# So Let Me Get This Straight-- Why Don't We Have New Arts?



## JKDJade (Sep 24, 2020)

Here are some names:
Bruce Lee- JKD
Ed Parker- Ed Parker Kenpo
Bart Vale- Chinese Kenpo
Tony Leo- Shuri Shindo Ryu
Freedie Lee- Freedie's Modern Fu
Al Tracy - Tracy Kenpo
Jeff Speakman -Kenpo 5,0
Helio Gracie- BJJ
Steve Mohamad- Black Karate Federation
Gary Dill- Bushido Kempo/SDS
Chuck Sullivan- Karate Connection-Kenpo
Sifu Anderson- Anderson Martial Arts
Hwang Kee- Tang Soo Doo
Al Moore- Shou Shu Kung Fu


Do you guys know what all these people have in common? Well, they all took one, two, or three arts, kept what they like and added what they thought it needed. 

They they rebranded it as a new art. In some cases, this was evolutionary, in others revolutionary. Why are some revered, and others not? 

Further, why don't we have more blending and progressing of older arts? How come new martial systems/styles pretty much stopped in the mid 1990s. I would say from 1960s-1990s there was a marital art explosion in the US that led the creation of the aforementioned styles, some trace their lineage to older mixed/blended arts before the 1960s like Tang Soo Doo

Now we have mma.. pretty much kick boxing with BJJ. The question is their room for regrowth of traditional martial arts? Can these arts continue to expand? Will ever see new arts created? Or we stuck with striking and grappling= MMA

Ohh and since we are talking about it... can we someone go ahead and create Cobra Kai Karate  lol

Let's discuss


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 24, 2020)

A cool topic 

I have a sense that new arts were formed in terms of bigger changes, discoveries and methodologies. And nowadays arts are refining and evolving in much smaller ways due to not being many grand changes being able to take place (everything's been done... almost).

Feels like every club I've trained at has never been pure this or that, but have added their own flair and unique stuff to it. As though every specific dojo/gym is teaching its own specific interpretation of the art, and there can be infinite creativity in martial arts even in that thought 

So I reckon, in other words, the bigger general stuff has mostly been sorted and it's hard to create an entirely new art, and the smaller stuff are still evolving 

But would be cool to hear of a completely new art emerging, if even possible!


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2020)

My theory is that people at one point applied their skills and so really knew what they were doing. They actually got to a point where they were prepared to innovate.  We don't have much of that anymore, and even most instructors are only really skilled at applying the very specific style they train only in the context of that style.  Cops sometimes use their skills in cop contexts, but that's not really a martial arts style.  Same with other violent professions. 

In MMA there is always a lot of innovation because there is a clear path to application, in a rule set that is not overly restrictive.  So, you see a lot of innovation within MMA.  Without application and genuine, high level expertise, you have a natural tendency to focus on preservation of tradition.  Outside of application, folks fall back on the legitimacy and structure that tradition provides. 

Look at it like this, if you don't fight, you aren't learning to fight better.  

The chart below is Bloom's Taxonomy.  A very simple shorthand for how to train folks to do things.  Most martial arts schools get to a comprehension level for fighting skills (at best).  They can talk about fighting with confidence.  But the skills that they are applying are training skills... forms, sparring, kata, chi sao.  If that's what you're applying, that's what you're developing expertise in doing. If your expertise is internal (i.e., you are an expert in a system), you will only ever be able to innovate within that system.  And in a traditional martial art style, innovating within the system is not generally encouraged.

Said simply, folks who learn a fighting art but never fight are not well equipped to do more than replicate as faithfully as possible what they have taught.  They have no personal experience to help them evaluate their system and improve it.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 24, 2020)

JKD, many of the kenpo branches (including the BKF) are not separate arts, but business/political outgrowths of Parker's art, pretty much having begun about 1970.  The names you associated with these "new arts" were all Parker students who broke away, mostly for personal or business reasons. The differences are too minor to call them separate arts IMO.  They were barely different styles, though they may have diverged a little more than when I had a kenpo school in the 1970's, instructors having borrowed a little from here and there over the years.  

Getting to the essence of your question, historically, geographic isolation led to the evolution of different styles/arts, just as it led to the evolution of different languages and accents.  That is now gone.  

Also there is the old maxim:  necessity is the mother of invention.  In modern times we have access to many styles and it is easy to find and blend whatever you like - no need to invent a new art.  How many new languages have been developed over the past 300 years?  (I guess texting shorthand, and cultural slang may qualify if you really stretch the definition.)  There's already plenty to go around that get the job done.   

You mentioned branding.  A brand is different from a product/style - it's mostly an artificial identity to help market a product.  In the 70's and even 80's, the karate market was booming and competition was stiff with schools opening up everywhere.  There was a need for branding to differentiate yourself from the competition.  Not so now in a slower business environment. 

We're not "stuck with the MMA."  There are plenty of arts and styles out there now to appeal to most everyone's wants, needs, abilities and taste.  With such a rich buffet spread out before us, no need to go hungry.  Just load up your plate with whatever you like.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 24, 2020)

Just reinventing the wheel.  And the field of study is very much in favour of stick with what you know/know that works.  Death is usually involved in learning what works in lieu to something else.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 24, 2020)

JKDJade said:


> Here are some names:
> Bruce Lee- JKD
> Ed Parker- Ed Parker Kenpo
> Bart Vale- Chinese Kenpo
> ...



I feel there were other Big influencers going on during the same timeframe (60's-90's) that facilitated a lot of it. This was a big peak in the information age. Sharing information became exponentially easier, faster, and frequent. The same can be said for travel. Walls were being broken down politically and geographically. So naturally many, many things including Martial Arts began to coalesce. 

I can remember the era when the "ancient Chinese secret" was prevalent in the U.S. Many (including myself) bought into it for a while. Most of us who stuck with their training and continued searching for more information figured it out and learned to apply the new knowledge to our training. Frankly, I hope there is never an end to this. 
I think this is the gist of how MMA got started. It stripped out all the traditional parts and left the purely fighting principals from every style out there. Whether that is good or bad is for everyone's own viewpoint. Most of that has to do with age, and intent. If you grew up in the age of MMA or in the age of traditional MA's, well there you go.

As far as another totally new style, I can't say. I think there may be some shrinkage or re-consolidation of styles, remerging into the main styles first. Of the 14 styles you listed at least 6 were a Kenpo variant. Can you see them coming together as one again? Sadly, TSD has seen major shrinkage and I can see it becoming one with TKD in some fashion. These are purely marketing lines that are being held together as much in the effort to make money rather than maintain a certain style, which are one and the same. 

To be certain the model of martials overall is changing. Saturation has caused some bad and Very bad things to seep into the models. I do think this is factoring itself out a good bit but bad schools & instructors will always be around. Some of this is from truly good intentions but it still happens.   
So I think the elephant in the room is this: What truly different and unique technique, style, system, or instructor have you seen in say the last 15 years? 15 years is the typical benchmark in technology to say parity is found. It is very cool when someone shatters that window. I am probably wrong but I would say the last 15 years has been the golden years of MMA. It peaked in popularity and is in a settling phase. I am certain developers and marketers are hard at work to find the 'next new thing'. I hope many of us practicing a MA are doing to same. 

This is a different vein but thought it worth mentioning. There is an organization called Tiger Rock Martial Arts. It is Very, very, very closed circuit. They do not share or interact with any other TKD schools. You are either in or out. As a corporation, they are Very profitable. So they have figured out a model that works based on economics which, to be honest, is a big part of the viability of any school and especially a system. Good or bad? For me, both. Good for the people making money and hopefully good to most of the people training. It must have many good training qualities (facility, equipment/gear/teaching) or I doubt people would buy in for as long as it has been around (since 1983). But for me bad as a traditional Martial Art. I don't even know if they consider themselves traditional. 
Just an example to think about.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 24, 2020)

It's a fair question. I don't know enough about all of the people you listed above, but that aside: 

There are people of various disciplines who come up with a framework or method in their particular field (mathematics, music theory, software engineering, and why not martial arts?) that they are recognized for because of what they are able to produce. There is a fractional segment of those people who build the teaching framework to ensure that it spreads, continues to develop, gets passed down, and becomes a new functional model that isn't dependent on them continuing to stay active in their field. 

With traditional Chinese systems they had a purpose, whether it was political (restore the Ming to power), or a family or village style (gar), or a temple style. In each of those cases their objective was not just to have someone be great or win something, but to unify a group of people around the same capability so they could either collectively protect themselves and each other or go on some sort of collective offensive. So, that teaching and spreading framework was foundational. 

We live in an age of individualism, not collectivism, so perhaps today's innovators are not thinking about codifying and spreading what they have learned/discovered. Perhaps tomorrow's innovators are trying to come up with their own thing rather than follow in someone's footsteps. 

Just some rainy morning thoughts. May or may not be factual.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2020)

I may post more detailed thoughts later, when I'm on a computer with an actual keyboard and mouse.

I think a lot of it is that many big organizations have a lot of leeway in their classes.  I can teach KKW Taekwondo,  and as long as I teach the 8 Taegeuks,  I can add in anything else that I know.  My local BJ school also offers a striking class,  with kicks and punches from kickboxing and MMA.

Similarly, people don't feel locked into an art.  If you want to combine muay thai and bjj, the simple answer is to just train them both. Whete traditionally it may be seen as an insult to your lineage, in modern times it's common.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2020)

Cobra kai is BJJ now.

Cobra Kai Jiu Jitsu


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> My theory is that people at one point applied their skills and so really knew what they were doing. They actually got to a point where they were prepared to innovate.  We don't have much of that anymore, and even most instructors are only really skilled at applying the very specific style they train only in the context of that style.  Cops sometimes use their skills in cop contexts, but that's not really a martial arts style.  Same with other violent professions.
> 
> In MMA there is always a lot of innovation because there is a clear path to application, in a rule set that is not overly restrictive.  So, you see a lot of innovation within MMA.  Without application and genuine, high level expertise, you have a natural tendency to focus on preservation of tradition.  Outside of application, folks fall back on the legitimacy and structure that tradition provides.
> 
> ...


Glad  I read this first.  For me Its simple. You have to know how to use the current system before you can blend and create a new one.

I dont know many people who can actually use the system they train at a high level.  Too many people train martial arts for health and not for fighting


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2020)

JKDJade said:


> Here are some names:
> Bruce Lee- JKD
> Ed Parker- Ed Parker Kenpo
> Bart Vale- Chinese Kenpo
> ...


I'm aware of at least 5 new styles/offshoots created in the last 10 years, and that's just among the folks I've personally interacted with. I don't think that has slowed - there's just not as much spread of them, since TMA doesn't have as large a market as it used to. So, if you develop a fantastic new offshoot, it probably stays in your school and maybe the schools of a couple of your senior students, if you're really prolific.


----------



## Buka (Sep 25, 2020)

Welcome to Martial Talk, JKDJade. Hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Star Dragon (Sep 26, 2020)

I have trained a few arts in many different schools over the last decades, and not two of them taught things exactly the same way. This holds true for the Parker Kenpo that has been my primary focus in more recent years, but also for more traditional arts such as Aikido and even Shotokan Karate! Even in schools that originated from the same lineage, the differences were often quite evident.

This is actually quite natural... I believe that in any kind of art, the art changes with each practitioner, as each of them will be expressing it in keeping with their individual characteristics. And martial arts are no different...

Once a variation of an art has become distinct enough from the system it originated from, it may then be declared as a new style. Sometimes it may indeed be seen an improvement of the latter, sometimes as quite the opposite - but tastes and perspectives vary. Always rely on your own judgement whether a system, school, instructor may help you to manifest your own highest potential or not.


----------



## KOKarate (Sep 26, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Glad  I read this first.  For me Its simple. You have to know how to use the current system before you can blend and create a new one.
> 
> I dont know many people who can actually use the system they train at a high level.  Too many people train martial arts for health and not for fighting


What’s wrong with that? Not everyone cares about getting into fights. If I only taught people who cared about fighting I’d have 3 students at most


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 26, 2020)

Star Dragon said:


> I have trained a few arts in many different schools over the last decades, and not two of them taught things exactly the same way. This holds true for the Parker Kenpo that has been my primary focus in more recent years, but also for more traditional arts such as Aikido and even Shotokan Karate! Even in schools that originated from the same lineage, the differences were often quite evident.
> 
> This is actually quite natural... I believe that in any kind of art, the art changes with each practitioner, as each of them will be expressing it in keeping with their individual characteristics. And martial arts are no different...
> 
> Once a variation of an art has become distinct enough from the system it originated from, it may then be declared as a new style. Sometimes it may indeed be seen an improvement of the latter, sometimes as quite the opposite - but tastes and perspectives vary. Always rely on your own judgement whether a system, school, instructor may help you to manifest your own highest potential or not.


Yes, and I think this is a natural progression that hasn't changed drastically in my lifetime. What may have changed is the point at which names change. When there was great mystique around arts and their founders - during the boom of TMA in the US - there may have been more marketing cache in having a new "improved" system. Now, there may be more practicality in having a better-recognized name.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 26, 2020)

KOKarate said:


> What’s wrong with that? Not everyone cares about getting into fights. If I only taught people who cared about fighting I’d have 3 students at most


Firstly, let's not confuse "getting into fights" with being able to fight. I have no interest in fighting, but much interest in being able to fight.

But you are correct that not everyone is as interested in developing fighting skill - and certainly not to the same level - so many of us are teaching folks with differing focus.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 26, 2020)

If it ain't broke don't fix it?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 26, 2020)

KOKarate said:


> What’s wrong with that? Not everyone cares about getting into fights. If I only taught people who cared about fighting I’d have 3 students at most


If you are going to create a new martial arts system that will actually be functional then you'll need to have a very good understanding of how the applications work and flow together. In other words.

If you want to build a new computer system then you better have a good understanding of how things work and fit together.  If you don't have a good understanding then you'll just end up with a bunch of components in a box and a computer system that doesn't work.  Creating a new martial arts system is like that.  It's not enough to know what the techniques do, you actually need a deep understanding of how to apply those techniques. You have to know how to use them and not just "copy-paste" what you were told about how it works.  People know how to use computers but not many know how to actually build their own computer in comparison.   Martial arts is like this as well.

Now if you want to design a new martial arts system that just looks cool, then you can do that without understanding how to apply it.  Hollywood does it all the time.  You can watch old Kung Fu movies and see the same thing. Just don't expect it to be something that that actually works. In a real fight.  Hollywood kung fu is not the same as real kung fu.  Some would even say the same about Whu shu.  Even the Chinese Government admitted that a lot of kung fu that they train in China is for health and not fighting. 

I guess the real question that you have to ask yourself when creating a new "martial arts system"  is what will it be used for.  Only health,  Hollywood fight scenes, or for actual fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 26, 2020)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this guy designed his new martial arts system





1. Is it new martial arts.  Yes, but that could just be my limited knowledge
2. Could you use it for fighting.  Probably, but it just may not be effective..  You may scare some people away. But for that person who is going to dedicate the next minute to hurting you really bad.  Probably not.
3. Does he have a good understanding of generating power?  I'm looking at how much that bag moves, so I'm going to say no.
4. Does he have a good understanding of body mechanics, probably not, but he seems to be a natural at keeping his balance through it all.

I think DK Yoo has also created his own system, it looks much better than the video above.  But I think he actually has some fight experience and a deeper understanding of what he's using.   I've seen him spar before but not with someone of equal or higher skill level.  But with some of the mechanics I can see it being possible to actually use them as his stuff is not totally out of the blue.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

KOKarate said:


> What’s wrong with that? Not everyone cares about getting into fights. If I only taught people who cared about fighting I’d have 3 students at most


Speaking for myself, there’s nothing at all wrong with that, provided you’re clear to students that you aren’t teaching them to fight.  And if you have little fighting experience, that you aren’t qualified to teach them to fight.  that level of transparency is rare, in my experience.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Firstly, let's not confuse "getting into fights" with being able to fight. I have no interest in fighting, but much interest in being able to fight.
> 
> But you are correct that not everyone is as interested in developing fighting skill - and certainly not to the same level - so many of us are teaching folks with differing focus.


This makes my brain hurt.  I have no interest in making knives, but much interest in being able to make knives.  I have no interest in cooking, but much in being able to cook. 

