# Fixing the training model



## Steve

I’ve read a few comments here and there suggesting that mma incorporates boxing, wrestling, and similar arts because they’re quicker to learn.   While I would point out that it still takes between 8 and 10years to earn a black belt in BJJ, which is a pillar of mma, I would agree that, in general, the average student acquires usable, functional skill much faster.   I believe this is because of the way it’s trained.   

I propose that If you applied a competitive training model to any style, you would learn it faster.   Any style.  Budo taijutsu. Wing chun, aikido.   What do you think?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Probably. You would figure out very quickly how to apply things


----------



## WingChunChick

I would agree with that. I see often a fualt in the training methods used. A good example of this is that early judo and jiujitsu were relatively the same techniques. Yet Kano's judoka beat all challengers because of the way they trained which was more modern.


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> I’ve read a few comments here and there suggesting that mma incorporates boxing, wrestling, and similar arts because they’re quicker to learn.   While I would point out that it still takes between 8 and 10years to earn a black belt in BJJ, which is a pillar of mma, I would agree that, in general, the average student acquires usable, functional skill much faster.   I believe this is because of the way it’s trained.
> 
> I propose that If you applied a competitive training model to any style, you would learn it faster.   Any style.  Budo taijutsu. Wing chun, aikido.   What do you think?


I’d modify it to resistance training rather than competitive training.

If it’s competitive, many people start resorting to the same handful of their best techniques to win.  In competition, the goal is to win.  Why use stuff that’s risky if you don’t have to.  Through resistance training, the urge is there, but you've got more opportunity to develop other stuff without losing.

Either way, once you’ve got something down against relatively no resistance, you’ve got to increase that resistance.  You’ve got to start doing it against people who aren’t going to let you do it.

But on the other hand, all the resistance in the world isn’t the most effective way if you’re only sparring/competing with people who only do what you do.  This is how styles start falling into that trap of only being effective against people within the same style.


----------



## hoshin1600

I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hoshin1600 said:


> MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight.


The issue is whether you want to teach

- a small group of fighters, or
- a large group of MA for health people.

Unfortunately, these 2 groups of people are mutual exclusive.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> I’ve read a few comments here and there suggesting that mma incorporates boxing, wrestling, and similar arts because they’re quicker to learn.   While I would point out that it still takes between 8 and 10years to earn a black belt in BJJ, which is a pillar of mma, I would agree that, in general, the average student acquires usable, functional skill much faster.   I believe this is because of the way it’s trained.
> 
> I propose that If you applied a competitive training model to any style, you would learn it faster.   Any style.  Budo taijutsu. Wing chun, aikido.   What do you think?


I think you would learn a more practical but also more simplified version.

Simplified in that all the fluff would quickly fall by the wayside. I guess I might be biased though as a wc guy that trains with mma methods.


----------



## marques

MMA incorporates boxing and wrestling because, given they train to compete, they adapt easier to MMA (MMA sport).

MMA fighters do not need all BBJ program (I guess it it a quite open ‘program’ but you got it); they get functional skill in less than 10 years in groundwork because/when they focus on what they need for MMA (no gi, striking allowed...).

Anyway, I agree some arts should train differently if they want to be competitive. Perhaps in the the past they trained differently as well, or just trained more given it was a matter of life or death; or it was the only hobby available for some for a while.

These days training should be adapted to get results training a few hrs/wk, during a few years. Currently, some arts seem not getting results at any time, outside the controlled and planed environment...

My 50 cents.


----------



## Danny T

Learning just to fight using specific actions will take less time than learning a complete martial system.
Look at military training. People are taught specific aspects of combat depending on what part of combat they are to be used in but to learn the totality of combat takes a lot longer.


----------



## JR 137

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.


And there are several “sport” karate and TKD schools in my immediate area.  None of which appeal to me at all.

Classic example of a competition based school near me - my uncle signed up for TKD at a local school.  He was a TKD black belt in Beirut, Lebanon back in the 70s and wanted to get back into it.  Once he started sparring, everyone started hating him.  He consistently heard “why are you throwing punches? Punches don’t score points.”  His reply - “I’m not here to score points.”  He stuck with it long enough to fulfill his contract. He figured he’d get his money’s worth and some exercise while he was at it.  And he didn’t stop throwing punches


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.


I think this is a great point.  However, it's a common assertion that is accepted by many people, I think as a way to make their own lack of progress in their arts more palatable (i.e., "They're getting so good because what they're doing is easy.  What I am doing is hard, and so it will take much longer to demonstrate progress.")


JR 137 said:


> I’d modify it to resistance training rather than competitive training.
> 
> If it’s competitive, many people start resorting to the same handful of their best techniques to win.  In competition, the goal is to win.  Why use stuff that’s risky if you don’t have to.  Through resistance training, the urge is there, but you've got more opportunity to develop other stuff without losing.
> 
> Either way, once you’ve got something down against relatively no resistance, you’ve got to increase that resistance.  You’ve got to start doing it against people who aren’t going to let you do it.
> 
> But on the other hand, all the resistance in the world isn’t the most effective way if you’re only sparring/competing with people who only do what you do.  This is how styles start falling into that trap of only being effective against people within the same style.


I hear what you're saying, but would disagree.  Resistance training is the means to the end.  Competition is the end goal.  If you don't have an end goal, the training becomes the end goal, which is exactly why some arts fail to produce reliable results.   My hypothesis here is that, if you add an end goal to any training, it will make the training more effective, and the result will be faster, more reliable results.

I think you're cautions with regards to competition are spot on.  These came cautions could be applied to any application.  Whether you're a bouncer, cop, or mafia enforcer, you will need to adapt your skills to different contexts depending on the specific self defense situation.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I propose that If you applied a competitive training model to any style, you would learn it faster. Any style. Budo taijutsu. Wing chun, aikido. What do you think?


I'm all for competition, but if you don't try to use the techniques then you won't learn the techniques  This is the main problem with many TMAs.  Student's don't make an honest effort to use the techniques.

Ironically the main reason why many students don't try to use the techniques is because they are too focused on winning and not learning.  The other half hit too hard for sparring which in turn makes learning very dangerous and risky. 

In order to learn the student must be comfortable with failing, making mistakes, and then retrying the approach.  In addition the student must trust the technique even if it looks like they are going to get blasted in the face.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.





