes Takedown Defense) but also the extreme importance of being well rounded.  Remember, grappling is not just takedowns, top control. & guard..........

so I would counter that theory of yours by saying Matt Hughes superior grappling (his takedown defense) helped him win the fight.   Because Hughes was an all around better grappler than Renzo he was able to dictate where the fight took place.   And since Hughes was the better striker he kept the fight standing.  Renzo did try a couple takedowns unsuccessfully.    Also add in there age and wear on there body as a reason not more effort was put into a ground fight.

Hughes superior grappling (wrestling) kept that fight standing.  A similar fight Renzo vs Frank was the opposite.  Frank was a better striker than Renzo, just like Hughes.  But Frank lacked the Takedown defense of Hughes so Gracie was able to take the fight to the ground where he wanted it...... Problem is Framk was better on the ground and winning the fight up until the DQ.

want another great example?  One of the best grapplers in UFC history was......Chuck Liddell!   Yup, the Kempo striker would not have been as successful of a striker in the UFC if he wasn't first a great wrestler!  What lead to Liddells run at 205lbs?   His ability to keep grapplers like Courture, Ortiz, Sobral and Horn on there feet!


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> You should know that I'm a long time Judoka and study C&E and a smidge of CaCC as well.  I teach Judo (an "assistant instructor" in my view) at the local Y under 7th Dan, Bob Spraley.  Did you think I republished all of those old CaCC manuals because I like looking at B&W pics of men in speedos?
> 
> No.  I was actually "assuming" that both top and bottom position are grapplers.  You don't get good side-control by accident.  And north-south is a non-intuitive control position to take.
> 
> Which is exactly what I wrote.
> 
> I think you must have gotten confused.  What I wrote is the guy on the bottom position of a north-south or a side-control is going to have a hard time doing effective knee-strikes because his body movement is being smothered by the top man and because the position of the top man doesn't present effective targets for the bottom man to throw knees at.  Conversely, the top man is in a very good position to throw knees at the bottom man because he can shift his body and get some full-body movement into it, including, if desired, momentarily disengage from the bottom man in order to really get some body english into the knee strike.
> 
> One of us needs to re-read what I wrote because either you misunderstood what I wrote or I did a really terrible job of writing it the first time.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



i think my confusion came from the fact that I thought we were talking grappler vs standup fighter and then you wrote what you did.  So I was assuming that not both guys were grapplers and that since one guy was on the bottom he must be the grappler, while the guy ontop was a striker.

my apologizes!


was t the original question "would knee strikes on the ground be more advantageous to the striker or grappler"?   If so I still contend that knee strikes on the ground or to a grounded opponent gives the grappler a huge advantage.   Knee strikes to a shooting opponent are already allowed.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> i think my confusion came from the fact that I thought we were talking grappler vs standup fighter and then you wrote what you did.  So I was assuming that not both guys were grapplers and that since one guy was on the bottom he must be the grappler, while the guy ontop was a striker.
> 
> my apologizes!


Fair enough.



> was t the original question "would knee strikes on the ground be more advantageous to the striker or grappler"?   If so I still contend that knee strikes on the ground or to a grounded opponent gives the grappler a huge advantage.   Knee strikes to a shooting opponent are already allowed.


I think it's more accurate to say that it could potentially give someone with good ground skills a huge advantage. It could also be a wash.  I don't see it giving any sort of dramatic advantage to someone lacking good ground skills, baring dumb luck.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> I think it's more accurate to say that it could potentially give someone with good ground skills a huge advantage. It could also be a wash.  I don't see it giving any sort of dramatic advantage to someone lacking good ground skills, baring dumb luck.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



It usually comes down to a "a failed takedown attempt" with the grappler on his knees in front of his opponent getting kneed or soccer kicked vs. "taking someone down, getting a dominant top position and landing knee strikes to there head".

but also I think having the standup up grappling to toss someone on the ground in  front of you and being able to stomp/ kick there head.....

im im still leaning toward it being more advantages to the grappler.   But I can see the "wash" theory as well.


----------



## TFP

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Do you mind if I post your book link onto a CACC forumn?