I mean, if we are reasonably inferring that “interest” equals doing the thing, this is just a ridiculous expectation.  The corollary here is spectatorship.  I have no interest in playing rugby, but am very interested in knowing how to play rugby.  If I stepped out onto a field, how do you think that would go?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Speaking for myself, there’s nothing at all wrong with that, provided you’re clear to students that you aren’t teaching them to fight.  And if you have little fighting experience, that you aren’t qualified to teach them to fight.  that level of transparency is rare, in my experience.


Which is strange to me, because not everyone wants to know how to fight.  Some people only care about a belt color and the bragging rights to say they have one.  That's no big secret right?  So people should just come out and say that.



Steve said:


> This makes my brain hurt. I have no interest in making knives, but much interest in being able to make knives. I have no interest in cooking, but much in being able to cook.


 I think he said it wrong.  I understand what he's trying to say.  More like he has no interest in getting into fight (I assume street fights) but is interested in knowing how to fight.

For me. Interested in knowing how to fight and fighting are the same thing.  I can't do achieve one without the other.  Which is why retired fighters train new fighters.


----------



## jobo (Sep 26, 2020)

JKDJade said:


> Here are some names:
> Bruce Lee- JKD
> Ed Parker- Ed Parker Kenpo
> Bart Vale- Chinese Kenpo
> ...


its a good question, i think somewhere a long the line, the marketing ploy of original, traceable linage, rather than effectiveness  came to the fore, 

we gets lots of folk on here saying is this genuine  kungfu, etal how do a verify that its linage can be traced back a thousand years and very few saying how can i tell if this will knock the 300 lb bully over, like they believe that one equals  the other or that they dont care and are just on a nolstaliga trip


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2020)

KOKarate said:


> What’s wrong with that? Not everyone cares about getting into fights. If I only taught people who cared about fighting I’d have 3 students at most



Exactly. Stage craft for example isn't about learning to fight. But more about learning to master the appearance of fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> This makes my brain hurt.  I have no interest in making knives, but much interest in being able to make knives.  I have no interest in cooking, but much in being able to cook.
> 
> I mean, if we are reasonably inferring that “interest” equals doing the thing, this is just a ridiculous expectation.  The corollary here is spectatorship.  I have no interest in playing rugby, but am very interested in knowing how to play rugby.  If I stepped out onto a field, how do you think that would go?


No, I don’t think that’s an apt analogy. Someone who doesn’t have an interest in fixing cars may still want to have basic repair skills for emergencies.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> This makes my brain hurt.  I have no interest in making knives, but much interest in being able to make knives.  I have no interest in cooking, but much in being able to cook.
> 
> I mean, if we are reasonably inferring that “interest” equals doing the thing, this is just a ridiculous expectation.  The corollary here is spectatorship.  I have no interest in playing rugby, but am very interested in knowing how to play rugby.  If I stepped out onto a field, how do you think that would go?


You have to think about it as an emergency thing. So I've got no interest in performing CPR on someone, but I very much want to know how to administer CPR. I would still rather have a medic administer it, but I want to be able to do so if the need arises. Same with other basic first aid. And same with knowing how to fight. 

I'm perfectly happy not having to make a stretcher out of two poles and a tarp, or how to make a splint, or do CPR. But I'm sure as hell glad that I know how to do them.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You have to think about it as an emergency thing. So I've got no interest in performing CPR on someone, but I very much want to know how to administer CPR. I would still rather have a medic administer it, but I want to be able to do so if the need arises. Same with other basic first aid. And same with knowing how to fight.
> 
> I'm perfectly happy not having to make a stretcher out of two poles and a tarp, or how to make a splint, or do CPR. But I'm sure as hell glad that I know how to do them.



How did you know how to do those things?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> How did you know how to do those things?


Combination of learning through boy scouts (my troop was very first aid oriented due to having a couple military people, EMT's/former EMT's and two doctors in the adults), and through courses that I had to take through the hospital when I was working there.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Which is strange to me, because not everyone wants to know how to fight.  Some people only care about a belt color and the bragging rights to say they have one.  That's no big secret right?  So people should just come out and say that.
> 
> I think he said it wrong.  I understand what he's trying to say.  More like he has no interest in getting into fight (I assume street fights) but is interested in knowing how to fight.
> 
> For me. Interested in knowing how to fight and fighting are the same thing.  I can't do achieve one without the other.  Which is why retired fighters train new fighters.


Exactly.  Totally agree.  I understand what he meant, but as you say, interested in knowing how to fight and fighting are the same.  Or at least, you can't know how to fight without fighting.  As I said before, when someone is interested in something they don't want to do, that's called being a spectator.  A person can know a lot about things without being able to do them.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Combination of learning through boy scouts (my troop was very first aid oriented due to having a couple military people, EMT's/former EMT's and two doctors in the adults), and through courses that I had to take through the hospital when I was working there.


This has come up before.  Simple tasks can be learned, like going out the correct door in an emergency.  CPR can be learned... sort of.  The actual statistics for CPR being performed outside of an ER or hospital by non-medical experts is pretty dismal.  Better than zero (I think) but not by much.

So, two salient points that relate directly to the topic of martial arts: 

1: A person who trains and is certified in CPR might, in an emergency, has an outside chance of doing some good.  
2: That person is entirely unqualified to teach someone else to do it.  I mean, completely unqualified.

On the ladder below, for CPR, you are somewhere between Knowledge/Remembering and Comprehension/Understanding when it comes to CPR.  Unless you have more experience than you outline above.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Exactly. Stage craft for example isn't about learning to fight. But more about learning to master the appearance of fighting.


And on this note, fight choreographers are always inventing new styles.  Gun-fu, for example, is a movie-centric martial arts style.  I recall the guy who choreographed the first few Bourne movies came up with a style for the Treadstone guys.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> And on this note, fight choreographers are always inventing new styles.  Gun-fu, for example, is a movie-centric martial arts style.  I recall the guy who choreographed the first few Bourne movies came up with a style for the Treadstone guys.


Yep always.  Gymkata.  "if you got the flips, then they got the kicks" lol.
I actually liked this movie, when it came out. I'm pretty sure the younger generation would get a laugh at it.  The best thing about that time, is that it was easy to make improvement's on the fight scenes.  Now it's more difficult without going "John Wick"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You have to think about it as an emergency thing. So I've got no interest in performing CPR on someone, but I very much want to know how to administer CPR. I would still rather have a medic administer it, but I want to be able to do so if the need arises. Same with other basic first aid. And same with knowing how to fight.
> 
> I'm perfectly happy not having to make a stretcher out of two poles and a tarp, or how to make a splint, or do CPR. But I'm sure as hell glad that I know how to do them.


After I posted earlier, I thought about changing a tire. I'm pretty good at it, though I've no interest in doing it. But my grandfather taught me how, and gave me plenty of opportunities to practice it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Exactly.  Totally agree.  I understand what he meant, but as you say, interested in knowing how to fight and fighting are the same.  Or at least, you can't know how to fight without fighting.  As I said before, when someone is interested in something they don't want to do, that's called being a spectator.  A person can know a lot about things without being able to do them.


No, interest in fighting is not the same as an interest in knowing how to fight. I don't really get any joy out of hitting folks with any power. I do it from time to time to get practice at it, but I don't really have any interest in doing it. I do it because I have an interest in being able to.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No, interest in fighting is not the same as an interest in knowing how to fight. I don't really get any joy out of hitting folks with any power. I do it from time to time to get practice at it, but I don't really have any interest in doing it. I do it because I have an interest in being able to.


ha ha ha.. I'm going to change your mindset on that.  Just as soon as the Covid-19 mess is over.  A lot of the students who participated in my sparring classes would have said the same thing as well, but after a few classes with me they learned how to fight without being angry or stressed.

My theory is that fighting should be as close to emotionless as possible.  In other words, I don't want emotions to drive my fighting.  My other theory about fighting is that in training it should always be done from the perspective of learning and not beating up your sparring partner.  These two things make fighting very enjoyable for me and those who train with me.  You could hit me with power because I think I can defend myself well enough to take your power shots.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want your street fight power hits.  I'm talking about your sparring power hits.

The joy that you should be getting is not from hitting people but from executing a technique correctly.  If you are focused on hitting people then you are focused on the wrong thing.  Out of all of the years of sparring, it was never about me hitting people.  It was always about me getting the technique right.  I think you would enjoy it more if you made it less about hitting people and more about getting the technique right.

Not saying that this would work for you, but it has worked for me and everyone that I've trained.  I've seen the same thing from people with better fighting skills than I have as well.  Sometimes they will only use one technique in sparring, because all they care about is getting the technique correct.  It more about that, than the hitting.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> After I posted earlier, I thought about changing a tire. I'm pretty good at it, though I've no interest in doing it. But my grandfather taught me how, and gave me plenty of opportunities to practice it.


Yeah.  Interest is subjective.   How many fights do you think one needs before one is good at it?  How about to teach it?  

If I wanted to learn how to change a tire from someone, experience bis required.  And I'd prefer to learn from a AAA guy than a person who knew a guy who did it once or twice.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> This has come up before.  Simple tasks can be learned, like going out the correct door in an emergency.  CPR can be learned... sort of.  The actual statistics for CPR being performed outside of an ER or hospital by non-medical experts is pretty dismal.  Better than zero (I think) but not by much.
> 
> So, two salient points that relate directly to the topic of martial arts:
> 
> ...


I think you and dropbear were getting to the same point here, so let me make sure this is clear.

I never claimed to be able to teach it first aid, or CPR. I never claimed to be good at it. I even stated that I'd rather someone else do it, who is more qualified/capable. My response was specifically to your question about how you would train to do something you don't want to do, and that was my example. It was just me stating that I do not wish to ever have to use first aid and/or CPR on a person, but I still trained and learned how to do so (however effectively) so that if I am ever in a situation where no one more qualified to do so is around, I will be able to offer my skills.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think you and dropbear were getting to the same point here, so let me make sure this is clear.
> 
> I never claimed to be able to teach it first aid, or CPR. I never claimed to be good at it. I even stated that I'd rather someone else do it, who is more qualified/capable. My response was specifically to your question about how you would train to do something you don't want to do, and that was my example. It was just me stating that I do not wish to ever have to use first aid and/or CPR on a person, but I still trained and learned how to do so (however effectively) so that if I am ever in a situation where no one more qualified to do so is around, I will be able to offer my skills.



My point was you learned it by doing it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> My point was you learned it by doing it.


Yes, but there's a difference between practice first aid and actual first aid. I did practice first aid. I actually enjoy doing that. I hope I never have to try actual first aid.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think you and dropbear were getting to the same point here, so let me make sure this is clear.
> 
> I never claimed to be able to teach it first aid, or CPR. I never claimed to be good at it. I even stated that I'd rather someone else do it, who is more qualified/capable. My response was specifically to your question about how you would train to do something you don't want to do, and that was my example. It was just me stating that I do not wish to ever have to use first aid and/or CPR on a person, but I still trained and learned how to do so (however effectively) so that if I am ever in a situation where no one more qualified to do so is around, I will be able to offer my skills.


I'm sorry I used Seymour's language.  As I've said a few times, it muddles the discussion with some pretty subjective language.

Last time I looked, the 30 day survival rate for someone having a cardiac arrest outside of a medical facility was something like 10%.  This is from memory so I may be mistaken.  But as I recall, someone without cpr had something like a 1 in 20 chance while someone who received cpr was like 1 in 10.  That's from anyone, including trained pros, IIRC.

So, to the point, have you ever had occasion to apply the skills? 

And because this is a martial arts forum, whether you intended to mention teaching or not, it is an intrinsic part of a lot of MA programs.  So, I think it's an important point to reinforce.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yes, but there's a difference between practice first aid and actual first aid. I did practice first aid. I actually enjoy doing that. I hope I never have to try actual first aid.


So, again, and I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, your skills are untested and remain theoretical. 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, even if you were able to get to application, you are poorly equipped to evaluate your skillset, much less innovate.  If first aid were a martial art, how could you be expected to create a new technique, much less a new style?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm sorry I used Seymour's language.  As I've said a few times, it muddles the discussion with some pretty subjective language.
> 
> Last time I looked, the 30 day survival rate for someone having a cardiac arrest outside of a medical facility was something like 10%.  This is from memory so I may be mistaken.  But as I recall, someone without cpr had something like a 1 in 20 chance while someone who received cpr was like 1 in 10.  That's from anyone, including trained pros, IIRC.
> 
> ...


So I actually hadn't thought about it since it wasn't relevant to my point, but I have had to use first aid skills. Not cpr, but other first aid. When I was one of the asst. Scoutmasters, often only myself and 1-2 other adults would go on trips (at that time parent participation was low). Had to help a 12 year old who'd initially ignored me and as a result ended up with hypothermia, he was fine. Had someone who broke their ankle during a hike, evaluated what happened, and had some scouts run ahead to direct the ambulance (someone called 911) while I helped alleviate the pain and get him to an open space where they'd be able to reach him. And then had to help a ton of people work through panic attacks, if you count that. 

And even if it only helps 1% or less, I'd rather be able to offer an additional 1% chance on survival for someone than not offer it.

As for the teaching thing, it shouldn't be an intrinsic part of MA. Most people I know that train don't intend to teach, and I don't understand styles that push that, outside of the owner trying to get franchise money which is a shady business practice IMO. So I don't feel that it's automatically relevant since teaching shouldnt be automatically relevant.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> Getting back to the topic of this thread, even if you were able to get to application, you are poorly equipped to evaluate your skillset, much less innovate.  If first aid were a martial art, how could you be expected to create a new technique, much less a new style?


Yeah, for the OPs question, I agree with this evaluation. I would not trust myself to create anything new for first aid, and I don't see how I'd be able to create a new style of MA. I don't see how anyone could really do that without experiencing what's wrong with their current style, and I don't see how that's possible without experience. What that experience is depends on the style and the goal.

Ie: if you're creating a new art to be aesthetically pleasing, all you'd need is to perform the art in front of others to find out if it's aesthetically pleasing. If you're creating a new art for health purposes, I'd hope you have some sort of medical degree. For fighting we've already discussed this for multiple pages in the past and I'm pretty sure we agree on it so not going to open those worms now.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You have to think about it as an emergency thing. So I've got no interest in performing CPR on someone, but I very much want to know how to administer CPR. I would still rather have a medic administer it, but I want to be able to do so if the need arises. Same with other basic first aid. And same with knowing how to fight.
> 
> I'm perfectly happy not having to make a stretcher out of two poles and a tarp, or how to make a splint, or do CPR. But I'm sure as hell glad that I know how to do them.


This is a fantastically made point. Why do some people walk to the edge and jump and some people can't? That is not the point that was and is (by you) being made. In simplest terms it is about being prepared (thank you Boy Scouts). 
It seems some people (aka Steve) fabricate scenarios to place judgement. 
On one side of the coin, "a MA is not a MA if fighting to the death is not taught". On the other side "it is only for physical exercise". In between these extremes is a Ton of great training. 
The preparation.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So I actually hadn't thought about it since it wasn't relevant to my point, but I have had to use first aid skills. Not cpr, but other first aid. When I was one of the asst. Scoutmasters, often only myself and 1-2 other adults would go on trips (at that time parent participation was low). Had to help a 12 year old who'd initially ignored me and as a result ended up with hypothermia, he was fine. Had someone who broke their ankle during a hike, evaluated what happened, and had some scouts run ahead to direct the ambulance (someone called 911) while I helped alleviate the pain and get him to an open space where they'd be able to reach him. And then had to help a ton of people work through panic attacks, if you count that.
> 
> And even if it only helps 1% or less, I'd rather be able to offer an additional 1% chance on survival for someone than not offer it.
> 
> As for the teaching thing, it shouldn't be an intrinsic part of MA. Most people I know that train don't intend to teach, and I don't understand styles that push that, outside of the owner trying to get franchise money which is a shady business practice IMO. So I don't feel that it's automatically relevant since teaching shouldnt be automatically relevant.