JowGaWolf said:


> I'm all for competition, but if you don't try to use the techniques then you won't learn the techniques  This is the main problem with many TMAs.  Student's don't make an honest effort to use the techniques.
> 
> Ironically the main reason why many students don't try to use the techniques is because they are too focused on winning and not learning.  The other half hit too hard for sparring which in turn makes learning very dangerous and risky.
> 
> In order to learn the student must be comfortable with failing, making mistakes, and then retrying the approach.  In addition the student must trust the technique even if it looks like they are going to get blasted in the face.


i completely agree on this.   This is where a really good coach makes a difference.   If you camp out in your “a” game, you will stagnate.   Eventually, competition results will stagnate, as well.  

But, on the bright side, you will have an “a” game.  

Also, competition can be the solution.   The feedback of losing is invaluable.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The feedback of losing is invaluable.


Losing is irrelevant for me.  Each opponent is different, with different skill sets and abilities.  I won't know about my opponent's fighting ability until we actually start fighting / sparring.  Winning and losing sometimes have different values.  For example, Winning isn't always good in self-defense.  Walking away from a conflict and looking like you lost may be a win for you, because you were able to get out of the conflict with out physically fighting.   Sometimes in competition.  You can win within the rules but lose in terms of developing good fighting techniques.

Winning and Losing always means something different depending on what sport your play.   Training to not get hit in the face is always the same.  It doesn't change based on type of competition. It's always the same goal even when Winning and Losing change in meaning.


For some people winning is a big motivator and I can accept that.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Losing is irrelevant for me.  Each opponent is different, with different skill sets and abilities.  I won't know about my opponent's fighting ability until we actually start fighting / sparring.  Winning and losing sometimes have different values.  For example, Winning isn't always good in self-defense.  Walking away from a conflict and looking like you lost may be a win for you, because you were able to get out of the conflict with out physically fighting.   Sometimes in competition.  You can win within the rules but lose in terms of developing good fighting techniques.
> 
> Winning and Losing always means something different depending on what sport your play.   Training to not get hit in the face is always the same.  It doesn't change based on type of competition. It's always the same goal even when Winning and Losing change in meaning.
> 
> 
> For some people winning is a big motivator and I can accept that.


I think we are talking past each other here.   I am not suggesting that winning or losing is the key.  Edit, I just did a quick scan of my previous posts, and I didn’t see where I mentioned winning at all.  I did mention the tremendous amount of feedback one gets from losing, which I stand by.


----------



## Buka

Meh, winning, losing....it doesn't matter.

Like hell it doesn't. Like bloody hell.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.



That is kind of OPs point. You get people fighting and they would be better martial artists.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm all for competition, but if you don't try to use the techniques then you won't learn the techniques  This is the main problem with many TMAs.  Student's don't make an honest effort to use the techniques.
> 
> Ironically the main reason why many students don't try to use the techniques is because they are too focused on winning and not learning.  The other half hit too hard for sparring which in turn makes learning very dangerous and risky.
> 
> In order to learn the student must be comfortable with failing, making mistakes, and then retrying the approach.  In addition the student must trust the technique even if it looks like they are going to get blasted in the face.



A better understanding of how winning and loosing works.

But I think you get that from winning and loosing.


----------



## Martial D

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.



This seems weird to me though. In every martial art, at least the vast majority, there are at least overtones of learning some sort of fighting skills. Even if you never want to use them, you still want the skills. Otherwise what are you even doing?

Imagine taking ballet, but you don't care if what you are learning can actually help you dance. You might never want to dance at all, but you should at least know how when you leave the studio. In other words, pretense without delivery is sorta pointless.


----------



## drop bear

Two aspects happen through this combative learning process.

You get a closer approximation to what you are trying to understand. Which gives you a better appreciation of a complex issue. (I like the Muslim reference here.)

And the students advance the concepts which means there are twenty people in the class developing the martial art rather than one. Bigger gene pool stronger organism.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Two aspects happen through this combative learning process.
> 
> You get a closer approximation to what you are trying to understand. Which gives you a better appreciation of a complex issue. (I like the Muslim reference here.)
> 
> And the students advance the concepts which means there are twenty people in the class developing the martial art rather than one. Bigger gene pool stronger organism.



The muslim reference burns at both ends though. Yes you can get a more intimate understanding by befriending muslim people. You also might get desensitized to what islam does as a whole.

The same can be said for martial arts. Maybe you know that one yellow bamboo guy that can actually fight...


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> That is kind of OPs point. You get people fighting and they would be better martial artists.


Kind of...maybe, but that's not what he said.  What I read was that competition makes it quicker. In that I don't agree. I feel your either in an environment that fosters an effective result or your not.  The only asterisk to that would be those people who train in something less than effective who slowly progress to the point where they can graduate to something better.
I could say I agree with the OP but my thoughts are a bit more nuanced. I don't see competition as the important factor but rather the immediacy and urgency of the needed result. However competition does fill that requirement but it could be something else like a job that involves dealing with violence. 
Another important factor is checks and balances to insure that what your doing is not lotus eating chi balls. Again competition fills that need but could be achieved in other ways.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Losing is irrelevant for me.


I have 2 students. One who

- won all the time. Later on he became IBM manager.
- lose all the time. Later on he committed suicide.

IMO, it's a bad idea that one gets used to lose all the time. English has the perfect word "loser".

When a new champion was announced on the stage, the referee asked if anybody under the stage who wanted to challenge the new champion (old Chinese tradition). The old champion was sitting under the stage. His friend asked him if he was willing to get on the stage and challenge the new champion. The old champion said, "I prefer to lose right down here than to lose up there."


----------



## Martial D

hoshin1600 said:


> However competition does fill that requirement but it could be something else like a job that involves dealing with violence.


Is this not also competition though?

Maybe the source of some of these disagreements might boil down to term definition.

Competition can also be the lion against the hyena for the zebra carcass. It can be the bouncer facing off with the drunken tough guy. It's not just official competitions or tournaments or matches.  Competition is all of the us vs them stuff in life, really.


----------



## hoshin1600

Martial D said:


> This seems weird to me though. In every martial art, at least the vast majority, there are at least overtones of learning some sort of fighting skills. Even if you never want to use them, you still want the skills. Otherwise what are you even doing?


Often it's more than overtones, it's a stated promise.
"Sign up now and learn to defend yourself"
I always say this and I'm sure people dislike it,,most people don't want to fight and don't want to train hard.  They like the self delusion of being a bada$$.  They want the image without doing the work.  And they want to delude themselves to feel better and curb their fear.
Thousands of people went out, bought a gun, locked it up in a safe and will never take it out and train with it, just so they can feel safer at night.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have 2 students. One who
> 
> - won all the time. Later on he became IBM manager.
> - lose all the time. Later on he committed suicide.
> 
> IMO, it's a bad idea that one gets used to lose all the time. English has the perfect word "loser".