----------



## Mauthos

TFP said:


> want another great example? One of the best grapplers in UFC history was......Chuck Liddell! Yup, the Kempo striker would not have been as successful of a striker in the UFC if he wasn't first a great wrestler! What lead to Liddells run at 205lbs? His ability to keep grapplers like Courture, Ortiz, Sobral and Horn on there feet!



Although I actually agree with you here as I do believe that his grappling ability enabled him to keep fights standing, he even had, at one point, a great stat which, iirc, was that he had not been kept down for longer than 13 seconds at a time.  However, he wasn't a wrestler first.  He was taught boxing by his grandfather and then moved into a karate, the style I can't remember but the tattoo on his scalp is the kanji for that style.  When he went to college he took up wrestling and was relatively good, but, in my opinion it didn't help him that much in the UFC.  For example, when he met Jeremey Horn for the first time, he was taken down easily and choked out cold, left lying in the ring at the end of the round with big John McCarthy only knowing he was out when Horn let him go.  In his book he even states himself that he had no clue what had happened and decided he needed to learn some form of better grappling to prevent it from happening again.  Therefore, he took up BJJ for the sole purpose of being able to use it to prevent anyone using it on him.  So, in that respect the BJJ he learnt definitely meant that he kept the various grapplers he fought at a distance and on their feet, however, considering that some of his knockouts came early in the first round in his prime, I would not attribute all his wins to the fact that he had learnt some grappling.


----------



## lklawson

TFP said:


> Do you mind if I post your book link onto a CACC forumn?


Feel free.  PDF copies are free to download.  Tree-ware is cheap.  I've even managed to get some into eBook format.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TFP

Mauthos said:


> Although I actually agree with you here as I do believe that his grappling ability enabled him to keep fights standing, he even had, at one point, a great stat which, iirc, was that he had not been kept down for longer than 13 seconds at a time.  However, he wasn't a wrestler first.  He was taught boxing by his grandfather and then moved into a karate, the style I can't remember but the tattoo on his scalp is the kanji for that style.  When he went to college he took up wrestling and was relatively good, but, in my opinion it didn't help him that much in the UFC.  For example, when he met Jeremey Horn for the first time, he was taken down easily and choked out cold, left lying in the ring at the end of the round with big John McCarthy only knowing he was out when Horn let him go.  In his book he even states himself that he had no clue what had happened and decided he needed to learn some form of better grappling to prevent it from happening again.  Therefore, he took up BJJ for the sole purpose of being able to use it to prevent anyone using it on him.  So, in that respect the BJJ he learnt definitely meant that he kept the various grapplers he fought at a distance and on their feet, however, considering that some of his knockouts came early in the first round in his prime, I would not attribute all his wins to the fact that he had learnt some grappling.




Such an interesting post, full of facts and just so far off on others.

you are correct. Chuck started out with boxing under his grandpa but very informal.

Started Karate at age 12, and wrestling shortly after.  He didn't "take up wrestling" in college.  One doesn't simply make a D-1 wrestling program without extensive high school exeperience.   Chuck was a 2 star athlete in Football/Wrestling and actually played both in his freshman year of college but had to pick between the two as it was to tough to do both, study and work.   He chose wrestling.

i have no idea how you can say you don't think his wrestling helped him much in MMA because it's widely known as one of the biggest reasons he was ontop of the sport for so long.

yes he did get choked out by Jeremy Horn, but Horn had almost 30 fights at this point and Chuck had 2.  This was simply an issue of experience and Chuck actually had no idea he was in trouble, thinking it was a simple wrestling headlock and not knowing what a head and arm choke was.  But Chuck was already studying BJJ before this fight, he was just very green.   He actually won a fight 26 days later via Rear Naked Choke.

and no, Chuck did not use BJJ to keep fighters at a distance, that was wrestling!  Sprawl, Take Down Defense, and scrambling back up from the bottom.   

All i I was saying was Chuck Liddell was a great example of being a better grappler (defensive wrestling) than most his opponents (offensive wrestling/offensive BJJ) and because of this he could use his great striking.   This is an example of why grappling is important to a striker, otherwise Chuck would of been a great striker who got choked a lot!


----------