Some relevant CPR facts.  About half the time, people don’t recognize a cardiac arrest, even with training.  Also, people with training or with no training can administer cpr with about the same results. In fact, the general consensus seems to be, if you don’t know cpr but see someone experiencing a cardiac arrest, winging it is probably going to do more good than harm, so the push now is to actually try and counter the prevailing idea that you must be certified to deliver cpr.  

and lastly, if you’ve never had occasion to give cpr to someone in a real world scenario, the skills you have remain theoretical.  The simpler the skills or the more experience you have in related skills, the more likely you will succeed.  But like many martial artists, the skills are theoretical, and likely to remain so.  So in a thread about inventing new styles, it seems pretty clear.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> Some relevant CPR facts.  About half the time, people don’t recognize a cardiac arrest, even with training.  Also, people with training or with no training can administer cpr with about the same results. In fact, the general consensus seems to be, if you don’t know cpr but see someone experiencing a cardiac arrest, winging it is probably going to do more good than harm, so the push now is to actually try and counter the prevailing idea that you must be certified to deliver cpr.
> 
> and lastly, if you’ve never had occasion to give cpr to someone in a real world scenario, the skills you have remain theoretical.  The simpler the skills or the more experience you have in related skills, the more likely you will succeed.  But like many martial artists, the skills are theoretical, and likely to remain so.  So in a thread about inventing new styles, it seems pretty clear.



Technically you should only be doing CPR on a dead guy.

So hard to make things worse.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 27, 2020)

Same goes with your ability in the MA, if you have never used it in a real life scenario. No matter how much sparring (sparring to me is anything outside real world danger, yes even sport)  you have done, it is still theoretical MA.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 27, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Same goes with your ability in the MA, if you have never used it in a real life scenario. No matter how much sparring (sparring to me is anything outside real world danger, yes even sport) you have done, it is still theoretical MA.


This depends on what type of sparring that you do.  There are many videos out there of people who train martial arts who have actually used it in a street fight "real world danger"  If you are only doing touch sparring then yes it becomes Theoretical.  But if you are training how to drive power, grapple, and defend against things you don't want to get hit with then it's realistic enough that you can pull it off in a real fight.

I do light to intermediate sparring.  What I consider in the range of light sparring sometimes makes people cringe.  What I consider intermediate sparring make my worry because it looks and sounds like real fighting.  If I can perform my techniques in those activities then there's a good chance I will be ok in a street fight provided that weapons don't get into the mix.

People who do full contact fighting sports.  That's real fighting.  It's just not fighting in a street environment and there's a ref to save your butt.  But people die in full contact fighting events.  Boxing may not use all of the skills sets, but if boxing is all you know, then boxing is what you will depend on in a street fight, in an weaponless confrontation in the street.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 27, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Same goes with your ability in the MA, if you have never used it in a real life scenario. No matter how much sparring (sparring to me is anything outside real world danger, yes even sport)  you have done, it is still theoretical MA.


Some of my Karate friends used to help the police work. A Karate guy would sit in the back seat of a police car. When there was a need, the Karate guy would come forward, knocked down the bad guy. The police then put handcuff on the bad guy. Not sure if that is still going on or not. IMO, that seem to be a good way to training MA. One Karate guy told me that He could drop his opponent by just 1 punch (after he had knocked down many bad guys by just 1 punch). Not too sure about the legal issue though.

Agree that only after you have knocked down many guys by 1 punch, you can then say that you have developed your punching power.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This depends on what type of sparring that you do.  There are many videos out there of people who train martial arts who have actually used it in a street fight "real world danger"  If you are only doing touch sparring then yes it becomes Theoretical.  But if you are training how to drive power, grapple, and defend against things you don't want to get hit with then it's realistic enough that you can pull it off in a real fight.
> 
> I do light to intermediate sparring.  What I consider in the range of light sparring sometimes makes people cringe.  What I consider intermediate sparring make my worry because it looks and sounds like real fighting.  If I can perform my techniques in those activities then there's a good chance I will be ok in a street fight provided that weapons don't get into the mix.
> 
> People who do full contact fighting sports.  That's real fighting.  It's just not fighting in a street environment and there's a ref to save your butt.  But people die in full contact fighting events.  Boxing may not use all of the skills sets, but if boxing is all you know, then boxing is what you will depend on in a street fight, in an weaponless confrontation in the street.


When you change the context, there's always some kind of transfer of skills from one to another.  The more similar one context is to another, the easier and more reliable that transfer will be.  So, a full contact fighter will more reliably transfer his/her skills to a street fight than someone who spars in class only.  

And while the system can support this transfer by creating a context that is similar to the application, this is an individual thing.  What I mean is, a person can train in a great gym, but that person's preparation is really up to them.  

Issue we have around here is when folks exaggerate the similarities between one context and another.  Also, folks suffer from over confidence based on questionable association (i.e., "My instructor was a judoka, so my ninjutsu is legit."  "I train with cops, so I have cop experience."  "My instructor was a full contact fighter, so I can fight.")


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This depends on what type of sparring that you do.  There are many videos out there of people who train martial arts who have actually used it in a street fight "real world danger"  If you are only doing touch sparring then yes it becomes Theoretical.  But if you are training how to drive power, grapple, and defend against things you don't want to get hit with then it's realistic enough that you can pull it off in a real fight.
> 
> I do light to intermediate sparring.  What I consider in the range of light sparring sometimes makes people cringe.  What I consider intermediate sparring make my worry because it looks and sounds like real fighting.  If I can perform my techniques in those activities then there's a good chance I will be ok in a street fight provided that weapons don't get into the mix.
> 
> People who do full contact fighting sports.  That's real fighting.  It's just not fighting in a street environment and there's a ref to save your butt.  But people die in full contact fighting events.  Boxing may not use all of the skills sets, but if boxing is all you know, then boxing is what you will depend on in a street fight, in an weaponless confrontation in the street.



The people have proven their own ability. Not the art or way training. 

As for sport...no, as long as it is being done in a safe environment, it is and remains, theoretical.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> What I mean is, a person can train in a great gym, but that person's preparation is really up to them.


Totally agree.  Not sure how, but a lot of people don't understand this, from financial gain to losing weight.  When it comes down to it, it's really up to that individual the the quality of work that is put in to achieve that goal.  Even if someone is given help or assistance, that individual will still need to put in the work.



Steve said:


> lso, folks suffer from over confidence based on questionable association (i.e., "My instructor was a judoka, so my ninjutsu is legit." "I train with cops, so I have cop experience." "My instructor was a full contact fighter, so I can fight.")





Steve said:


> When you change the context, there's always some kind of transfer of skills from one to another.  The more similar one context is to another, the easier and more reliable that transfer will be.  So, a full contact fighter will more reliably transfer his/her skills to a street fight than someone who spars in class only.
> 
> And while the system can support this transfer by creating a context that is similar to the application, this is an individual thing.  What I mean is, a person can train in a great gym, but that person's preparation is really up to them.
> 
> Issue we have around here is when folks exaggerate the similarities between one context and another.  Also, folks suffer from over confidence based on questionable association (i.e., "My instructor was a judoka, so my ninjutsu is legit."  "I train with cops, so I have cop experience."  "My instructor was a full contact fighter, so I can fight.")


 Yes,  I don't know about anyone else, but this is the worst in the U.S.  for a lot of things.  Things like "I know the best people" seem to get more mileage than it should lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 27, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> The people have proven their own ability. Not the art or way training.
> 
> As for sport...no, as long as it is being done in a safe environment, it is and remains, theoretical.


People prove their ability with a system that is known to work.  Because the system works, there's a known result, based on how much effort you put into your training.   For example, you know you can dodge or parry a punch because you do it a lot of times against someone who is really trying to hit you.  It's not theoretical any more,   I think you are confusing Theoretical vs Probability.  

Definition of Theoreetical - concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study *rather than its practical application*.
If you train to parry punches against someone who is trying to hit you then you have moved into the practical application of things.  From this point it's no longer a theory. Now the question becomes.  "*What is the probability that you can do the same thing in a street fight.*"

The probability of an untrained person beating a trained fighter in a street fight, 1 vs 1 without weapons, is very low.  There's nothing theoretical about that.  I'm not sure what you train.  But the way that I train and the system that I train, the chances that an untrained fighter will beat me is very low.  It's not an ego thing, it's just that my training gives me a set of additional skills that I can use, while an untrained fighter will only have what he is born with.  

 Here's the difference between trained and untrained.  None of this is theoretical


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 27, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> As for sport...no, as long as it is being done in a safe environment, it is and remains, theoretical.


i don't know your background, but the punches and kicks that I've taken to my face in a "safe environment" were not theoretical.  They landed and there was nothing I could have done to stop it, because if there was I would.  The only thing "safe" about the environment was that we were out to cause maximum damage to each other.  There's nothing about my sparring partner's strikes that makes me think that he or she could not do the same in a real street fight.

Now I will say one thing that may be theoretical is how one may respond to a street fight.  People respond differently when put in that position, but that's a mental issue and not a physical training or physical ability thing.

Some people train their body's for fighting but not their minds.  They forget to address that issue.  You may see that I often talk about cutting off emotions when fighting.  I do this so I don't let my emotions guide my fighting.  I don't want anger to fuel my fighting and I don't want fear to enter my thoughts.  I know that if I let fear enter then I'm going to have a problem in using my training.  As a kid and teen my friends and I had a saying.  "your fear will leave after getting hit with the first punch."  

Many people think they will "die" if they get hit so that guides their fighting action. As a kid and a teen I had that same fear but after that first hit, the reality that the first punch wasn't so horrible sinks in and then I'm good to go.   But as an adult I want to get hit in order to get rid of my fear.  Because what if it hurts really bad.  So, instead I get rid of my emotions and focus on the task.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> When you change the context, there's always some kind of transfer of skills from one to another.  The more similar one context is to another, the easier and more reliable that transfer will be.  So, a full contact fighter will more reliably transfer his/her skills to a street fight than someone who spars in class only.
> 
> And while the system can support this transfer by creating a context that is similar to the application, this is an individual thing.  What I mean is, a person can train in a great gym, but that person's preparation is really up to them.
> 
> Issue we have around here is when folks exaggerate the similarities between one context and another.  Also, folks suffer from over confidence based on questionable association (i.e., "My instructor was a judoka, so my ninjutsu is legit."  "I train with cops, so I have cop experience."  "My instructor was a full contact fighter, so I can fight.")


I can agree with that but it isn't all inclusive. I would say it is Much more individual and less to do with an instructor or style. I think some of it has to do with the school and what it offers; ie, can it challenge most people (mine did). I grew up in a rural environment where we fought for 'fun' and I mean fighting until someone was bloodied, that was the rule and it was a hard rule. So I was much more aggressive from day one than the average person and that transferred. 

You are overt about your dislike of cops; may I ask why that is?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Totally agree.  Not sure how, but a lot of people don't understand this, from financial gain to losing weight.  When it comes down to it, it's really up to that individual the the quality of work that is put in to achieve that goal.  Even if someone is given help or assistance, that individual will still need to put in the work.
> 
> 
> Yes,  I don't know about anyone else, but this is the worst in the U.S.  for a lot of things.  Things like "I know the best people" seem to get more mileage than it should lol.


I don't disagree, but doesn't "I know the best people" get debunk really, really, quick when classes start?

Do you feel that statement is akin to a college degree in other venues?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> People prove their ability with a system that is known to work.  Because the system works, there's a known result, based on how much effort you put into your training.   For example, you know you can dodge or parry a punch because you do it a lot of times against someone who is really trying to hit you.  It's not theoretical any more,   I think you are confusing Theoretical vs Probability.
> 
> Definition of Theoreetical - concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study *rather than its practical application*.
> If you train to parry punches against someone who is trying to hit you then you have moved into the practical application of things.  From this point it's no longer a theory. Now the question becomes.  "*What is the probability that you can do the same thing in a street fight.*"
> ...


But the probability of that stat would be based largely on where the stats were logistically gathered from. In some areas of just our country alone are more prone or comfortable with physical contact and fighting. So much so I would give an area like that  statistical advantage. In other words, they grew up in an environment where 'street fighting' was a way of life.


----------



## JKDJade (Sep 27, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I feel there were other Big influencers going on during the same timeframe (60's-90's) that facilitated a lot of it. This was a big peak in the information age. Sharing information became exponentially easier, faster, and frequent. The same can be said for travel. Walls were being broken down politically and geographically. So naturally many, many things including Martial Arts began to coalesce.
> 
> I can remember the era when the "ancient Chinese secret" was prevalent in the U.S. Many (including myself) bought into it for a while. Most of us who stuck with their training and continued searching for more information figured it out and learned to apply the new knowledge to our training. Frankly, I hope there is never an end to this.
> I think this is the gist of how MMA got started. It stripped out all the traditional parts and left the purely fighting principals from every style out there. Whether that is good or bad is for everyone's own viewpoint. Most of that has to do with age, and intent. If you grew up in the age of MMA or in the age of traditional MA's, well there you go.
> ...



Some really well stated points here. Lots to think about and discuss. I just thought it was a good topic to get insight from everyone. You added yours and it is of great value.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> But the probability of that stat would be based largely on where the stats were logistically gathered from. In some areas of just our country alone are more prone or comfortable with physical contact and fighting. So much so I would give an area like that  statistical advantage. In other words, they grew up in an environment where 'street fighting' was a way of life.



FWIW, the bottom video is not available.


----------



## JKDJade (Sep 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Cobra kai is BJJ now.
> 
> Cobra Kai Jiu Jitsu



 holly **** lol....Johnny Lawrence would not approve


----------



## JKDJade (Sep 27, 2020)

Buka said:


> Welcome to Martial Talk, JKDJade. Hope you enjoy it.


I'm enjoying it so far. I'm new to forums, but heard great things about this one, so decided to join. I'm a long time martial artist (jack of all, master of none).


----------



## JKDJade (Sep 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> My theory is that people at one point applied their skills and so really knew what they were doing. They actually got to a point where they were prepared to innovate.  We don't have much of that anymore, and even most instructors are only really skilled at applying the very specific style they train only in the context of that style.  Cops sometimes use their skills in cop contexts, but that's not really a martial arts style.  Same with other violent professions.
> 
> In MMA there is always a lot of innovation because there is a clear path to application, in a rule set that is not overly restrictive.  So, you see a lot of innovation within MMA.  Without application and genuine, high level expertise, you have a natural tendency to focus on preservation of tradition.  Outside of application, folks fall back on the legitimacy and structure that tradition provides.
> 
> ...




Great points. Its' the old Martial vs Art. Does want to learn movement and theory while getting health benefits, or does one want to learn how to fight.? I started in TKD, which I still think is a great art to learn footwork, speed and getting conditioned. As teenager we moved, and we had no TKD places, so my only option was a Okinawan Karate. I hated it, but stuck with it until the school closed down... after the Marine Corps, I did a lot of kickboxing...spent some time going back to traditional with Shaolin Kung Fu...and the past few years have only focused on JKD.

For my kids, we have a lot of schools near use, they have the pick of litter. But I decided nudge them into Kenpo. Why?  Because it's a good overall system that can teach them the basics. I work TKD drills with them twice a week for footwork and once they get into their teenage years, I will encourage them to join a good MMA gym to learn the "martial" part of Martial Arts.  The final step in their Martial Arts journey will be JKD.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 28, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some of my Karate friends used to help the police work. A Karate guy would sit in the back seat of a police car. When there was a need, the Karate guy would come forward, knocked down the bad guy. The police then put handcuff on the bad guy. Not sure if that is still going on or not. IMO, that seem to be a good way to training MA. One Karate guy told me that He could drop his opponent by just 1 punch (after he had knocked down many bad guys by just 1 punch). Not too sure about the legal issue though.
> 
> Agree that only after you have knocked down many guys by 1 punch, you can then say that you have developed your punching power.


I imagine that would be a huge legal liability and probably downright illegal and criminal.  I cannot imagine any police department doing something like this. Maybe in the 1970s things were different.  Today?  Not a chance.  Hugely irresponsible and negligent.


----------



## Rusty B (Sep 28, 2020)

I think it all comes down to perceived legitimacy, and the fact that it probably wasn't questioned or scrutinized anywhere near as much back then as it is now.

If some guy concocted a system a year ago and opened up a club... neither I nor very many others would be interested.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 28, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I don't disagree, but doesn't "I know the best people" get debunk really, really, quick when classes start?
> 
> Do you feel that statement is akin to a college degree in other venues?





dvcochran said:


> I don't disagree, but doesn't "I know the best people" get debunk really, really, quick when classes start?
> 
> Do you feel that statement is akin to a college degree in other venues?