Ehh. I agree in a sense. In a sense I don't

Say you join a BJJ club as a guy that has never grappled. You will lose. you will lose a lot. You will be ragdolled and made to feel like nothing you can ever do will work.

Then I guess you can quit.

Or you can keep doing it until one day, something works against a guy it didnt before. Then another thing. And another, etc. That's how you get good at BJJ.


----------



## Martial D

hoshin1600 said:


> Often it's more than overtones, it's a stated promise.
> "Sign up now and learn to defend yourself"
> I always say this and I'm sure people dislike it,,most people don't want to fight and don't want to train hard.  They like the self delusion of being a bada$$.  They want the image without doing the work.  And they want to delude themselves to feel better and curb their fear.
> Thousands of people went out, bought a gun, locked it up in a safe and will never take it out and train with it, just so they can feel safer at night.


You nailed it man. Both learning how to use a firearm and using how to use your body take real effort, the latter adding a level of sacrifice and dedication to the mix. The fact that there are plenty of people 'selling' the super effective street lethal skills that can be learned during a 4 hour seminar doesn't really help matters either 

Our society has sort of moved more toward a quickfix mentality, or maybe it just seems like that to me because I am becoming more of a grouchy old man every day.


----------



## hoshin1600

Martial D said:


> Is this not also competition though?
> 
> Maybe the source of some of these disagreements might boil down to term definition.
> 
> Competition can also be the lion against the hyena for the zebra carcass. It can be the bouncer facing off with the drunken tough guy. It's not just official competitions or tournaments or matches.  Competition is all of the us vs them stuff in life, really.



maybe but thats not how we usually define competition, in general we usually mean a sport.  but what i am pointing out is that sport competition fills underling requirements and if you know what those are then you can fulfill those in other ways.
but this conversation is mixing two concepts.

the speed of gaining effectiveness.
the ability of gaining effectiveness.
i dont see the MMA model as being faster in skill building, more effective yes due to the need for immediate and proven results. the only way its faster is that your not wasting your time trying to throw chi balls at the other guy for 20 years.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Ehh. I agree in a sense. In a sense I don't
> 
> Say you join a BJJ club as a guy that has never grappled. You will lose. you will lose a lot. You will be ragdolled and made to feel like nothing you can ever do will work.
> 
> Then I guess you can quit.
> 
> Or you can keep doing it until one day, something works against a guy it didnt before. Then another thing. And another, etc. That's how you get good at BJJ.


Everybody will lose during skill development time. After you have developed your skill, you should not lose that easy. If a white belt BJJ guy can choke out a black belt BJJ instructor all the time, there is something wrong with that BJJ black belt instructor's training.

So for that BJJ black belt instructor, he should not say, "I don't mind losing on the mat". The reason is simple. His BJJ students faith may depend on him.

After my senior SC brother C. K. Lin's student Omar had won 6 tournaments in the past 3 years, David told Omar that Omar is not allowed to lose in any tournament for the rest of his life. Since Omar is David's best student, Omar's lose may reflect on David's personal MA reputation.

Mike Tyson will never say, "I don't mind losing."


----------



## hoshin1600

Martial D said:


> The fact that there are plenty of people 'selling' the super effective street lethal skills that can be learned during a 4 hour seminar doesn't really help matters either
> 
> Our society has sort of moved more toward a quickfix mentality, or maybe it just seems like that to me because I am becoming more of a grouchy old man every day.



the problem is not what people are *selling *but what people are *buying*.   im not convinced its from the quickfix mentality.  i think its more from the societal disconnect from violence in our daily lives.  men in general still have an ingrained need for that aggressive outlet but in todays society they no longer understand what real violence really looks like.   and even if they  found it in a school they wouldnt want it.


----------



## Martial D

hoshin1600 said:


> the problem is not what people are *selling *but what people are *buying*



Maybe you have more faith in humanity than I do lol.

I see these things are quite closely related. Advertising works, people are generally told what they want and tricked into thinking they decided that for themselves. I don't see any reason it wouldn't include this particular product. If you are looking to be able to defend yourself with 0 prior experience, and you are looking on google, or the phone book(do those things even exist anymore?), whats going to sound better? 'Learn street lethal techniques fast in this one hour seminar!' or 'join my boxing gym for ten years so you can talk like rocky balboa when you're 35'?

The fact that the former thing is vapourware isn't apparent unless you know about this stuff.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hoshin1600 said:


> Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.


You can learn single leg within 6 months. The single leg is the easiest wrestling skill to learn since it requires no leg skill. Some TKD instructor told me that within 6 months, you can also learn a good side kick.

With an effective "single leg", or "side kick", you will have better chance to be a good fighter than someone who has learn 10 MA forms.

When a Taiji guy spends 3 years trying to learn "how to sing Qi", you spend 3 years trying to learn "how to land your fist on your opponent's face." Of course you will get better result from your training.


----------



## JR 137

Martial D said:


> Ehh. I agree in a sense. In a sense I don't
> 
> Say you join a BJJ club as a guy that has never grappled. You will lose. you will lose a lot. You will be ragdolled and made to feel like nothing you can ever do will work.
> 
> Then I guess you can quit.
> 
> Or you can keep doing it until one day, something works against a guy it didnt before. Then another thing. And another, etc. That's how you get good at BJJ.


That’s how it went when I started training in a Kyokushin offshoot.

My first full class I sparred with everyone, including my sensei who was gearing up for his 4th dan test in 2 days.  I had a straight line of bruises down my sternum, already visible when I changed out of my gi in the locker room.  My sensei was it (he was responsible for most of them) and said “don’t take any of that personally.  You did a great job tonight.” All I could think was “I really suck at this.  I’ve got to get here everyday so I don’t suck anymore.  It’s going to be a while.”

That was literally the conversation I had with myself.  About 90% of the people who tried it didn’t come back for a second class.  Typical bare knuckle percentage. In retrospect, I think I was one of the smart ones.  Maybe not though


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> Kind of...maybe, but that's not what he said.  What I read was that competition makes it quicker. In that I don't agree. I feel your either in an environment that fosters an effective result or your not.  The only asterisk to that would be those people who train in something less than effective who slowly progress to the point where they can graduate to something better.
> I could say I agree with the OP but my thoughts are a bit more nuanced. I don't see competition as the important factor but rather the immediacy and urgency of the needed result. However competition does fill that requirement but it could be something else like a job that involves dealing with violence.
> Another important factor is checks and balances to insure that what your doing is not lotus eating chi balls. Again competition fills that need but could be achieved in other ways.



In my experience people who are good at competition are good at professional violence. Generally.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I think we are talking past each other here.   I am not suggesting that winning or losing is the key.  Edit, I just did a quick scan of my previous posts, and I didn’t see where I mentioned winning at all.  I did mention the tremendous amount of feedback one gets from losing, which I stand by.


Nope.  We aren't talking past each other.  It was mentioned by someone else and you talking about the feed back from losing just gave me an opportunity to share a perspective of my training.  My comment wasn't directed towards you.  

I just didn't want anyone  think that I had an either or perspective, which is why I stated that winning as a motivator is something I can accept.   Winning / losing motivation and feedback are the same to me.   In terms of competition learning how to deal with losing is equally as important as learning how to win.  There are lessons in losing as well and as you stated the feedback from losing is valuable.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> There are lessons in losing ...


Old Chinese saying said, "*百万军中无白旗 - A* white flag should never be allowed to even exist in the army."

When battle starts, soldiers have to fight to win.


----------



## dvcochran

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.


Wrestling is certainly one of the faster fighting techniques to learn on a beginners level. That is why you see it prevalent in middle and high schools. It is a select few who get proficient enough to take it to the collegiate level or beyond. It is only logical the styles that practices only fighting/sparring are going to learn said faster than the more comprehensive traditional MA's. Conversely, ask a MMA person to show very well rounded self defense skills and many will come up lacking. Not attacking anyone, just stating the obvious.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I think this is a great point.  However, it's a common assertion that is accepted by many people, I think as a way to make their own lack of progress in their arts more palatable (i.e., "They're getting so good because what they're doing is easy.  What I am doing is hard, and so it will take much longer to demonstrate progress.")
> I hear what you're saying, but would disagree.  Resistance training is the means to the end.  Competition is the end goal.  If you don't have an end goal, the training becomes the end goal, which is exactly why some arts fail to produce reliable results.   My hypothesis here is that, if you add an end goal to any training, it will make the training more effective, and the result will be faster, more reliable results.
> 
> I think you're cautions with regards to competition are spot on.  These came cautions could be applied to any application.  Whether you're a bouncer, cop, or mafia enforcer, you will need to adapt your skills to different contexts depending on the specific self defense situation.


I think @JR137 made a very good point talking about getting outside of your same classmates and testing your limits. So the end game will and should change as we improve.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have 2 students. One who
> 
> - won all the time. Later on he became IBM manager.
> - lose all the time. Later on he committed suicide.
> 
> IMO, it's a bad idea that one gets used to lose all the time. English has the perfect word "loser".


This is how my brain works.  If I can:
1. stop you from landing successful strikes
2. stop you from successful grappling attempts.
3. Land successful strikes of my own
4. Have successful grappling attempts.

Then how are you going to win against me? 

Notice 1- 4 says nothing about winning or losing.  Every sporting event I've ever won was because I focused on that tasks that needed to be done.  Almost every time I've lost was because I was too concern about winning, when I should have been focused on the task at hand either during the game or in my training. 

If a person loses all the time then it's due to
1. the person competing against someone that they won't be able to beat because the skill gap is too large.
2. the person not learning and using their failures to improve.

As for your student who committed suicide, his problem wasn't losing.  His problem was not being able to deal with losing. (granted that losing was the actual reason why he committed suicide.  It could have been other things in play other than losing)

When I first ran track in the 7th grade.  I don't think I ever placed first in a race.  If not placing first means that I'm a loser then, it means that I lost every track competition I was in for 3 years straight.  My next 2 years wasn't much better.  As a teen I was fine with losing so long as I always improved.  By the time I was a senior (6 years of track), I had a big performance increase.  I started to win every track event I competed in.  The only reason I could win, is because each time I lost, I wanted to put in twice the amount of work that I did before so that I could improve.   I've never focused on winning.  I focused on improving so bit by bit I became better.

Was I good in all track events?  Of course not.  I picked the ones that I felt that I could improve in and avoided the ones where my improvement would be much slower. 

My fighting is the same way.   If I can always improve in 1-4 then I know it will be more difficult for my opponents to "win" against me.  When I do competition, I'm not thinking about winning.  I'm thinking about 1-4.  If I want to hit someone in the face, I'm thinking,  How can I hit that person in the face while doing #1 and #2.  If I'm trying to win, then the process is  How can I hit that person in the face really hard while doing #1 and #2


----------



## JR 137

Buka said:


> Meh, winning, losing....it doesn't matter.
> 
> Like hell it doesn't. Like bloody hell.


*What It Takes to be Number One*
"Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.

Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second.

Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.

It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.

And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.

I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."

_- Coach Vincent T. Lombardi

What It Takes to be Number One | Vince Lombardi_


----------



## JR 137

Lombardi’s What It Takes to be Number 1 probably deserves its own thread, but I found its appropriate here, with all the talk of winning and all.

I think it’s 100% on the money.  My take on it is what is winning?  If all it is is your hand raised at the conclusion of the match, that’s a pretty shallow definition.

My idea of winning is giving it everything you’ve got.  When everyone’s left and you’re alone looking in the mirror, you know you did at least everything you know you’re capable of.  Even more, you surprised yourself and outdid what you thought you could do.  That’s winning.

When I compete, the judges will score however they want.  I can’t control that.  The competition field might suck, might be world-class, or somewhere in between.  I can’t control that.  All I can do is get out there and do my thing to the best of my ability.  I do that, and I won.  Anything short of that, and I lost. I’d rather get completely outclassed and walk away knowing I left it all on the floor than beat a bunch of bums without breaking a sweat.

Winning isn’t everything.  It’s the only thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Everybody will lose during skill development time. After you have developed your skill, you should not lose that easy. If a white belt BJJ guy can choke out a black belt BJJ instructor all the time, there is something wrong with that BJJ black belt instructor's training.


Totally agree on both statements.  The only way a black belt BJJ instructor could lose all the time like that is if the White Belt BJJ guy has other fighting experience, which skews the assumed skill level that a "White belt" would have. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Mike Tyson will never say, "I don't mind losing."


Based on this, we would probably be surprised if we asked him that question.  
Mike Tyson: "You Have To Feel Comfortable Being Uncomfortable."

He probably wouldn't have said it in his youth, but he definitely has a different perspective on life and hardships now.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JR 137 said:


> Winning is a habit.


Old saying said, "The winning is given to those who has prepared."

One of my students wants to compete in a tournament in 2 months. I told him that he will need at least 3 months of serious training time. He said that he just want to test where he is. I told him that he should not compete in tournament unless he believes that he has reached to the top body condition.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old saying said, "The winning is given to those who has prepared."
> 
> One of my students wants to compete in a tournament in 2 months. I told him that he will need at least 3 months of serious training time. He said that he just want to test where he is. I told him that he should not compete in tournament unless he believes that he has reached to the top body condition.