My experience is that people who talk about how they "they know the best people" often don't put themselves in a situation where they have to prove it. And if you try to hold them to it, they will change the subject.  They tend to work well against people who have a desperation in being in the group of those who say.  "they know the best people."  I've seen that play out so many times in various life scenarios.   My cousin is like that with football as he brags about which professional football players he knows with the expectation that some how knowing them will boost his fame.

Here's an example,  A retired pro-football athlete lives 2 houses from me.  So my cousin wants me to let the guy know he's a fan of football and that he says hello.  Not sure how my cousin see's himself but, that many doesn't give 2 cents about my cousin lol.  Now one can make the same assumption that, I'm doing the same by bring up that someone like that lives a couple of houses from me.  But I would remind that person that not all retired athletes are rich.  So you don't have to be rich to live by one,  I'm far from being rich and I struggle like crazy just even with a College degree.

Now as to the college degree, that's a dime a dozen and the competition is vicious.  I think people misunderstand the value of a college degree.  If you want to make more money then it helps to have it.  No different than being certified in a skill set.  The only difference with college degrees, is that many of those who have them have a high level of exposure to other people, cultures, and thought processes.  That you can only obtain in a college environment.  That exposure creates "soft skills" right off the bat.   

I often find that people who did not go to college often get touchy about people who did, and people who did go to college struggle with college debt and wonder if it was even worth it.  People who have masters and doctorates pretty much decide their own salary.   If I could afford it I would go for my masters just to make more money and to have the educational papers to show that I've mastered a specific topic.   No different in how people strive to get Black Belts or become a Sifu of a particular system.

I can talk all that I want about Jow Ga but I won't have any standing within the community unless I become a Sifu.

Be it "I know the best people" or "I graduated from Yale."  People know that there are others who care about that big time and they are willing to game the system without actually putting in the work.  Just recently there were some Hollywood Celebs who got caught gaming their system to get their kids into top colleges.


----------



## JKDJade (Sep 29, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I think it all comes down to perceived legitimacy, and the fact that it probably wasn't questioned or scrutinized anywhere near as much back then as it is now.
> 
> If some guy concocted a system a year ago and opened up a club... neither I nor very many others would be interested.



I'm naturally curious, so I would at least check it out and see what its all about it. About 8 years there was a little martial arts dojo in seaside,ca. I trained there for a couple of months. It was ran by a dude from central america.. his english wasnt good, but his skills were off the charts. It was hybird of TKD, BJJ, and Boxing... he also has 25 set combos adn defense techniques.. pretty cool and good stuff. 

Anyways, when I first walked in the door, I was like "what martial arts is this."  ....  his answer, lol, I'll never forget it, "latin karate, you can call it jungle karate" lol. Normally I would have just walked out, but the the dojo was so old school, I had to try it out. I'm glad I did.


----------



## KOKarate (Sep 29, 2020)

At the end of the day. There’s only so many different ways you can punch and kick. Everyone has their own unique style even among people in your own school. My primary style is American kenpo. A style that isn’t really know for its kicks but my primary attack has always been as a kicker. I’ve got decent kicks I’ve won fights with head kicks and spinning kicks things that aren’t as common in American kenpo but that’s just my way it’s not the right way or the wrong way. It’s just how I do it. Now as a teacher I combine kenpo with Muay Thai. I teach the standard kenpo system but I also teach the Muay Thai clinch and the wall defense of blocking kicks and things like that. I could say it’s my own style but I just call it kenpo because mostly it is kenpo but it’s my own take on it. Which is what kenpo was always meant to be, the whole point Ed Parker wanted was for people to adapt the system to themselves and make their own changes.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2020)

Couple of thoughts. 

First, I'm not sure that the creation of "new" arts really has stopped. I don't know that it has even necessarily slowed down. I still semi-regularly find schools teaching some relatively recent eclectic concoction. (I'm not out there canvassing dojos, but when questions come up on this and other forums about "is this a good school?", I take the time to check out the websites.) It's hard to know how often a "new" system is created this way because you mostly hear about the systems which have survived long enough to develop a following and spread a bit.

Secondly, a high percentage of new (or at least newly named) systems are created for essentially political and/or branding reasons. Billy Bob learns JoeBlow-Jitsu from Master Joe Blow. Maybe he even gets a teaching license in that art. But then he has a personal falling out with Master  Blow, who denies him the authority to continue teaching under that name. Or maybe he develops his own approach to teaching the art, but Master Blow insists that JoeBlow-Jitsu always be taught according to his exact dictates. Or maybe he learns elements from other arts that he wants to add, but Master blow insists the art must be kept pure. Or maybe Master Blow passes away and his senior instructors start arguing over who is now the true headmaster of the art. Or maybe Billy Bob never gets a teaching license even though he feels he deserves one. Or maybe he just wants the perceived prestige of being the 10th dan Grandmaster of his own system. Next thing you know, Master Billy Bob is teaching Bobbie-fu, a traditional but modern system which contains all the strengths of JoeBlow-jitsu, but none of the weaknesses, as well as techniques from every other system Billy Bob has encountered over the years, even if was just a single weekend seminar.

(Cynical, who me?)

One bit of influence that MMA and BJJ may have is that in most cases it isn't necessary to declare yourself to be teaching a whole new art if you develop an approach to teaching or practicing which is different from your instructor. My BJJ is not the same as my instructor's and his BJJ is not the same as his instructor's. But I don't have to invent a new name for what I teach. (Also, if I were to have a falling out with my instructor and go my own way, I would still be a licensed BJJ instructor. He doesn't have the authority to revoke my rank.)


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Couple of thoughts.
> 
> First, I'm not sure that the creation of "new" arts really has stopped. I don't know that it has even necessarily slowed down. I still semi-regularly find schools teaching some relatively recent eclectic concoction. (I'm not out there canvassing dojos, but when questions come up on this and other forums about "is this a good school?", I take the time to check out the websites.) It's hard to know how often a "new" system is created this way because you mostly hear about the systems which have survived long enough to develop a following and spread a bit.
> 
> ...



And if someone wants to claim your freaky 10th planet system isn't true jujitsu. You can just go to a comp and fold those guys in to knots. 

So there is a lot less guesswork involved.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 29, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Couple of thoughts.
> 
> First, I'm not sure that the creation of "new" arts really has stopped. I don't know that it has even necessarily slowed down. I still semi-regularly find schools teaching some relatively recent eclectic concoction. (I'm not out there canvassing dojos, but when questions come up on this and other forums about "is this a good school?", I take the time to check out the websites.) It's hard to know how often a "new" system is created this way because you mostly hear about the systems which have survived long enough to develop a following and spread a bit.
> 
> ...



I recently moved to the Sacramento CA area and I periodically just practice my google-fu and look to see what martial arts are in the greater area.  What you are describing above, I see all the time in this area.  I look through the websites and one of the first things I look for is the history of the teacher, what did they train and for how long and with whom, and what do they claim to teach?  Many of them fit your description.  What they are teaching is clearly a composite of what they had trained, under their own style name, and they are often claiming high rankings/sokeships/Grandmaster status that they clearly bestowed upon themselves.



> One bit of influence that MMA and BJJ may have is that in most cases it isn't necessary to declare yourself to be teaching a whole new art if you develop an approach to teaching or practicing which is different from your instructor. My BJJ is not the same as my instructor's and his BJJ is not the same as his instructor's. But I don't have to invent a new name for what I teach. (Also, if I were to have a falling out with my instructor and go my own way, I would still be a licensed BJJ instructor. He doesn't have the authority to revoke my rank.)



As it should be.  This is so inherently obvious to me that I frequently have to do a double-take when people suggest otherwise.  Nobody can take from you what you have learned.  Nobody can stop you from showing it to someone else.  I guess they can stop you from using their name for the system if they have it protected by copyright.  

But if you honestly state “I earned X ranking from Grandmaster JimBob and he authorized me to be a teacher and I was the head teacher in his school for ten years before we had an argument and we separated ways and now I can teach you material based on what I learned from Grandmaster JimBob.”  If all that is true, he can’t stop you even if you can’t call it the same thing.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 30, 2020)

JKDJade said:


> Here are some names:
> Bruce Lee- JKD
> Ed Parker- Ed Parker Kenpo
> Bart Vale- Chinese Kenpo
> ...


I guess if you want to go that far, there hasn't been any new martial art since Cain bashed in Able's skull because, frankly, humans break in the same way that they always have.  There's nothing new under the sun.

As an example, I really like these guy's kung fu staff work.  Is it southern?  











Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> i don't know your background, but the punches and kicks that I've taken to my face in a "safe environment" were not theoretical.  They landed and there was nothing I could have done to stop it, because if there was I would.  The only thing "safe" about the environment was that we were out to cause maximum damage to each other.  There's nothing about my sparring partner's strikes that makes me think that he or she could not do the same in a real street fight.
> 
> Now I will say one thing that may be theoretical is how one may respond to a street fight.  People respond differently when put in that position, but that's a mental issue and not a physical training or physical ability thing.
> 
> ...


Everything you said, involves sparring with a person that you know, and that person is not trying to kill you.

I agree that it's a safe alternative, but there is more to fighting, than getting over your fear of getting hit.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 30, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> First, I'm not sure that the creation of "new" arts really has stopped


It depends on your definition of system or style.  A new name or packaging does not a new system make.  Parker's kenpo had lots of guys break away and start their own organizations (Not really a new style - 95% was still EPKK.)  

Taking one style and adding a couple of throws or chokes does not a new system make.  It's just the old style with a couple of borrowed moves.  If I get a chocolate cake and then add a cherry on top, it's still a chocolate cake.  IMO, a new style just does not have newly borrowed moves, but new concepts.  In Isshinryu, our founder studied under Kyan (Shorin-ryu founder) and Miyagi. (Goju founder).  He combined these two distinct styles into his own style.  But he didn't stop there - He added new concepts:  Vertical fist, snapping punches, thumb on top, blocking with muscled part of forearm, and more mobile stances.  Now, here is a new style.  The same is true of other true masters who founded a style.

Now, it is hard to develop new concepts unless you really understand your art.  Picasso, Monet, Rembrandt, etc., all started their own schools of art.  But they were very well trained artists to begin with and studied with others who were masters in their own right - there's probably the rare exception.  The late artist, Bob Ross (The guy on TV that can make an entire detailed landscape in 25 minutes.), created his own style of painting using his own unique concepts and techniques - it's almost like magic watching it effortlessly unfold before your very eyes.

In other words, the true masters have "cred," at the highest levels.  Not often seen with today's plethora (love having a chance to use that word) of masters, sokes, or whatever.  Coming up with new, unique concepts is not easy.  So the development of truly new "styles/systems" IMO is rarer as time goes on.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Everything you said, involves sparring with a person that you know, and that person is not trying to kill you.
> 
> I agree that it's a safe alternative, but there is more to fighting, than getting over your fear of getting hit.


You can spar with people you know or don't know. Either way is fine.  The person doesn't need to try to kill you in order for you to validate your skills.  Killing and Fighting are not the same thing. A person doesn't have to fight someone in order to kill them.  

If you fight with hands then the fear is getting hit, kicked, or put in some kind of lock that breaks a bone or causes you to passout.
If you fight with knives then the fear is about getting stabbed
If you fight with guns then the fear is about getting shot.

Seems pretty basic to me.   There's a lot of people who get killed in the U.S. where it goes from argument to gunshots then death.  In those situations your hand to hand combat skill may be totally irrelevant.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 30, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Taking one style and adding a couple of throws or chokes does not a new system make. It's just the old style with a couple of borrowed moves. If I get a chocolate cake and then add a cherry on top, it's still a chocolate cake. IMO, a new style just does not have newly borrowed moves, but new concepts. In Isshinryu, our founder studied under Kyan (Shorin-ryu founder) and Miyagi. (Goju founder). He combined these two distinct styles into his own style. But he didn't stop there - He added new concepts: Vertical fist, snapping punches, thumb on top, blocking with muscled part of forearm, and more mobile stances. Now, here is a new style. The same is true of other true masters who founded a style.


It's still somewhat subjective as to when you decide something really is a new style. I can give a list of boxing champions whose personal fighting styles are more distinct in terms of technique, physical principles, and tactics than any two karate styles you could name. But they all used the same name (boxing) for their art. MMA has even more diversity.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 30, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> The same is true of other true masters who founded a style.
> 
> Now, it is hard to develop new concepts unless you really understand your art. Picasso, Monet, Rembrandt, etc., all started their own schools of art. But they were very well trained artists to begin with and studied with others who were masters in their own right - there's probably the rare exception. The late artist, Bob Ross (The guy on TV that can make an entire detailed landscape in 25 minutes.), created his own style of painting using his own unique concepts and techniques - it's almost like magic watching it effortlessly unfold before your very eyes.
> 
> In other words, the true masters have "cred," at the highest levels. Not often seen with today's plethora (love having a chance to use that word) of masters, sokes, or whatever. Coming up with new, unique concepts is not easy. So the development of truly new "styles/systems" IMO is rarer as time goes on.


Not disagreeing, but I should point out that there is another process by which legitimate new styles can arise. Rather than being created by a singular  "true master", they can evolve through the efforts of a whole community of practitioners.

Using BJJ as an example - Carlos Gracie had no more than two years of official instruction from an expert judoka. Maybe less. As far as I know he wasn't even awarded any rank by his instructor. His brothers learned from him, so they were starting from an even lower point. How did BJJ end up as a distinct, legitimate, effective art? Carlos and his brothers taught a bunch of students. They trained their asses off on the relatively small technical foundation they started with. They sparred their students. They had their students spar each other. They fought a bunch of people (in the ring and in the streets). They had their students fight a bunch of people. They had a whole bunch of kids and trained all the boys to be fighters. They exchanged techniques and training ideas with other martial artists. They swiped any technique or ideas from other arts that they could get to work within their framework. They promoted their art relentlessly to the general public. As that promotion brought new practitioners into the art, those practitioners came up with new ideas, passed them around, and learned from each other. BJJ as it stands now is the result of a huge open-source collective research project. 

I don't think BJJ is the only art where this dynamic has played out.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 30, 2020)

JKDJade said:


> Here are some names:
> Bruce Lee- JKD
> Ed Parker- Ed Parker Kenpo
> Bart Vale- Chinese Kenpo
> ...



Because the UFC happened and the community at large realized they were being fed nonsense for decades. I remember as a youth Bruce Lee being worshipped as some sort of fighting god. Nowadays, most people acknowledge him as an actor who would get stomped by a boxer or wrestler and that's pretty much it. It's a rather massive shift, but it was the Gracies and MMA that made that happen.



> Further, why don't we have more blending and progressing of older arts? How come new martial systems/styles pretty much stopped in the mid 1990s. I would say from 1960s-1990s there was a marital art explosion in the US that led the creation of the aforementioned styles, some trace their lineage to older mixed/blended arts before the 1960s like Tang Soo Doo
> 
> Now we have mma.. pretty much kick boxing with BJJ. The question is their room for regrowth of traditional martial arts? Can these arts continue to expand? Will ever see new arts created? Or we stuck with striking and grappling= MMA
> 
> ...



Because once again; The Gracies and MMA happened (c. 1993). When that bomb dropped, everyone searched for the most effective techniques to utilize in that space, and a lot of traditional (and frankly made up) martial arts were deemed to be ineffective or outright fraudulent.

Pretty much any new martial art coming on the scene nowadays has that standard to deal with, and while in the earlier days of this era many styles were willing to do it, at this point many have simply given up and accepted the new paradigm. BTW, this isn't just happening in the US, you're seeing MMA and BJJ spread around the world and push out traditional styles in their own homelands.

While I agree that the martial art scene isn't as "colorful" as it used to be, I would argue that the general effectiveness of martial arts as a whole has improved because of what happened in the mid-90s. Now some styles rightly claim that they're not for fighting, but for spiritual growth, fitness, or indulging in a fantasy of being a 16th century samurai. That's a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. I'm going to change your mindset on that.  Just as soon as the Covid-19 mess is over.  A lot of the students who participated in my sparring classes would have said the same thing as well, but after a few classes with me they learned how to fight without being angry or stressed.
> 
> My theory is that fighting should be as close to emotionless as possible.  In other words, I don't want emotions to drive my fighting.  My other theory about fighting is that in training it should always be done from the perspective of learning and not beating up your sparring partner.  These two things make fighting very enjoyable for me and those who train with me.  You could hit me with power because I think I can defend myself well enough to take your power shots.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want your street fight power hits.  I'm talking about your sparring power hits.
> 
> ...