Good advice to your student.  There are many ways to test where one is at without competing in a tournament.  It's not the first time I've heard this, but for some reason many people think the tournament arena is a testing ground.

They don't see it as a stage in which they represent their training and coach / teacher.  Depending on the type of tournament, a person can end up getting knocked out because of slack training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> This is how my brain works.  If I can:
> 1. stop you from landing successful strikes
> 2. stop you from successful grappling attempts.
> 3. Land successful strikes of my own
> 4. Have successful grappling attempts.
> 
> Then how are you going to win against me?


If my "door guarding" moves don't work on you, I will retire myself right at that moment. During the old China time, if I announce to the public that I start to smoke opium, nobody will be allowed to challenge me any more (It won't prove you anything if you defeat me, an opium smoker).

If I can't win, I may have chance to lose. If I don't want to lose, I'll need to start to smoke opium and retire.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If my "door guarding" moves don't work on you, I will retire myself right at that moment. During the old China time, if I announce to the public that I start to smoke opium, nobody will be allowed to challenge me any more (It won't prove you anything if you defeat me).
> 
> If I can't win, I will try to tie. I'll then retire and start to smoke opium.


That's horrible lol. Not very inspiring for trying to find a way to win lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> That's horrible lol. Not very inspiring for trying to find a way to win lol.


After my teacher had a tie (1-1) in his last tournament, he retired after that. That evening after tournament, my teacher's young brother and 2 of my teacher's classmates went to challenge the new borned star and hurt him badly. It was quite dirty in the CMA history.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> After my teacher had a tie (1-1) in his last tournament, he retired after that. That evening after tournament, my teacher's young brother and 2 of my teacher's classmates went to challenge the new borned star and hurt him badly. It was quite dirty in the CMA history.


Just because of a tie?


----------



## Steve

Just want to clarify on thing.  Applying skills professionally is equally effective at building real skill.   Not better or worse, as they are just as specific and prone to the same issues as competition.   Cops,for example, learn specific skills that help them do their jobs.   They apply the skills in the execution of their jobs.  And they are just as prone to misunderstanding a shifting context as a competitor, if they don’t specifically think about how the skills they have would need to adjust to a civilian context.  

Like a competitor, they also can’t magically impart these skills to someone who isn’t a cop or competitor, even if they train that person personally.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> I’ve read a few comments here and there suggesting that mma incorporates boxing, wrestling, and similar arts because they’re quicker to learn.   While I would point out that it still takes between 8 and 10years to earn a black belt in BJJ, which is a pillar of mma, I would agree that, in general, the average student acquires usable, functional skill much faster.   I believe this is because of the way it’s trained.
> 
> I propose that If you applied a competitive training model to any style, you would learn it faster.   Any style.  Budo taijutsu. Wing chun, aikido.   What do you think?



Can you describe what you feel is the competitive training model?


----------



## Buka

JR 137 said:


> *What It Takes to be Number One*
> "Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.
> 
> There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
> 
> Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second.
> 
> Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.
> 
> It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.
> 
> And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.
> 
> I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."
> 
> _- Coach Vincent T. Lombardi
> 
> What It Takes to be Number One | Vince Lombardi_



In my opinion, when competing in Martial anything, it would disrespectful to both your opponent, and the entire competition process, if you weren't doing your very best to be victorious.


----------



## DaveB

hoshin1600 said:


> I disagree with the premise.  Boxing and wrestling is not quicker to learn.  Adding a competitive element does not increase the rate of skill building.  However it does put a limiting factor on who is going to participate in the training and the focus on that training. In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA.   MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.



Critical thinking! You can't beat it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Just because of a tie?


A tie means that your life time tournament winning record has been broken. If you have a perfect tournament winning record, you will try very hard to protect it (even with your life).

If your best skill won't work on your opponent, -> your opponent's best skill may work on you. -> You may lose.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Can you describe what you feel is the competitive training model?


Simply put, training for sport.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Simply put, training for sport.


That's not a methodology, it's a goal. 

What is the methodology that you assume for this goal?

To me training for sport means training myself to follow a set of rules, then getting good at that.particular game by doing it lots.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> That's not a methodology, it's a goal.
> 
> What is the methodology that you assume for this goal?
> 
> To me training for sport means training myself to follow a set of rules, then getting good at that.particular game by doing it lots.


That’s it.  You’ve got the idea.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

DaveB said:


> That's not a methodology, it's a goal.
> 
> What is the methodology that you assume for this goal?
> 
> To me training for sport means training myself to follow a set of rules, then getting good at that.particular game by doing it lots.


Training for sport is the path. Combat is the goal.

If your goal is to extend your head out like this when you fight, your training are deadly wrong. In other words, even if punching is not allowed, you still have to assume that fists are flying.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Training for sport is the path. Combat is the goal.
> 
> If your goal is to extend your head out like this when you fight, your training are deadly wrong. In other words, even if punching is not allowed, you still have to assume that fists are flying.



Yes but there are sports that have wrestling and punching.


----------



## dvcochran

JR 137 said:


> *What It Takes to be Number One*
> "Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.
> 
> There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
> 
> Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second.
> 
> Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.
> 
> It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.
> 
> And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.
> 
> I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."
> 
> _- Coach Vincent T. Lombardi
> 
> What It Takes to be Number One | Vince Lombardi_



One of the best quotes ever. I have it on my desk.


----------



## dvcochran

JR 137 said:


> Lombardi’s What It Takes to be Number 1 probably deserves its own thread, but I found its appropriate here, with all the talk of winning and all.
> 
> I think it’s 100% on the money.  My take on it is what is winning?  If all it is is your hand raised at the conclusion of the match, that’s a pretty shallow definition.
> 
> My idea of winning is giving it everything you’ve got.  When everyone’s left and you’re alone looking in the mirror, you know you did at least everything you know you’re capable of.  Even more, you surprised yourself and outdid what you thought you could do.  That’s winning.
> 
> When I compete, the judges will score however they want.  I can’t control that.  The competition field might suck, might be world-class, or somewhere in between.  I can’t control that.  All I can do is get out there and do my thing to the best of my ability.  I do that, and I won.  Anything short of that, and I lost. I’d rather get completely outclassed and walk away knowing I left it all on the floor than beat a bunch of bums without breaking a sweat.
> 
> Winning isn’t everything.  It’s the only thing.