The problem is that I know hitting someone with force can do damage. So I don’t like doing it. Light, technical sparring is a different thing from fighting, in my mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2020)

Steve said:


> Yeah.  Interest is subjective.   How many fights do you think one needs before one is good at it?  How about to teach it?
> 
> If I wanted to learn how to change a tire from someone, experience bis required.  And I'd prefer to learn from a AAA guy than a person who knew a guy who did it once or twice.


It also depends what you count as doing it. Which is our fundamental difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I think it all comes down to perceived legitimacy, and the fact that it probably wasn't questioned or scrutinized anywhere near as much back then as it is now.
> 
> If some guy concocted a system a year ago and opened up a club... neither I nor very many others would be interested.


I don’t think most new MA consumers have the knowledge to make those determinations.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It also depends what you count as doing it. Which is our fundamental difference.


First, I really don't think that came out the way you intended.  

And second, you either do something or you don't.  There's no other reasonable way to look at it.  You smoke or you don't smoke.  You make knives or you don't.  You use a saw or you don't.  You pilot a plane or you don't.  

This shouldn't be a controversial position, and honestly, your recent tactic of implying it's just a difference of opinion is silly.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> The problem is that I know hitting someone with force can do damage. So I don’t like doing it. Light, technical sparring is a different thing from fighting, in my mind.


 Just don't hit with more force than your sparring partner can take.   If you want to hit with more force then you'll need to find sparring partners that are conditioned to take that force without injury.

As far as technical sparring.  It shouldn't be too different from fighting.  If your sparring is so different than how you would really fight then, why spar?  When you throw a jab in sparring, is it not the same mechanics that you would use in a fight to throw a jab?  OR would you abandon your training and throw a jab in a way that is contrary to what you train?

When you train? is it not so you can use what you train in a fight?  Maybe I'm the only one like this?  How I train in light sparring so that I can use those same techniques in a real fight.  The only real difference in training and in fighting is the amount of force I use.  I know this is true, because. When I spar.  I spar light, and then I learn to use the same techniques by gradually increasing intensity.,  I continue to increase that intensity until either I or my sparring partner doesn't want to increase the level.

The video that I showed of me sparring another instructor at higher intensity never went beyond that intensity because he could not protect himself enough from my strikes, some of which I had to either pull off target or reduce the force of the strike.

The instructor wanted to spar at a higher intensity and I denied him of that.  The higher the intensity then the more I have to rely on my sparring partner to defend himself and the less ability I will have to actually redirect or pull strikes.  

If you feel bad about using force then it might be that your opponent is not able to take the force you are applying.  Or it could be that you don't want the same amount in force in return.  Which is fair and reasonable as well.   We get back what we send., and I don't always like to be hit with too much force.  Even small injuries an bruises take time to heal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2020)

Steve said:


> First, I really don't think that came out the way you intended.
> 
> And second, you either do something or you don't.  There's no other reasonable way to look at it.  You smoke or you don't smoke.  You make knives or you don't.  You use a saw or you don't.  You pilot a plane or you don't.
> 
> This shouldn't be a controversial position, and honestly, your recent tactic of implying it's just a difference of opinion is silly.


Yet you draw a distinction between throwing someone who doesn’t want you to, versus throwing someone who doesn’t want you to when there’s an official overseeing the match.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just don't hit with more force than your sparring partner can take.   If you want to hit with more force then you'll need to find sparring partners that are conditioned to take that force without injury.
> 
> As far as technical sparring.  It shouldn't be too different from fighting.  If your sparring is so different than how you would really fight then, why spar?  When you throw a jab in sparring, is it not the same mechanics that you would use in a fight to throw a jab?  OR would you abandon your training and throw a jab in a way that is contrary to what you train?
> 
> ...


As I said, I don’t consider light, technical sparring to be fighting. There’s a difference. And I don’t like hitting anyone hard, unless they richly deserve it (and even then, my good sense normally restrains me).


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 30, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Everything you said, involves sparring with a person that you know, and that person is not trying to kill you.
> 
> I agree that it's a safe alternative, but there is more to fighting, than getting over your fear of getting hit.


True enough, but getting over your fears is a Huge step.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> How I train in light sparring so that I can use those same techniques in a real fight. The only real difference in training and in fighting is the amount of force I use.


I agree with your quote overall, except for your use of the word "only."  There are a few big differences IMO.

While theoretically, sparring may be the same as fighting, the mental awareness of full contact, no rules, no second chance and the very real possibility of serious injury is a factor to be considered.  It is hard to replicate this in sport vs real fighting.  It's a different mental paradigm.  To be able to make this mental/spiritual shift takes many years of practice and discipline.  (There are some natural fighters out there and those who had to fight for survival since childhood.  I'm neither one of those two.)

Another big difference is that there are moves you may use in light sparring, that you wouldn't use in a real fight.  High risk, fancy kicks for example.  Also, you can score points with moves that would not work in real fights such as hitting while off balance, leaning, over-committing, falling a little short on distance...

Conversely, there are moves in a real fight that you can't use in sparring such as eye, groin, throat, joint strikes and some takedowns.  Head butting, spitting, finger breaking and biting are also frowned upon in tournament sparring).  

Don't get me wrong - light sparring is great practice to develop technique, speed, tactics and a great sport.  But in the real thing, nice guys finish last, so shifting into another mental/spiritual gear is a must.  The concept of points must be replaced with the concept of inflicting injury.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 30, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> I agree with your quote overall, except for your use of the word "only."  There are a few big differences IMO.
> 
> While theoretically, sparring may be the same as fighting, the mental awareness of full contact, no rules, no second chance and the very real possibility of serious injury is a factor to be considered.  It is hard to replicate this in sport vs real fighting.  It's a different mental paradigm.  To be able to make this mental/spiritual shift takes many years of practice and discipline.  (There are some natural fighters out there and those who had to fight for survival since childhood.  I'm neither one of those two.)
> 
> ...



Wasn't this why Judo ended up overtaking classical Japanese Jujutsu in modern Japan? Kano removed the strikes and deadly techniques from Jujutsu which allowed his Judoka to practice at full speed application (Randori), and used mats in order for students to be thrown relatively safely. He also replaced killing blows with simulated death and submission (tapping out). That full speed training made the Judoka more capable of performing their techniques under stress because they were able to perfect them within their training without high risk of injury, and it gave Judo a leg up in fighting application.

That same training methodology is what makes Bjj (and submission grappling in general) so effective.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Yet you draw a distinction between throwing someone who doesn’t want you to, versus throwing someone who doesn’t want you to when there’s an official overseeing the match.


I draw a distinction between applying skills and training.  Both are important, but they aren't the same.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, I don’t consider light, technical sparring to be fighting. There’s a difference. And I don’t like hitting anyone hard, unless they richly deserve it (and even then, my good sense normally restrains me).



Maybe this will help.

If you aren't comfortable with hitting someone hard because "you don't like it" then what when you in a situation when you may actually need to hit someone that deserves it.  Will you let your that feeling restrain you and put you or your love one in danger?   Here's something that I have always been taught.

When sparring and hitting with decent force (not over doing it)
1. You learn how to better control and drive your power.
2.  You harden and condition your sparring partner's body.  Which makes them less afraid to be hit hard.
3.  You create realistic tactics and fighting theories, because you don't take unnecessary chances with things you aren't good at or things that you are not able to.
4.  You learn to control your emotion where fighting isn't about  " what you don't like to do"  "It's about what you have to do".   It's not about "hurting someone else"  it's about "protecting yourself".
5.  You learn to control your emotion, your frustration, and your fear of being hit.  You learn to hold it together when fear or uneasiness is just an uncontrolled thought away.
6.  You learn to focus on the tasks that need to be done, instead of focusing on what you may or may not do to a "future enemy.

I had a student who was afraid to hit me hard.  I would scolded her for not doing so.   She wanted to be able to fight using kung fu.  But not being able to hit someone hard is what prevented her from  be able to learn how to fight.

When we do leg conditioning.  People get hurt.
When I block a beginner with my forearm, even when it's a soft block.  That person gets hurt.
When we do forearm conditioning.  People get hurt.

There's a different between being hurt as part of training and hurting people out of pain or out of being a jerk.   It's just part of the reality of what the training is.

Not trying to change your mind.  Just putting another perspective out there.  Force doesn't always mean 100% and hitting someone as hard as you can.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2020)

Not trying to argue or disagree.  I just want to share some additional info, so that you can have a better understanding of why I think the way I do.  I understand that how I train may not be a reality for someone else.  We all don't train the same way.  But I can only answer from my perspective on this one.




isshinryuronin said:


> I agree with your quote overall, except for your use of the word "only." There are a few big differences IMO.


The word "only" applies to me and my perception of fighting and the experience of the fights that I've been in.  It's wasn't meant mean "only" for everyone.  there are too many variables, so that applies to me.



isshinryuronin said:


> While theoretically, sparring may be the same as fighting, the mental awareness of full contact, no rules, no second chance and the very real possibility of serious injury is a factor to be considered.


 I only make 2 rules for sparring:
1. Give what you get.
2. Spar for set time. (this way everyone gets a chance to train).  I do "round robin" so after 1 minute the person getting the focused training gets a fresh partner.

Anything beyond that is up to the person sparring.  As long as they can defend themselves adequately then they can hit each other as hard as they want.

In a physical fight:
1. Match or exceed the attack that you are getting.  (Give what you get).
2. Fight for a set set time.  Physical fights are not endless.  Some are short some are drawn out.  The time that you set will be based on the situation you are in.  If people are around then you may want to draw out the fight in hopes someone will come and help.  If you are by yourself then you may want to end it quickly.  Each situation is different.

I always recommend to other's to spar to learn.  That way you can learn how to apply the techniques.  "Learn by doing" vs  sparring so hard that a student would never take the risk to get a technique wrong while trying to learn it.



isshinryuronin said:


> very real possibility of serious injury is a factor to be considered.


The membership forms that we had informed students that training may result in serious injury or death and that there is a risk.  I've broken my finger 2 or 3 times during sparring,  Hyper extended my elbow that took 6 months to heal.  I had a black eye, busted lips, almost knocked myself out. One student was cut with a knife when doing lion dance, There have been back injuries and damage to muscular tissue.  I let students know that they will get hurt and that we have rules to help prevent serious injuries from occurring.  Kids often get more protection than adults because adults tend to push harder, especially those who want to learn how to fight.



isshinryuronin said:


> Another big difference is that there are moves you may use in light sparring, that you wouldn't use in a real fight. High risk, fancy kicks for example. Also, you can score points with moves that would not work in real fights such as hitting while off balance, leaning, over-committing, falling a little short on distance.


In my training I don't use moves like what you stated.  The only "high risk moves"  are the ones that I don't know how to use, but currently learning at the time.  I'll take those risks in sparring because I'm learning.  Once I learn it, then I can use it in a real fight.  This much I know for sure because of how I train.  Been there done it.  Jow Ga Kung Fu is very practical, which is why I was surprised that someone backed up their car just to tell me they thought it was the coolest thing they had ever seen.

In all my years of martial arts training, even when I did karate competitions as a kid.  It was never about points. We did continuous sparring back then and there was a person who did best and one who did not.  This was based on the quality of strikes  that landed successfully.   Taps and tag strikes were meaningless. The point sparring that I see today is foreign to me.

I don't use a point scoring system.  The only thing I care about when I train and train others is:
1. Where you able to pull off the technique and land a solid hit.
2.  Do you have the capability to land that same technique faster and harder.

If the answer to 1&2  are Yes, then you will be able to apply it in a real fight.  So the next step is to increase the intensity of sparring, which requires the techniques to be done in  situation where the attacks are faster and harder. 



isshinryuronin said:


> Conversely, there are moves in a real fight that you can't use in sparring such as eye, groin, throat, joint strikes and some takedowns.


 For these I practice on targets that aren't human.  Sort of like shooting a gun.  People train on shooting targets, not people.  Then they go shoot people.  Correction.  When they train against live targets then they use non-lethal methods to shoot at each other. 



isshinryuronin said:


> Don't get me wrong - light sparring is great practice to develop technique, speed, tactics and a great sport. But in the real thing, nice guys finish last, so shifting into another mental/spiritual gear is a must. The concept of points must be replaced with the concept of inflicting injury.


 For me I don't think shifting into another mental /spiritual gear is big deal.  1.  I don't make fighting spiritual, emotional, mental, or emotional.  When I train and spar, I do so without emotion, music, or though of how my training partner may feel.  I try to make the art of training and hitting things as emotionless a possible. 

Where you may get into a competition and think that you will win.  I get into one and only think about hitting my opponent and avoid damage. I only see opening and opportunities to strike.  I don't think win or lose,  I make it very simple.  If I strike my targets well enough then my opponent or my enemy will either not want more, or they will be put in a situation where they can no longer take more.  Winning is not for me to decide.  By putting myself in that mental state I can focus on the task at hand.

I've actually have used my martal arts in a real fight and it's the same thing I did when I sparred but instead of landing a hard kick, in a fight I try to land my hardest kick in a fight.  As a kid, I had a fight with my best friend.  He knew tkd,  he was older than me by 4 years.  Guess how he fought?  He used his tkd because that's what he trained.  I didn't even know he knew karate until he feint a left kick and then kicked me in the head with a right one.

When my brother was in his 20's he got into a fight at a club.  Guess what he used, in the fight?  Wrestling.  Guess what he trained in highschool.  Wrestling..  So in my mind.
When boxers get into street fights they use boxing.
When BJJ practitioners get into street fights they use BJJ
When Wrestlers get into street fights they use Wrestling.
When Kung fu Guys into street fights they "bail out" and do nothing that they actually train.  For me that that's a big issue.  How I train is the way I should fight.   If my training isn't good enough for fighting then I shouldn't train that with the expectation that it's good for fighting.
If I get into a street fight the you'll see some of the same things that I've already shown on video.   There won't be any bailing out of my techniques.

My comments are based on how I train.  My biggest focus is to be a good representation of Jow Ga Kung Fu in that it's something that can actually be used.  So my training is going to be different than someone who doesn't train to use kung fu for actual fighting.

Can someone pull out a gun or knife in a fight?  Of course.  But I can do the same if I have one on me.  I'll use what I train.  If I don't have a weapon then I will still use what I train.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Wasn't this why Judo ended up overtaking classical Japanese Jujutsu in modern Japan? Kano removed the strikes and deadly techniques from Jujutsu which allowed his Judoka to practice at full speed application (Randori), and used mats in order for students to be thrown relatively safely. He also replaced killing blows with simulated death and submission (tapping out). That full speed training made the Judoka more capable of performing their techniques under stress because they were able to perfect them within their training without high risk of injury, and it gave Judo a leg up in fighting application.
> 
> That same training methodology is what makes Bjj (and submission grappling in general) so effective.


It's so funny that sometime an art can be changed from 

combat -> sport -> combat

One person may try to take some dangerous moves out and make a combat art into sport. Another person may try to add those missing parts back into sport and make a sport into combat art.

The day when we will see BJJ guys start to train knife fight, the day that the history will repeat again.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, I don’t consider light, technical sparring to be fighting. There’s a difference. And I don’t like hitting anyone hard, unless they richly deserve it (and even then, my good sense normally restrains me).


One of my guys want to learn Sanda, I start to teach him how to run his opponent down. When you try to run your opponent down, you just cannot use light contact. With proper head gear and chest protection, full contact can still be achieve safely.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> When Kung fu Guys into street fights they "bail out" and do nothing that they actually train.  For me that that's a big issue.


Since I start to teach Sanda, I have tried to find the most useful Kung Fu technique that can be used in the ring. I find out that it's not jab, cross, hook, or uppercut. It's double downward inside circular punches. Even if you may not hit on your opponent's head, at least you will hit on your opponent's arm/arms. Anything can happen after that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's so funny that sometime an art can be changed from
> 
> combat -> sport -> combat
> 
> ...


  ha ha ha. that doesn't sound like a good plan. But I do like the idea of competitive knife fighting.  I don't think a single leg take down is going to be the best choice lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha. that doesn't sound like a good plan. But I do like the idea of competitive knife fighting.  I don't think a single leg take down is going to be the best choice lol.


You can have this in your finger when you play the ground game. The weapon was designed to be used on the ground, or in the water,


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can have this in your finger when you play the ground game. The weapon was designed to be used on the ground, or in the water,


I can't help to look at that and think how that may get caught on something and cause the finger to be twisted.  How popular were these?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I can't help to look at that and think how that may get caught on something and cause the finger to be twisted.  How popular were these?


Your middle finger can go through the loop while your hand is holding it. it's like to hold a dumbbell when you punch. It's ancient Chinese weapon.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 1, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not trying to argue or disagree. I just want to share some additional info, so that you can have a better understanding of why I think the way I do. I understand that how I train may not be a reality for someone else. We all don't train the same way. But I can only answer from my perspective on this one.


I don't see any argument here and respect your training.  But, we're talking about different things.  I was comparing fighting to the topic at hand - light point sparring.  You are talking about hard sparring and good old time hard training. 

I can appreciate that you do not spar for points and hit in practice harder than most schools. Yes, hitting the opponent and avoiding damage is the bottom line.  When I mentioned a shift in mental/spiritual attitude from light sparring to actual fighting, it's similar to your point #5 a few posts earlier.  But yes, once the fight starts, there is no distraction or emotion - too many other things happening really fast.  So I don't think we are far apart at all on the basic concepts.

My school does not teach for tournament competition as a goal or focus.  It is useful though to come up against others who train differently and test your skills IMO.  Many students enjoy it.  But when this is the main focus, much of the combat skill aspects of the art are lost.  We primarily teach techniques that are practical in actual combat, inflict maximum damage and pain to the attacker while using checks and angles to minimize damage to ourselves.  Our fighting style is close-in (not designed or effective for tournament sparring) and is similar to the old pre-1930 Okinawan fighting style.  Body hardening is part of our curriculum.  

But we are drifting off the topic I was originally addressing.  However, your post was very enlightening in regards to your type of training (not for everybody, I agree) and I think our views are mostly compatible.  Most of us that have been around awhile have been injured.  I've seen dislocated elbows and broken jaws.  As for myself, I've had black eyes, an almost dislocated jaw, broken fingers, lots of bruises, cracked ribs and busted lip, doubled over and whacked hard to the nuts - over all, I've been lucky.  Hard to believe that my generous nose has been bloodied, but never broken.  Going on 70, none of that sounds like fun anymore (actually it was never fun, but it was part of what I did) but still can spar with the young studs for a few minutes at a time - maybe just not at your school .


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Wasn't this why Judo ended up overtaking classical Japanese Jujutsu in modern Japan? Kano removed the strikes and deadly techniques from Jujutsu which allowed his Judoka to practice at full speed application (Randori), and used mats in order for students to be thrown relatively safely. He also replaced killing blows with simulated death and submission (tapping out). That full speed training made the Judoka more capable of performing their techniques under stress because they were able to perfect them within their training without high risk of injury, and it gave Judo a leg up in fighting application.
> 
> That same training methodology is what makes Bjj (and submission grappling in general) so effective.


This progression, as much as anything, is why I'm a big proponent of including committed randori/sparring/rolling as a training tool. Anyone who actually wants to be able to execute in a fight should have some exposure to this, even in the more classical/traditional approaches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> I draw a distinction between applying skills and training.  Both are important, but they aren't the same.


You've told me on multiple occasions that competition is application, but sparring outside competition is training. Or I've entirely misunderstood what seemed very clear posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Maybe this will help.
> 
> If you aren't comfortable with hitting someone hard because "you don't like it" then what when you in a situation when you may actually need to hit someone that deserves it.  Will you let your that feeling restrain you and put you or your love one in danger?   Here's something that I have always been taught.
> 
> ...


As I said, I do train with hard sparring at times. But I don't like it. I don't think I ever will. When "in a fight", I've never found myself unduly held back by concern for the other person. But I didn't enjoy it then, either. There's a huge gulf between trepidation and enjoyment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of my guys want to learn Sanda, I start to teach him how to run his opponent down. When you try to run your opponent down, you just cannot use light contact. With proper head gear and chest protection, full contact can still be achieve safely.


There's good evidence that headgear doesn't dramatically reduce the chance of CTE. In fact, if it leads to people not protecting themselves as well (which has been the case in American football, for instance), it can lead to increased chances of CTE.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's so funny that sometime an art can be changed from
> 
> combat -> sport -> combat
> 
> ...



Considering that someone can be killed from a Judo throw, or a punch from a boxer, (and the majority of high level practitioners of those "sports" are quite capable of performing their techniques via their type of training) I don't think labeling a martial art in those ways really matters. I know plenty of "combat" MAs that are complete and utter jokes on just about every level. I know plenty of "sport" MA practitioners I would never mess with unless I want to be carried out of the gym, or sent to the hospital.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You've told me on multiple occasions that competition is application, but sparring outside competition is training. Or I've entirely misunderstood what seemed very clear posts.


Nope.  That's true.  Well, it's a little more nuanced than that.  I'll try to distill it into bullet points:

Expertise is an accumulation of skills developed over time thought application in context.
Whenever you use skills in a different context, your chances of failure are higher, because there is a transfer of learning.  For example, if you learn to swim in a pool, and then swim in the ocean, there is a transfer of learning.  If you're a strong swimmer, you will probably do fine, though there are important things about tides that you may not know.  If you are a weak swimmer in a pool, you will be an even weaker swimmer in an ocean.  And if you've only ever mimicked the motions of swimming while on dry land, your chances are pretty slim, though you may intellectually understand what you need to do.
The more similar one context is to another, the more likely one will successfully transfer skills.   
Training to fight is not the same as fighting.  Fighting is an application of skill.  Training is preparation.  You can develop expertise without training (though good training is valuable).  You cannot develop expertise without application.
If you don't apply the skills you're learning in the context for which they are intended, the training itself actually becomes the context.  If this happens, you are no longer even training to fight.  You are now training to become an expert trainee.  So, to your points, @gpseymour , this is a form of application.  It's just not fighting application anymore.  
When this happens, the objectives for the training shift from fighting skill to training skill.  In other words, you stop training to be able to fight.  You start training to be able to chi sao, or experience true aiki, or perfect a kata, etc.  You start training to become skilled at training.  Any expertise you develop is within the context of training.
To the point of this thread, if all you do is train in a system and your expertise is in that system, the best case scenario is that you will refine the system based on training goals.  Simply put, you may chi sao better, or you may perform kata better.  You might be able to turn that 180 degree kick into a super cool 360 tornado kick.  Will you be able to fight, though?  No clue.  You're not even on the spectrum of fighting skill.  More like fighting adjacent.
And most importantly, if you don't apply the skills and develop actual expertise in a context, you shouldn't be teaching anything related to that context.  Or said in a positive way, you should teach what you know.  If you know a system, teach the system.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> When my brother was in his 20's he got into a fight at a club.  Guess what he used, in the fight?  Wrestling.  Guess what he trained in highschool.  Wrestling..  So in my mind.
> When boxers get into street fights they use boxing.
> When BJJ practitioners get into street fights they use BJJ
> When Wrestlers get into street fights they use Wrestling.
> ...



I think a big reason why you tend to use your Kung Fu in actual fights is because you appear to be sparring a lot. There are a lot of Kung Fu schools out there that don't spar at all, and rely almost entirely on forms and one step drills. Despite people's fondness for forms/kata, people doing nothing but that form of training simply don't develop their fighting ability, and end up having a lot of techniques with almost zero knowledge on how to apply them.

Weren't you kicked out of your original school because of your sparring?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The day when we will see BJJ guys start to train knife fight, the day that the history will repeat again.


Individual BJJ practitioners cross-train all the time, including one of the many knife systems.  They add it to their personal "styles" and teach it to their students.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> Whenever you use skills in a different context, your chances of failure are higher, because there is a transfer of learning.  For example, if you learn to swim in a pool, and then swim in the ocean, there is a transfer of learning.  If you're a strong swimmer, you will probably do fine, though there are important things about tides that you may not know.  If you are a weak swimmer in a pool, you will be an even weaker swimmer in an ocean.  And if you've only ever mimicked the motions of swimming while on dry land, your chances are pretty slim, though you may intellectually understand what you need to do.


It occurred to me, @gpseymour , that within this bullet we might find the source of confusion.  in the statement above, fighting is analogous to swimming.  If a chaotic, random street fight is the ocean, I would consider competition to be swimming in a pool.  I think you believe you're swimming.  But if you aren't actually swimming, you're the guy on the side of the pool.  

A person who is mimicking the motions of swimming, but doesn't swim, is developing some muscle memory.  These motions may actually be useful for swimming (or not, but it's possible).  But it's not swimming.  No one would look at a person doing swimming motions on dry land and say that he is swimming, even if his form is impeccable.  

If you do get into a pool and try to swim, I wouldn't expect it to go very well.  But even if you do that only one time, it's going to be a big deal.  You are going to get a tremendous amount of feedback that will inform your training.  To continue to progress, however, you need to continue to get into the pool.  Even if you only get into the pool occasionally, it will keep your training grounded in performance and your skills will grow (albeit slowly). 

If you never get into the pool, then you have supplanted the goal of swimming.  You are now into something else...  a sort of performance art where perfection of dry-land swimming is the goal.  And if that's what you're into, then by all means, have at it.  Just be mindful that when you first get into the pool, it's going to be a big deal, and it's not likely to go very well.  And remember, the pool isn't the goal.  The ocean is the goal.  If you aren't prepared to jump into the pool, you really shouldn't jump off the boat in the pacific out of sight of the shore.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Individual BJJ practitioners cross-train all the time, including one of the many knife systems.  They add it to their personal "styles" and teach it to their students.


This is why I don't understand why people want to argue about the following.

- Does Karate have sweep?
- Does Judo have punch?
- Does boxing have kick?
- Does TKD have throw?
- Does BJJ have knife fight?
- ...

Who cares? If you cross train, this will never be an issue.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Does boxing have kick?


Welllll.....



The Knee-Kick in boxing by lklawson
The Knee-Kick from Bart J. Doran's boxing manual "The Science of Self Defense," 1889
Available for free here:
Lulu

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I don't understand why people want to argue about the following.
> 
> - Does Karate have sweep?
> - Does Judo have punch?
> ...



Uh, one of those is not like the other ones.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You've told me on multiple occasions that competition is application, but sparring outside competition is training. Or I've entirely misunderstood what seemed very clear posts.





Steve said:


> Nope.  That's true.  Well, it's a little more nuanced than that.  I'll try to distill it into bullet points:
> 
> Expertise is an accumulation of skills developed over time thought application in context.
> Whenever you use skills in a different context, your chances of failure are higher, because there is a transfer of learning.  For example, if you learn to swim in a pool, and then swim in the ocean, there is a transfer of learning.  If you're a strong swimmer, you will probably do fine, though there are important things about tides that you may not know.  If you are a weak swimmer in a pool, you will be an even weaker swimmer in an ocean.  And if you've only ever mimicked the motions of swimming while on dry land, your chances are pretty slim, though you may intellectually understand what you need to do.
> ...



Steve, I think Gerry would agree with most of your points, but your response bypassed the point he was trying to make in his comment that I've quoted above.

Namely, if you spar in the dojo (under a certain set of rules) and spar in a competition of some sort (tournament, cage fight, whatever) under those same exact rules, why would the former be considered training and only the latter be considered application?

I have my own answers for why someone might consider that to be the case. 

Many of us primarily spar "to learn" rather than "to win" in the dojo, while most people bring their "A game" to win in a formal competition.
Adrenaline tends to be higher in an official competition with trophies or prize money on the line then in routine sparring in the dojo
Tournament competition may provide the opportunity to test yourself against people other than your classmates
If your goal is a winning athletic career, then official competition may involve "metagaming" factors beyond the official sparring rounds - things like scouting an opponent, knowing what the judges are looking for, cutting weight, etc
However, I'd still say that the distinction is a bit of a fuzzy boundary. Even those of us who spar "to learn" have plenty of experience with sparring partners who go balls-to-the-wall putting maximum effort into winning. And for those of us who train for generalized fighting ability, the metagame of a particular competition ruleset may not be so vital.

To use your own analogy, sparring in the dojo might be like swimming in an indoor pool while competing or fighting in the street might be like swimming in the ocean with the possibility of bad weather or riptides.

I do acknowledge your larger general point. That's why I don't claim that I am any kind of expert master in "street fighting" or "self-defense." On the other hand, I don't necessarily limit myself to saying "I teach the cultural heritage art of BJJ." What I do claim is that I have a reasonable degree of expertise in executing and teaching certain specific skills which may be useful in a variety of contexts. Things like:

Escaping from the bottom of mount when someone is on top of me trying to choke me
Getting back to my feet safely if I am on the ground and someone is standing over me trying to hit me
Taking someone to the ground against their will when they are trying to hit me
Punching someone with a reasonable degree of force while protecting myself from them doing the same to me
Hitting someone with a stick while protecting myself from them doing the same to me
Preventing someone from throwing me to the ground when they are really trying to do so
Falling safely without being hurt when I fail at stopping someone from throwing me to the ground
Choking someone unconscious when they are trying to not let me do that
etc, etc, etc
Could those skills be useful in a self-defense situation? Sometimes, depending on the context.
Could those skills be useful in a fight? Sometimes, depending on the fight.
Could those skills be useful in a sporting competition? Sometimes, depending on the competition.

I don't claim to be any kind of great fighter or great competitor or self-defense guru, but the specific skills I teach I feel pretty confident in.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Steve, I think Gerry would agree with most of your points, but your response bypassed the point he was trying to make in his comment that I've quoted above.
> 
> Namely, if you spar in the dojo (under a certain set of rules) and spar in a competition of some sort (tournament, cage fight, whatever) under those same exact rules, why would the former be considered training and only the latter be considered application?
> 
> ...


You make many good points.  I think it goes a little off the tracks when you say "spar in a competition."  For many of the reasons you outline, they aren't the same.  Much more accurate to say you spar in training and you compete in a competition.  

And to be completely honest, while I think this is very important, I agree that it's nuanced (i.e., fuzzy).  Is it possible for someone to learn to swim without ever touching the water?  I honestly don't know the answer to that for a few reasons.  First, because the person hasn't done it.  Second, because we have a reliable way to teach people to swim, though it relies on being in water.

I think you hit some of the clear differences between training to fight vs fighting.  Or training to compete vs competing (or basic training vs combat, etc).  But you asked a good question.  If I change the language just a little bit, I think it becomes more clear.  Still nuanced, but I think a little more concrete:  

If you fight in a dojo under a certain set of rules, or fight in a competition under those same exact rules, why would the former be considered training and only the latter be considered application?  

The answer is, it depends.  But the rules are only part of the context.  You touch on other elements in your post above.  When you fight in the dojo, is this fight the culmination of training specific for that event?  Is there a tangible reward for success and also a tangible consequence for failure?  Is one fight part of a larger series of fights (i.e., if you win, do you advance to fight someone else?).  So, to answer the question, I can envision a school saying, "Six weeks from now, in lieu of classes, I have invited our satellite schools to join us for the rumblepalooza.  We will be using submission only rules.  Top three in each division will receive a tangible reward, TBD, and anyone not in the top three will be made to spar consecutive 3 minute rounds with the 20 other people in the school, starting with the blackbelts and going down to white belts.  

Simply put, with a lot of thought and effort, you can get close.  But this raises two questions.  First, is something like the above what people have in mind when they say "sparring is application?"  I don't get that impression.  And second, even in the above situation, is this analogous to competition or simply a lesser alternative to competition? Maybe a better way to say it is, even if you do participate in the above (which actually could be pretty fun), does it fully replace the value of competing in an event outside the school with other people/schools?  

Whew.  If you're still with me, my hat is off to you.  To sum up, it's common sense that you can't learn to swim without swimming.  But that's not exactly the question you're asking.  What you seem to be asking is, can you learn to swim without water?  And the answer is... maybe?  If you're determined enough to learn to swim, and creative enough to replace water with something that can get you close (a 10'x10'x10' vat of canola oil?  Vodka?), you might learn something like swimming that, if you find yourself in an actual pool, will keep you from drowning.

What I think is more likely, though is that if you don't train in water to begin with, swimming in a pool or anywhere else isn't your actual goal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> spar "to learn" rather than "to win" ...