Very much agree. The person who is so empty that NOT having their hand raised at the end of the match crushes them has no clue of the undeniable joy in winning. Physical ability is fleeting. I have competed in the last 3 decades of my life, less and less each decade but I keep trying because I know the joy I competing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*What It Takes to be Number One
*
If you continue your tournament competition, you will lose some day. You need to know when to start and when to stop - stop when you are still the champion.
*
*


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *What It Takes to be Number One
> *
> If you continue your tournament competition, you will lose some day. You need to know when to start and when to stop - stop when you are still the champion.


It seems to be a numbers game to you. That is not what being a champion beyond the ring is about at all. Everybody loses in competition at some point. What you do with the defeat is what defines you. It is a petty person who stops competing completely when they are on "top".


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *What It Takes to be Number One
> *
> If you continue your tournament competition, you will lose some day. You need to know when to start and when to stop - stop when you are still the champion.


Stop when you’re becoming a shell of your former self.  Stopping when you’re still the champ tells me you know there’s someone out there better than you, and all you care about is protecting some record or title rather than fighting.  Keep defending that title until it’s taken away or you’re too old or injured to defend it any more.


----------



## JR 137

dvcochran said:


> One of the best quotes ever. I have it on my desk.


I worked at Fordham University as an athletic trainer for several years.  Vince Lombardi is an alumni.  And his speech was absolutely no where to be found.  I thought it should’ve been in every single team’s locker room, but most people looked at me like I had 3 heads every time I brought that up.  Wouldn’t Lombardi’s speech in the football locker room at the university he played for be a no brainer?  People think it’s politically incorrect.  IMO those are the same people who didn’t bother reading past the first paragraph.  Morons.

Edit:  Come to think of it, there’s a small pamphlet sized one in a trophy case no one ever looks at, and in a corner behind a few trophies.  If you noticed it, it was entirely by accident.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dvcochran said:


> It seems to be a numbers game to you. That is not what being a champion beyond the ring is about at all. Everybody loses in competition at some point. What you do with the defeat is what defines you. It is a petty person who stops competing completely when they are on "top".


If you have won the national champion in your field for the past 3 years. Do you want to compete the 4th year? the 5th year? Until one day you may lose?

Why?

I can see that 2 years national champion may be better than 1 year national champion, and 3 years national champion may be better than 2 year national champion.

But is 4 years national champion really better than 3 year national champion?


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have won the national champion in your field for the past 3 years. Do you want to compete the 4th year? the 5th year? Until one day you may lose?
> 
> Why?
> 
> I can see that 2 years national champion may be better than 1 year national champion, and 3 years national champion may be better than 2 year national champion.
> 
> But is 4 years national champion really better than 3 year national champion?



Yes, 4 is better than 3.

And 15 is better than 4.

If you can't see that, you're not truly driven.

Choosing to "quit while you're on top" is worse than losing.

Second place is first loser, but it's still higher than last year's champion who chose not to compete. Even last place in a competition beats everyone who didn't turn up.

Everything is a competition to me, even if I'm the only competitor - I can still compete against myself. I can handle losing, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, and trying but failing is better than not trying because you think you might fail 

Omg, I'm turning into a motivational meme.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> That’s it.  You’ve got the idea.



I don't disagree, but you'd need to be more specific to get the results you want. 
For example, bouncy tag freestyle karate is a sport. Kata competition is a sport. Xma is a sport. None of them will make you a fighter.

Also you run up against Hoshin's point: narrowing the focus of training narrows the field of students you will get, skewing the results.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> I don't disagree, but you'd need to be more specific to get the results you want.
> For example, bouncy tag freestyle karate is a sport. Kata competition is a sport. Xma is a sport. None of them will make you a fighter.
> 
> Also you run up against Hoshin's point: narrowing the focus of training narrows the field of students you will get, skewing the results.


You have it exactly right.   I don’t disagree at all.  The point is not that every sport makes one a fighter.  The point is that competition is application of technique which builds actual skill.  So,, a guy who competes in point fighting will be able to do what they train under pressure,   It might not be fighting, but it will be real skill.   People who don’t compete, or otherwise using the skills in context, are not ever moving out of training,   And so, we get people who are experts in martial arts styles who cannot fight.  Further, we get entire styles where this is a problem.   And it’srelevsnt that these same styles argue that this is because they are somehow harder or take longer by design.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> You have it exactly right.   I don’t disagree at all.  The point is not that every sport makes one a fighter.  The point is that competition is application of technique which builds actual skill.  So,, a guy who competes in point fighting will be able to do what they train under pressure,   It might not be fighting, but it will be real skill.   People who don’t compete, or otherwise using the skills in context, are not ever moving out of training,   And so, we get people who are experts in martial arts styles who cannot fight.  Further, we get entire styles where this is a problem.   And it’srelevsnt that these same styles argue that this is because they are somehow harder or take longer by design.



They usually are harder and do take much longer to learn than the more streamlined combat sports. But that being true doesn't exclude the failure to train the skill of fighting effectively as a reason for limited numbers of skilled fighters being apparent. 

People who are experts in a martial art but can't fight are no different to the point fighting experts in this context. They have mastered some skill set that was the actual goal of their training but that wasn't fighting, such as Kata performance, technique, chi sau, breaking boards, 1 step drills etc.

The issue comes in only if they don't know that they are not learning to fight. Most that I have met were pretty aware of that fact and trained for other reasons. 

I think this concept of the deluded traditionalist needs to be examined more closely as I think it's a straw man.


----------



## FriedRice

Steve said:


> I’ve read a few comments here and there suggesting that mma incorporates boxing, wrestling, and similar arts because they’re quicker to learn.   While I would point out that it still takes between 8 and 10years to earn a black belt in BJJ, which is a pillar of mma, I would agree that, in general, the average student acquires usable, functional skill much faster.   I believe this is because of the way it’s trained.
> 
> I propose that If you applied a competitive training model to any style, you would learn it faster.   Any style.  Budo taijutsu. Wing chun, aikido.   What do you think?



I don't think BJJ is the pillar of MMA any longer. It might be Wrestling for the ground. BJJ is def. still there, but the main reason you will always see BJJ in all MMA gyms is because that's what makes the most money for the gym owner. BJJ  has an enormous circuit for competitions, so it gives hobbyists, medals to shoot for. You can probably find a BJJ competition event every month. The popularity is just huge compared to the little that there is for TMA. 

There are good reasons why MMA fighters don't flock to Wing Chun, Aikido, etc.  to train. Their styles are just inferior.  There are some techniques that can be used from TMA, mostly for surprises, but they're not bread & butter techniques. Like Jon Jones took up TKD to get in some sneaky kicks and you can see some Capoeira in McGregor's movements....but they ain't taking up TKD & Capoeira, full time and lose millions.....in McGregor's case, it could be $100,000,000+.