This is why you should force yourself to use just a set of techniques (or even just a single technique) in sparring. You won't obtain winning if you use a technique outside of that pre-defined set.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I do acknowledge your larger general point. That's why I don't claim that I am any kind of expert master in "street fighting" or "self-defense." On the other hand, I don't necessarily limit myself to saying "I teach the cultural heritage art of BJJ." What I do claim is that I have a reasonable degree of expertise in executing and teaching certain specific skills which may be useful in a variety of contexts.
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> I don't claim to be any kind of great fighter or great competitor or self-defense guru, but the specific skills I teach I feel pretty confident in.


Just want to pull these two statements out.  I hope you don't think I have any issues at all with them.  You focus on what you do and don't imply you know things you don't, and I don't see any reason why you would or should need to limit yourself to saying you teach the cultural heritage of BJJ.

Not thinking about Gerry, but we have others on this forum who do in fact present themselves to be self defense experts, including at least one mentor, in spite of having no relevant experience. It's not the lack of experience alone, because, really, who cares?  It's that, at least in the particular case of this particular ninja, we have a guy who suggests expertise where none exists and implies experience he doesn't have.  It's dishonest.  But he sure does know a lot about samurai swords, so....

In fact, many years ago, it was this person that created the need to distinguish between application and training, and to articulate things that seem obvious, like you need experience to be an expert.  And to say seemingly obvious things like, "You can be an expert ninja without fighting.  But that doesn't make you an expert fighter."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 1, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Weren't you kicked out of your original school because of your sparring?


Yeah that was me.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah that was me.



Yeah, that’s like kicking someone out of driver’s ed for driving.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah that was me.


I didn't know that.  You're like a modern day Bruce Lee.  Pretty badass.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you should force yourself to use just a set of techniques (or even just a single technique) in sparring. You won't obtain winning if you use a technique outside of that pre-defined set.



You don’t really need to force yourself. When I first started rolling, I only had two or three moves I could somewhat do against someone who was trying to subdue me. Over time your move set grows, and you add more to your tool belt. It’s a fairly natural progression over time.

The bad part is if you’ve never sparred before and the first time you can test your abilities is when you have to defend yourself.


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I don’t think most new MA consumers have the knowledge to make those determinations.



Most people have heard of karate, kung fu, krav maga, judo, muay thai, jiu jitsu, taekwondo, etc.

I would think that when most people hear some funky new name they never heard of, then spidey senses go off.

Absent some internet research - probably the kind that would require some prior MA knowledge in the first place - I'd think kudo, for example, would be a hard sell too many.

It's a cross between karate and judo?  It kind of reminds me of that episode of Sanford & Son where, when asked what type of stone what's on a cheap ring he had, Fred said that it was a "doobie" - which is a cross between a diamond and a ruby.  I believe that it's probably how kudo and other similar concoctions are perceived by those with no prior martial arts experience.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> I didn't know that.  You're like a modern day Bruce Lee.  Pretty badass.


Yep. It happened a few years ago.  Not a good experience but I came out better and stronger for it.  Long story short, and it's a really good story,  My tiny reputation was not tarnished, the truth came out, and I didn't let the experience kill my passion for Jow Ga.  

If anything.  I'm more focused than ever.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You don’t really need to force yourself. When I first started rolling, I only had two or three moves I could somewhat do against someone who was trying to subdue me. Over time your move set grows, and you add more to your tool belt. It’s a fairly natural progression over time.
> 
> The bad part is if you’ve never sparred before and the first time you can test your abilities is when you have to defend yourself.


Not sure how BJJ guys develop new skill.

A guy is good in single leg may not be good in hip throw. If that person depends on his single leg to win on the mat all the time, he will never be able to develop hip throw.

This is why when a person cares too much about his winning record, it will be hard for him to develop new skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> Nope.  That's true.  Well, it's a little more nuanced than that.  I'll try to distill it into bullet points:
> 
> Expertise is an accumulation of skills developed over time thought application in context.
> Whenever you use skills in a different context, your chances of failure are higher, because there is a transfer of learning.  For example, if you learn to swim in a pool, and then swim in the ocean, there is a transfer of learning.  If you're a strong swimmer, you will probably do fine, though there are important things about tides that you may not know.  If you are a weak swimmer in a pool, you will be an even weaker swimmer in an ocean.  And if you've only ever mimicked the motions of swimming while on dry land, your chances are pretty slim, though you may intellectually understand what you need to do.
> ...


I'm not sure how any of that clarifies why two people applying their skills against each other is "application" if there's a ref, but "training" if there isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> It occurred to me, @gpseymour , that within this bullet we might find the source of confusion.  in the statement above, fighting is analogous to swimming.  If a chaotic, random street fight is the ocean, I would consider competition to be swimming in a pool.  I think you believe you're swimming.  But if you aren't actually swimming, you're the guy on the side of the pool.
> 
> A person who is mimicking the motions of swimming, but doesn't swim, is developing some muscle memory.  These motions may actually be useful for swimming (or not, but it's possible).  But it's not swimming.  No one would look at a person doing swimming motions on dry land and say that he is swimming, even if his form is impeccable.
> 
> ...


Okay. So if a guy is swimming not in a competition, is he still swimming?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Steve, I think Gerry would agree with most of your points, but your response bypassed the point he was trying to make in his comment that I've quoted above.
> 
> Namely, if you spar in the dojo (under a certain set of rules) and spar in a competition of some sort (tournament, cage fight, whatever) under those same exact rules, why would the former be considered training and only the latter be considered application?
> 
> ...


As you often do, you did a better job of stating my point, Tony. And I tend to agree with the points you made. Assuming a person places import on winning in competition, the competition provides some stressors they may not experience in sparring (where many folks simply won't be as driven as when in a competition). And I wholeheartedly agree that competition is likely to produce a wider range of people to test with.

And I agree about what we can claim expertise in. I teach with a self-defense focus, but don't claim to be an expert in self-defense. If I'm an expert in anything, it's at teaching a set of skills that can be applied in that context (my experience is that I teach better than my personal skill level). I've never claimed expertise in that, but I'd sooner claim that expertise than even claim expertise at the skills, themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> You make many good points.  I think it goes a little off the tracks when you say "spar in a competition."  For many of the reasons you outline, they aren't the same.  Much more accurate to say you spar in training and you compete in a competition.
> 
> And to be completely honest, while I think this is very important, I agree that it's nuanced (i.e., fuzzy).  Is it possible for someone to learn to swim without ever touching the water?  I honestly don't know the answer to that for a few reasons.  First, because the person hasn't done it.  Second, because we have a reliable way to teach people to swim, though it relies on being in water.
> 
> ...


Here's a question for you: what are the "tangible reward" and "tangible consequence" for competition? Are they tangible to everyone? You spell out a consequence in your post that I'm not aware of any competition including (having to spar everyone at the competition, because you placed too low). Asking the "sparring" to include that seems to be placing a requirement on it that isn't equivalent to the competition.

And you mention one other thing I've tried to point out before. You ask if the sparring is the culmination of training specific to the event. Why does it need to be? What is the specific benefit (beyond placement in the competition) of training specifically for an event. I know folks who never did that, yet competed and placed well, simply because their normal training made that possible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you should force yourself to use just a set of techniques (or even just a single technique) in sparring. You won't obtain winning if you use a technique outside of that pre-defined set.


To me, that's sparring to learn. Which is fine, but sometimes sparring should be specifically to win - you use your best stuff against their best stuff to see how it goes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You don’t really need to force yourself. When I first started rolling, I only had two or three moves I could somewhat do against someone who was trying to subdue me. Over time your move set grows, and you add more to your tool belt. It’s a fairly natural progression over time.
> 
> The bad part is if you’ve never sparred before and the first time you can test your abilities is when you have to defend yourself.


Which, in my experience, is too much a possibility in many self-defense-oriented schools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Most people have heard of karate, kung fu, krav maga, judo, muay thai, jiu jitsu, taekwondo, etc.
> 
> I would think that when most people hear some funky new name they never heard of, then spidey senses go off.
> 
> ...


I think you'd be surprised. There's a Karaikido Karate school near me. They simply tacked "Karate" on the end, for name recognition. Their style is really "Karaikido". They've been around quite a while. I know of at least three new styles of Aikido that have cropped up in the last 15 years (at least 2 of which may be properly classified jujutsu styles), plus 4 or 5 jujutsu/jujitsu styles (at least 2 of which may be properly classified Aikido styles). Most consumers know a few words, but not really what they mean. If you tell them what you teach is a blend of the best of (insert three words they probably recognize), that has about as much weight as telling them it's "Karate".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not sure how BJJ guys develop new skill.
> 
> A guy is good in single leg may not be good in hip throw. If that person depends on his single leg to win on the mat all the time, he will never be able to develop hip throw.
> 
> This is why when a person cares too much about his winning record, it will be hard for him to develop new skill.


If he's winning, does it really matter? If he's not, wouldn't he be seeking something new?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not sure how BJJ guys develop new skill.
> 
> A guy is good in single leg may not be good in hip throw. If that person depends on his single leg to win on the mat all the time, he will never be able to develop hip throw.
> 
> This is why when a person cares too much about his winning record, it will be hard for him to develop new skill.



If a person is winning all the time using a single leg, he's in a pretty crappy BJJ gym.

More to your point, if that person is in your standard gym, the single leg shouldn't allow him to dominate all the time, which would force that person to figure out something new in order to survive, or submit their opponent.

For example, when I first started BJJ, I tended to "win" rolls simply because I was a fairly large person. I used my weight and strength to dominate smaller people. My personal favorite sequence was to smash my way through my partner's guard, enter side control, and use kesa gatame to stall and submit. Thanks to my (brief) stint in Judo, I had a fairly good kesa gatame, and Bjj doesn't really teach escapes for kesa gatame until upper ranks. So my poor white belt peers had no idea how to counter what I was doing. BTW, I was so happy to be "winning" with that sequence that I completely neglected my guard game and fighting from the bottom.

However, as I continued to train I started to lose a significant amount of weight (about 50lbs), and my partners got better at escaping my sequence. Suddenly my top game wasn't so good, and without my extra heft, I couldn't smash through guard like I used to. I began to roll against people who were more skilled than me, and my lackluster guard game suddenly came to the forefront. It got to the point where if I was on the bottom, I was pretty much assured to get tapped. I had to completely change my game in order to be competitive, and that meant focusing on developing my guard game, getting serious about learning escapes and technical guard passes, and adding other tools to my kit besides smashing people with a beer belly.

That's how you develop new skill in Bjj.

BTW, I typed "winning" because in my fool head I thought I was winning, but in reality I was losing, because while I sat back in kesa gatame thinking I was hot ****, my partner was on the bottom actually learning more than I was.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> If a person is winning all the time using a single leg, he's in a pretty crappy BJJ gym.


Or he has a truly spectacular single-leg set-up.


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think you'd be surprised. There's a Karaikido Karate school near me. They simply tacked "Karate" on the end, for name recognition. Their style is really "Karaikido". They've been around quite a while. I know of at least three new styles of Aikido that have cropped up in the last 15 years (at least 2 of which may be properly classified jujutsu styles), plus 4 or 5 jujutsu/jujitsu styles (at least 2 of which may be properly classified Aikido styles). Most consumers know a few words, but not really what they mean. If you tell them what you teach is a blend of the best of (insert three words they probably recognize), that has about as much weight as telling them it's "Karate".



I can only speak for myself on this, but when I hear of a martial art that is designed to be a combination of two or more others; what immediately comes to mind is a 2-in-1 as opposed to separate shampoo and conditioner (or, even these days, a 3-in-1, which adds body wash).

Sure, a 2 or 3 in one will get the job done in a pinch... it's cheap, and saves time... but you don't get the full benefits from this product that you would get from separate shampoo, conditioner, and body wash.

I imagine that, in order to combine two or more martial arts into, certain aspects from each are going to be discarded.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 1, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I imagine that, in order to combine two or more martial arts into, certain aspects from each are going to be discarded.


This is true but it's not a total lose.  It's like babies.  Half one parent and half the other parent.  The possible outcome is that the child will be better, equal, or worst than the parents.  Most likely outcome is that it will be better in some ways an worst in others.  The benefit that one gets from the hybrid system depends on how well the person understands the two systems that are being combined. 

If the person doesn't understand it the systems, then that hybrid system is likely to trash.  I think of it like cooking.  The better a person understands the ingredients, the more likely that person is to be able to create a successful hybrid system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> in order to combine two or more martial arts into, certain aspects from each are going to be discarded.


Agree! Sometime to combine 2 MA systems is almost impossible.

In this clip, his power generation require about 1 second to achieve. When you need 100% compressing before releasing, your striking speed will be slow.






In this clip, his striking can be less than 1/4 second. When you strike in fast speed, you don't have time to generate full power.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Okay. So if a guy is swimming not in a competition, is he still swimming?


 In a few months, someone else like tony will say the same thing and it will click for you.  You'll agree with him because that's how you roll.   I've sincerely given it my best shot.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Here's a question for you: what are the "tangible reward" and "tangible consequence" for competition? Are they tangible to everyone? You spell out a consequence in your post that I'm not aware of any competition including (having to spar everyone at the competition, because you placed too low). Asking the "sparring" to include that seems to be placing a requirement on it that isn't equivalent to the competition.
> 
> And you mention one other thing I've tried to point out before. You ask if the sparring is the culmination of training specific to the event. Why does it need to be? What is the specific benefit (beyond placement in the competition) of training specifically for an event. I know folks who never did that, yet competed and placed well, simply because their normal training made that possible.


You're completely missing the point.  What I can't tell is if it's on purpose or not.  Either way, I just can't give you any more of my energy.  Go ahead and teach folks self defense.  I just hope for their sake they never have to use it.  I just don't know how your conscience can bear it.


----------



## Bee Brian (Oct 1, 2020)

My friends, call me wrong if you like but perhaps the reason there are no more new arts is because the original creators of these fighting systems have pretty much explored everything. There's nothing else to discover or invent at this point.


----------



## Bee Brian (Oct 1, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think you'd be surprised. There's a Karaikido Karate school near me. They simply tacked "Karate" on the end, for name recognition. Their style is really "Karaikido". They've been around quite a while. I know of at least three new styles of Aikido that have cropped up in the last 15 years (at least 2 of which may be properly classified jujutsu styles), plus 4 or 5 jujutsu/jujitsu styles (at least 2 of which may be properly classified Aikido styles). Most consumers know a few words, but not really what they mean. If you tell them what you teach is a blend of the best of (insert three words they probably recognize), that has about as much weight as telling them it's "Karate".



Bro, you said "Jujutsu" instead of "Jiu-jitsu"...

I love that!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 1, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Sometime to combine 2 MA systems is almost impossible.
> 
> In this clip, his power generation require about 1 second to achieve. When you need 100% compressing before releasing, your striking speed will be slow.
> 
> ...


Chen is doing a demonstration, which of course needs to be slower in order for the audience to see what he is doing and to get something out of the demo.

I am certain that he can do it much faster than that demo shows.


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 2, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Uh, one of those is not like the other ones.









Ps also, welcome back Hanzou


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 2, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can spar with people you know or don't know. Either way is fine.  The person doesn't need to try to kill you in order for you to validate your skills.  Killing and Fighting are not the same thing. A person doesn't have to fight someone in order to kill them.
> 
> If you fight with hands then the fear is getting hit, kicked, or put in some kind of lock that breaks a bone or causes you to passout.
> If you fight with knives then the fear is about getting stabbed
> ...


Although true, as long as there is some sort of safety net...it's not reality. It's like when I took up Kickboxing, I had been in many fights before I even walked into the place and I realized although it was aggressive and at times brutal, I would never use it exclusively, if at all in an actual fight. It was simply incomplete. But, from past experiences I had no fear of dying in the ring, compared to the battles that took place in the street. Most of that was for life or death.

But then again, I grew up in the hole in central Washington. Where murder was and still is a daily thing. A cross roads for drug delivery and violent gangs. 

I no longer live there, but have relatives and friends that still do and not much has changed from what I understand. Albeit, they are out of the lifestyle, the violence didn't change...it just moved on to the next generation.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 2, 2020)

Bee Brian said:


> My friends, call me wrong if you like but perhaps the reason there are no more new arts is because the original creators of these fighting systems have pretty much explored everything. There's nothing else to discover or invent at this point.



Nah, I don't think that's the case. Again, I think what we have now is greater communication, a global community, and the universal wall that is MMA. Anything that pops on the scene will automatically be brought before MMA and be tested. We see this with the erosion of traditional MA around the world, and the rising popularity of the MMA-based arts. If you create "BeeDo", your initial students are going to compare what you're teaching to the MMA-based arts, and if it doesn't measure up, its going to place a permanent ceiling on the growth of your style, if not destroy it completely.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Ps also, welcome back Hanzou



Thank you.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 2, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> I agree with your quote overall, except for your use of the word "only."  There are a few big differences IMO.
> 
> While theoretically, sparring may be the same as fighting, the mental awareness of full contact, no rules, no second chance and the very real possibility of serious injury is a factor to be considered.  It is hard to replicate this in sport vs real fighting.  It's a different mental paradigm.  To be able to make this mental/spiritual shift takes many years of practice and discipline.  (There are some natural fighters out there and those who had to fight for survival since childhood.  I'm neither one of those two.)
> 
> ...


This is a great post. Very spot on. 
We used to do what we called action/reaction drills. I haven't used or heard this term in some time but I am sure it is still actively done in many schools/systems, possibly by different names. 
One of the hardest things to teach and learn is the mental component of true self defense. When to turn things like aggression on, and how Much they are turned on, is a very personal and different aspect for each person. Very hard to teach and learn sometimes.
Action/reaction drills by name alone can really help set the tone in a class/session and be used as a tool to help people 'see' and conform their thought process. I like starting with a small sample of possible defense scenarios and talking/working through a set of techniques/counters. Early on when someone is first learning I will frame the training almost purely technical/mechanical. Then I will start introducing the deeper mentalities and the need to feel and understand intent. Eventually learning how to deal with, or more importantly how to visualize the outcome. 
One of the most important concepts is seeing the training as a tool, not just a hobby with only health value.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I can only speak for myself on this, but when I hear of a martial art that is designed to be a combination of two or more others; what immediately comes to mind is a 2-in-1 as opposed to separate shampoo and conditioner (or, even these days, a 3-in-1, which adds body wash).
> 
> Sure, a 2 or 3 in one will get the job done in a pinch... it's cheap, and saves time... but you don't get the full benefits from this product that you would get from separate shampoo, conditioner, and body wash.
> 
> I imagine that, in order to combine two or more martial arts into, certain aspects from each are going to be discarded.


While that last statement is almost certainly true, most arts have parts that either have been discarded, or should have been. If an art is focused in a single area, it will have more solutions in that area, but none in other areas. So, which is better? It depends. There are long-standing "single arts" that are just as diversified as "hybrid arts" that happen to come from two (or more) root arts.

More diversified doesn't mean less effective. It may mean more effective because it handles more situations. Depends how you look at it, and how the art is trained.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> In a few months, someone else like tony will say the same thing and it will click for you.  You'll agree with him because that's how you roll.   I've sincerely given it my best shot.


Nope. Because what you're saying doesn't make sense. Application is not a binary thing, and doesn't magically stop occurring when there's no ref.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're completely missing the point.  What I can't tell is if it's on purpose or not.  Either way, I just can't give you any more of my energy.  Go ahead and teach folks self defense.  I just hope for their sake they never have to use it.  I just don't know how your conscience can bear it.


You keep saying that. I've told you many times that I don't teach self-defense. I teach with a self-defense orientation. But you keep distorting my point to fit your narrative.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Bee Brian said:


> My friends, call me wrong if you like but perhaps the reason there are no more new arts is because the original creators of these fighting systems have pretty much explored everything. There's nothing else to discover or invent at this point.


There's always new ways to combine things. Besides, you're operating from the false premise that there are no new arts, while new systems continue to pop up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Bee Brian said:


> Bro, you said "Jujutsu" instead of "Jiu-jitsu"...
> 
> I love that!


Different styles use different spellings for the word. "Jiu-jitsu" is actually an older usage, as I understand it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 2, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You keep saying that. I've told you many times that I don't teach self-defense. I teach with a self-defense orientation. But you keep distorting my point to fit your narrative.


It's really as simple as this.  If neither you nor your students have experience fighting and are not actively accumulating any fighting experience, you are not learning to fight.  You might be learning Aikido or some other martial art, but you aren't learning to fight.  And if you lead people to believe you are teaching them to fight, when neither you nor your students are experienced fighters (or accumulating any experience fighting), whether that's self defense or otherwise, you are misleading them.  You might be misleading yourself. 

The fine distinction between self defense and a self defense orientation is, in my opinion, meaningless, because to a student it would be a meaningless distinction.  I mean, are you seriously suggesting that students will divine some meaningful distinction between  "I teach self defense" or "I teach martial arts with a self defense orientation"? 


gpseymour said:


> Nope. Because what you're saying doesn't make sense. Application is not a binary thing, and doesn't magically stop occurring when there's no ref.


I recommend you read it again.  It's all there.  If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them.  But if you actually think I'm suggesting application is binary, that's just fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying.  As I said yesterday, I'm not sure whether you can't or won't understand.  Either way, I'm putting more time and energy into explaining this to you in different ways than you are.  @Tony Dismukes seems to understand, and so maybe he can explain it to you someday in a way that clicks.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 2, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> There's always new ways to combine things. Besides, you're operating from the false premise that there are no new arts, while new systems continue to pop up.



That's true. Toshindo, 10th Planet, Guerilla Jiujitsu, Gaidojutsu, and whatever Josh Barnett was trying to do with CACC are such examples.


----------



## Buka (Oct 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just want to pull these two statements out.  I hope you don't think I have any issues at all with them.  You focus on what you do and don't imply you know things you don't, and I don't see any reason why you would or should need to limit yourself to saying you teach the cultural heritage of BJJ.
> 
> Not thinking about Gerry, but we have others on this forum who do in fact present themselves to be self defense experts, including at least one mentor, in spite of having no relevant experience. It's not the lack of experience alone, because, really, who cares?  It's that, at least in the particular case of this particular ninja, we have a guy who suggests expertise where none exists and implies experience he doesn't have.  It's dishonest.  But he sure does know a lot about samurai swords, so....
> 
> In fact, many years ago, it was this person that created the need to distinguish between application and training, and to articulate things that seem obvious, like you need experience to be an expert.  And to say seemingly obvious things like, "You can be an expert ninja without fighting.  But that doesn't make you an expert fighter."



An analogy I think about - others may disagree - is the process in which Major League Baseball players are elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

They are voted in by Sports writers, people who have never actually played the game, just watched it, then talked about it (wrote about it).

Since I was a kid, I always thought the only people who should vote on inclusion to an entity like a hall of fame are players and coaches. Maybe umpires.

Sports Hall of Fames sometimes remind me of Martial Arts and their related forums.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's really as simple as this.  If neither you nor your students have experience fighting and are not actively accumulating any fighting experience, you are not learning to fight.  You might be learning Aikido or some other martial art, but you aren't learning to fight.  And if you lead people to believe you are teaching them to fight, when neither you nor your students are experienced fighters (or accumulating any experience fighting), whether that's self defense or otherwise, you are misleading them.  You might be misleading yourself.


This comes back to your odd concept of application. I've fought. A few times "on the street" (to use one of the odd phrases found in SD-oriented schools), and more often in controlled situations (heavy sparring). Some of my students (as well as some partners and instructors) have been folks who fought "on the street" more often (bouncers, cops, prison guards, etc.).



> The fine distinction between self defense and a self defense orientation is, in my opinion, meaningless, because to a student it would be a meaningless distinction.


That's not the distinction I'm making. As we've discussed before, self-defense is a concept, not a thing you can teach nor really practice in the dojo. Fighting is a thing that can be taught and practiced in the dojo/gym.



> I mean, are you seriously suggesting that students will divine some meaningful distinction between  "I teach self defense" or "I teach martial arts with a self defense orientation"?


When they think of "self-defense", what they're thinking of is generally fighting skills. And that's mostly what I teach. When I say "I don't teach self-defense", I use that language because you and I seem to agree (based on past discussions) that it's a concept that can't be taught, and I'm drawing the distinction that what I teach is fighting skills. Whether that's the same as "teaching self-defense" is pretty much a matter of semantics. You say it can't be taught, then turn around and say I'm teaching it, which I find confusing.



> I recommend you read it again.  It's all there.  If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them.  But if you actually think I'm suggesting application is binary, that's just fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying.  As I said yesterday, I'm not sure whether you can't or won't understand.  Either way, I'm putting more time and energy into explaining this to you in different ways than you are.  @Tony Dismukes seems to understand, and so maybe he can explain it to you someday in a way that clicks.


I typically re-read your posts more than once trying to find nuance I feel like I've missed. But you've made a very strong point in the past that competition is application, and what you do in the dojo isn't. That's pretty binary, and an artificial distinction, in my opinion.


----------



## Steve (Oct 2, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This comes back to your odd concept of application. I've fought. A few times "on the street" (to use one of the odd phrases found in SD-oriented schools), and more often in controlled situations (heavy sparring). Some of my students (as well as some partners and instructors) have been folks who fought "on the street" more often (bouncers, cops, prison guards, etc.).
> 
> 
> That's not the distinction I'm making. As we've discussed before, self-defense is a concept, not a thing you can teach nor really practice in the dojo. Fighting is a thing that can be taught and practiced in the dojo/gym.
> ...


Hey man.  I'm done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> Hey man.  I'm done.


We're both getting snippy. Probably best we let it drop.


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 3, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> While that last statement is almost certainly true, most arts have parts that either have been discarded, or should have been. If an art is focused in a single area, it will have more solutions in that area, but none in other areas. So, which is better? It depends. There are long-standing "single arts" that are just as diversified as "hybrid arts" that happen to come from two (or more) root arts.
> 
> More diversified doesn't mean less effective. It may mean more effective because it handles more situations. Depends how you look at it, and how the art is trained.



Yes! This! Well said.

Yeah an art doesn't have to have or BE everything. But of course, the intention, goal and orientation of the club/style come into this. Some require a broader skillset to cover as many potential hypothetical situations possible. But it's okay for an art to simply be good at a certain aspect/area.


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 3, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Yes! This! Well said.
> 
> Yeah an art doesn't have to have or BE everything. But of course, the intention, goal and orientation of the club/style come into this. Some require a broader skillset to cover as many potential hypothetical situations possible. But it's okay for an art to simply be good at a certain aspect/area.



Okay, let's take the kudo example again.  As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo.  The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.

Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?

I say taking them separately.

The only advantage I can see kudo having is specific on training on how to use karate striking and judo grappling techniques in tandem.


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 3, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, let's take the kudo example again.  As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo.  The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.
> 
> Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?
> 
> ...



That's actually really great question Rusty B.. 

It's hard to say, as it depends so much on the separate curriculums, and also on what you want out of the arts. If you're wanting to learn the art in its completeness so to speak, separate makes more sense. However if you're looking for a more well rounded fighting game which isn't as one-dimensional (for lack of a better term), kudo, or one that combines disciplines, makes more sense.

You'd really get the benefit on how to incorporate and integrate each art into a more cohesive process in the moment, like you said, and learn how to flow between them, rather than a completely different focus of sparring sessions.

I have a feeling threads may have been made about this very thing by members asking what they should personally do, and I guess it comes down to what they want out of their training.

Training them separately is also going to be quite a big demand of your time, whereas a combined art is all there.

Would be interested in others' thoughts, although not the original topic, still semi-related


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 3, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, let's take the kudo example again.  As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo.  The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.
> 
> Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?
> 
> ...



But why would you take Kudo when you can take MMA instead? I’m willing to bet that there’s more MMA schools in Japan than Kudo dojos.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, let's take the kudo example again.  As mentioned before, it's a portmanteau of karate and judo.  The specific style of karate that kudo is based on is kyokushin.
> 
> Now if I lived in an area where kudo is available... AND kyokushin and judo are also available separately, which is the better choice?
> 
> ...


That depends how much time you have. If you're going to train 3 times a week, an integrated single curriculum might be more learning-efficient. If you've got more hours (and money) to dedicate, there's a slew of advantages in training at the two places, and most of them have less to do with how complete the two arts are or are not.


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 3, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> But why would you take Kudo when you can take MMA instead? I’m willing to bet that there’s more MMA schools in Japan than Kudo dojos.



Okay, so I don't know much about "taking MMA."  Is there such a style as "MMA?"

I was always under the impression that MMA fighters had backgrounds in other martial arts, but then trained to hone those styles for the cage.

Is that not always the case?


----------



## KOKarate (Oct 3, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so I don't know much about "taking MMA."  Is there such a style as "MMA?"
> 
> I was always under the impression that MMA fighters had backgrounds in other martial arts, but then trained to hone those styles for the cage.
> 
> Is that not always the case?


Nope Not at all not for a long time


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so I don't know much about "taking MMA."  Is there such a style as "MMA?"
> 
> I was always under the impression that MMA fighters had backgrounds in other martial arts, but then trained to hone those styles for the cage.
> 
> Is that not always the case?


Many train at MMA gyms. Lots of folks now start their training at such places. MMA could reasonably be considered an umbrella term for somewhat similar systems, like Karate is.


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 3, 2020)

KOKarate said:


> Nope Not at all not for a long time



I know that there are two UFC gyms in my area, and you train in specific arts there.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 3, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so I don't know much about "taking MMA."  Is there such a style as "MMA?"
> 
> I was always under the impression that MMA fighters had backgrounds in other martial arts, but then trained to hone those styles for the cage.
> 
> Is that not always the case?



Yes. Typically their curriculum is divided between striking and grappling. When you fight, you're encouraged to mix them together.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Oct 3, 2020)

I think we don't need a new Martial Art people joined Martial Art to defend themselves or for exercise if ever one invented a new one that would be great who knows maybe in year 3000 or so will do


----------



## Rusty B (Oct 4, 2020)

Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.

If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."

They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 4, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a style called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."


At the same time, any hybrid martial art is a mixed martial art. So you could call any martial art that combines two or more arts as a 'mixed martial art' by referring to the origin of said art.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."



It's marketing. People recognize "MMA" so many places use that in order to draw in students. It's also helpful if you're a potential MMA fighter looking for a gym to train at.

BTW, it's shocking how many MMA schools are in Japan now.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."



Yeah yeah. Saying ATM machine or calling an AR a machine gun isn't technically correct either. But it is the world works. People call things stuff.
20 words that once meant something very different


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."


Names that evolve into place don't always make sense. If a few folks decide they have a great formula for training folks for MMA competition, they could put together a curriculum specific to that aim. Their students wouldn't be training in the base arts, but in an amalgamation of stuff from those arts and the experience of the folks teaching (and those training there, who would help evolve it over time). Can't think of a reason they couldn't be said to be teaching MMA. Over time, that essentially becomes the name for the thing they're teaching. By common MA terms, that's then the name of the "style".


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."


Because MMA is a sport, the training will continue to evolve.  Even if there are MMA schools now, the MMA they teach is different now than it was 10 years ago and will be different 10 years from now.  Strategies and techniques will evolve as better ways are created.


----------



## Buka (Oct 5, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."



A rose by any other name...


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Different styles use different spellings for the word. "Jiu-jitsu" is actually an older usage, as I understand it.









Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Names that evolve into place don't always make sense. If a few folks decide they have a great formula for training folks for MMA competition, they could put together a curriculum specific to that aim. Their students wouldn't be training in the base arts, but in an amalgamation of stuff from those arts and the experience of the folks teaching (and those training there, who would help evolve it over time). Can't think of a reason they couldn't be said to be teaching MMA. Over time, that essentially becomes the name for the thing they're teaching. By common MA terms, that's then the name of the "style".


Agree. I have always thought the name is about as accurate as they come. As you say an 'amalgamation of stuff'.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 6, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Feels like every club I've trained at has never been pure this or that, but have added their own flair and unique stuff to it. As though every specific dojo/gym is teaching its own specific interpretation of the art, and there can be infinite creativity in martial arts even in that thought




THIS! Folks just don't feel the need to name it after themselves anymore


----------



## JKDJade (Oct 21, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Having a martial art called "MMA" makes zero sense.  In fact, it's downright oxymoronic.
> 
> If MMA is its own martial art, then it is not "mixed."
> 
> They need to call it grapplekickboxing or something, not "MMA."


100% spot on


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2020)

JKDJade said:


> 100% spot on


Names are just names. They evolve from one point to another. If a system evolves from MMA-oriented training, and people commonly call it "MMA", then that is its name, whether it is linguisitically correct or not.


----------