----------



## MxcnPhoenix

Steve said:


> ...or otherwise using the skills in context...



I think this is a crucial point of this conversation. What context are you referring to with your original question?

Are you wondering how quickly someone could learn a style if they focus on competing in that style? or maybe are you wondering if people could learn more quickly if they added competition to their "traditional" training. 

If the latter, I think my view of the answer to that question is somewhat answered in Josh Waitzkin's book "The Art of Learning" in his discussions of how he learned Tai Chi from William C.C. Chen. When he first started he was just learning his instructor's Tai Chi form but as he added push hands practice to his training his understanding of the form he was practicing increased and that understanding improved his push hands technique. My own personal experiences learning Wing Chun are consistent with this as well. I picked up the techniques much more quickly because my instructor was constantly 'freestyling" the double sticky hands drill and I had to adapt quickly because I don't like getting hit in the face 

Or have I completely misunderstood and the context of your original question is completely different?



hoshin1600 said:


> In a cross section of 100 martial artists I would say very few would participate if they were punched in the face every class, however that is the expectation when you do MMA. MMA has a very condensed appeal with a bell curve of mostly young fit guys who actually want to fight. Put that group in any martial art and the results will be similar.



Hoshin, I'd like to hear more of your thinking along this line. Are you saying that the athleticism of the MMA participants enables them to learn more quickly? Or maybe their desire to fight that would enable them to learn other arts more quickly?



JR 137 said:


> I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."
> 
> _- Coach Vincent T. Lombardi_



I remember reading this in high school for the first time. I LOVE this last piece of the quote. Thanks for bringing this back onto my radar.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

MxcnPhoenix said:


> Are you saying that the athleticism of the MMA participants enables them to learn more quickly?


The MMA approach is different from the TMA approach. In the

- TMA approach, you follow the path that your style has designed for you. Since you can only have 1 path. If your path is slow, you don't have other option.
- MMA approach, you can find any path to reach to your goal. Since you can have many different paths. Some paths are fast and some paths are slow. Usually MMA guys will pick up the fast path.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I don't disagree, but you'd need to be more specific to get the results you want.
> For example, bouncy tag freestyle karate is a sport. Kata competition is a sport. Xma is a sport. None of them will make you a fighter.
> 
> Also you run up against Hoshin's point: narrowing the focus of training narrows the field of students you will get, skewing the results.



Yeah ok. so we add another layer.

Less restrictive rule set.
or multiple rule sets.

It is concepts that build on concepts.

So lets say our MMA fighter also goes out and does some bouncing or police work.

That adds another element of context again.

These are not conflicting they are complimentary.

The conflict is created by marketing strategy. 
The toothpaste factor.


----------



## drop bear

MxcnPhoenix said:


> If the latter, I think my view of the answer to that question is somewhat answered in Josh Waitzkin's book "The Art of Learning" in his discussions of how he learned Tai Chi from William C.C. Chen. When he first started he was just learning his instructor's Tai Chi form but as he added push hands practice to his training his understanding of the form he was practicing increased and that understanding improved his push hands technique. My own personal experiences learning Wing Chun are consistent with this as well. I picked up the techniques much more quickly because my instructor was constantly 'freestyling" the double sticky hands drill and I had to adapt quickly because I don't like getting hit in the face



Kit dale is an advocate of this.


----------



## dvcochran

FriedRice said:


> I don't think BJJ is the pillar of MMA any longer. It might be Wrestling for the ground. BJJ is def. still there, but the main reason you will always see BJJ in all MMA gyms is because that's what makes the most money for the gym owner. BJJ  has an enormous circuit for competitions, so it gives hobbyists, medals to shoot for. You can probably find a BJJ competition event every month. The popularity is just huge compared to the little that there is for TMA.
> 
> There are good reasons why MMA fighters don't flock to Wing Chun, Aikido, etc.  to train. Their styles are just inferior.  There are some techniques that can be used from TMA, mostly for surprises, but they're not bread & butter techniques. Like Jon Jones took up TKD to get in some sneaky kicks and you can see some Capoeira in McGregor's movements....but they ain't taking up TKD & Capoeira, full time and lose millions.....in McGregor's case, it could be $100,000,000+.


I am sure there are some out there but you don't see BJJ very much east of the Mississippi.


----------



## hoshin1600

dvcochran said:


> I am sure there are some out there but you don't see BJJ very much east of the Mississippi.


Maybe my sense of direction  is confused but I'm in Massachusetts and BJJ and it's corresponding competition is all around.


----------



## JR 137

hoshin1600 said:


> Maybe my sense of direction  is confused but I'm in Massachusetts and BJJ and it's corresponding competition is all around.


Same in NY.


----------



## hoshin1600

MxcnPhoenix said:


> I'd like to hear more of your thinking along this line. Are you saying that the athleticism of the MMA participants enables them to learn more quickly? Or maybe their desire to fight that would enable them to learn other arts more quickly?


specifically im not saying either of those.  skills are learned at a fixed pace that are determined by the individual.  i do not think that any style or MMA is any quicker than any other style BUT some styles, including MMA are more effective at creating good fighters. i do have a problem with using anecdotal evidence like most MMA guys do, saying MMA has good fighters ....therefore MMA is superior to other styles in creating good fighters because of competition.  
the US Navy Seals are an elite group within the military,  why???   using the MMA logic,  one would answer that Seals are elite because of superior training but this is not true.  the Seals are elite because of their selection process.  the price to pay for admission is greater than all other branches (exception Green Beret).  in the same way MMA as a full contact sport has a higher price of admission.  not many people are willing to except injuries and pain as a normal everyday cost of training.  those that are willing are a small group of people within martial arts.  if karate had a higher price to pay for training (which it used to have) then the results would be the same as MMA.  you wouldnt see a 45 yo mother of 4 doing karate to get back into shape to wear her bikini for the summer.  styles like karate have lowered the "cost"  as a business model to be "inclusive"  for everyone not just the amped up 25 yo who wants to take his hormone testosterone anger out in the ring. karate schools actually frown upon that 25 yo guy punching the 45 yo mom in the face.  in an MMA school the mom realizes very quick this is not the place for her and she washes out with all the other people who knew better to not sign up in the first place.


----------



## Buka

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If my "door guarding" moves don't work on you, I will retire myself right at that moment. During the old China time, if I announce to the public that I start to smoke opium, nobody will be allowed to challenge me any more (It won't prove you anything if you defeat me, an opium smoker).
> 
> If I can't win, I may have chance to lose. If I don't want to lose, I'll need to start to smoke opium and retire.



Smoke opium and retire....I have no experience, but I think I could get into that. 
Might have to get a big tv, though.


----------



## Buka

hoshin1600 said:


> Maybe my sense of direction  is confused but I'm in Massachusetts and BJJ and it's corresponding competition is all around.



I'm with you, bro. Heck I was studying Gracie Ju-jitsu in Massachusetts in 1991 when nobody had ever heard of it.


----------



## dvcochran

hoshin1600 said:


> Maybe my sense of direction  is confused but I'm in Massachusetts and BJJ and it's corresponding competition is all around.


Like I said,  I am sure it is out there. Must be more of a Northern thing.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Like I said,  I am sure it is out there. Must be more of a Northern thing.


According to google, BJJ is all over Mississippi.  Maybe you just aren’t looking for it.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> specifically im not saying either of those.  skills are learned at a fixed pace that are determined by the individual.  i do not think that any style or MMA is any quicker than any other style BUT some styles, including MMA are more effective at creating good fighters. i do have a problem with using anecdotal evidence like most MMA guys do, saying MMA has good fighters ....therefore MMA is superior to other styles in creating good fighters because of competition.
> the US Navy Seals are an elite group within the military,  why???   using the MMA logic,  one would answer that Seals are elite because of superior training but this is not true.  the Seals are elite because of their selection process.  the price to pay for admission is greater than all other branches (exception Green Beret).  in the same way MMA as a full contact sport has a higher price of admission.  not many people are willing to except injuries and pain as a normal everyday cost of training.  those that are willing are a small group of people within martial arts.  if karate had a higher price to pay for training (which it used to have) then the results would be the same as MMA.  you wouldnt see a 45 yo mother of 4 doing karate to get back into shape to wear her bikini for the summer.  styles like karate have lowered the "cost"  as a business model to be "inclusive"  for everyone not just the amped up 25 yo who wants to take his hormone testosterone anger out in the ring. karate schools actually frown upon that 25 yo guy punching the 45 yo mom in the face.  in an MMA school the mom realizes very quick this is not the place for her and she washes out with all the other people who knew better to not sign up in the first place.



You can have complimentary effects. Strong guys can be technical. Easily trainable people can also be well trained.

If I am a physical dud. I can still benefit from good training.


----------



## Hanzou

Certain arts show proficiency faster because they're doing hard contact sparring, and because they're practical. In BJJ for example, you can begin using skills in a practical situation within 6 months of continuous training. Why? Because the techniques are practical and not filled with nonsense and fluff from ancient Asian traditions that hinder your fighting ability.


----------



## hoshin1600

Hanzou said:


> Certain arts show proficiency faster because they're doing hard contact sparring, and because they're practical. In BJJ for example, you can begin using skills in a practical situation within 6 months of continuous training. Why? Because the techniques are practical and not filled with nonsense and fluff from ancient Asian traditions that hinder your fighting ability.


practical is good,  but fluff and nonsense is not synonymous with Asian traditions.   a Judo throw will work fine after 6 months as will many things in many arts.  krav maga and the keysei / defense lab system has many things in it i would consider fluff and nonsense.  Muay Thai is Asian BTW and very ancient.  your bias is showing in your comment.  practical is practical and fluff is fluff, there is no style out there who is immune to this.  there is really no reason to "call out" _ancient Asian traditions. _


----------



## Hanzou

hoshin1600 said:


> practical is good,  but fluff and nonsense is not synonymous with Asian traditions.   a Judo throw will work fine after 6 months as will many things in many arts.  krav maga and the keysei / defense lab system has many things in it i would consider fluff and nonsense.  Muay Thai is Asian BTW and very ancient.  your bias is showing in your comment.  practical is practical and fluff is fluff, there is no style out there who is immune to this.  there is really no reason to "call out" _ancient Asian traditions. _



I wouldn't consider Muay Thai, Judo, or Krav Maga "ancient".


----------



## marques

I am just starting watching this and I thought some of you would like to watch this as well. The audio is a pain, but they are touching good points...






PS: It may be relevant as well: The Science of Training Young Athletes | Coursera.

For the sports side there are some good materials available. For _martial+arts_ we really need wise people, but where are they (near me)?…


----------



## hoshin1600

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't consider Muay Thai, Judo, or Krav Maga "ancient".


Muay Thai can be traced back to 1560CE according to Wiki, how far back do you want to go?  Judo and karate is about the same age.  Aikido is relatively new.  Could you define what ancient means in your mind?  
Next I would suggest you actually read and understand written posts. I didn't say Krav and defense labs was ancient. I was saying they are modern but include things you would call fluff...thus your equating a systems age with effectiveness is invalid.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Certain arts show proficiency faster because they're doing hard contact sparring,


Certain art can be learned faster because they don't train those "time consuming" skill.

For example, the Chinese wrestling "head lock" strength is very difficult to develop. Without the head lock strength, the head lock is almost useless. But if you spend a lot amount of time to develop your head lock strength, you can spend that  amount time to develop many other useful MA skills too.


----------



## wab25

One thing that needs to be considered is what type of competition and what you get from the competition. Your end goal, should help define what you compete in. You can win every kata competition you compete in, but that still doesn't make you a competent fighter. So, if you want to be a fighter, it makes sense to compete in something similar to a fight. But, TMAs already did this. Karate and TKD came up with "fight like" competitions, which people won and got very good at. (they even developed skill) But, now we throw these guys in an MMA ring, watch them get crushed... and then pretend that MMA is different than the TMA competitions. Well, sure, its different, it has different rules and you have to be good at different things to win. But, having an awesome side kick, won't help you win a Judo competition any more than a great arm bar from guard will help you win a boxing match. 

Remember this: Here's what happened when UFC fighters took on Marine Corps martial-arts experts This is an article, with video, of MMA stars going to train with the Marines, and the Marines beating them silly. All the "MMA training will make me good at a real fight" stuff went out the window, as soon as there was more than one guy, a weapon, no rounds... I get it. These were Marines, and knowing they were bringing in MMA stars for the event, these were probably hand picked Marines. But go find the video of the other MMA guys in gas station getting in a fight with some drunks. They reacted the same as these guys did to the Marines, ignoring multiple attackers and weapons. One got nailed in the back of the head with a 2x4 and ended up in the hospital. (I don't remember what happened to him after that)

My point here is that you have to understand your end goal, before you adjust your training and or your competition. No matter what art you train in, you need to understand what you are training for. I think that arts that are competition heavy, are just as prone to misunderstanding what their end goal is. They are very good at training you for their style of competition. You need to be honest in what you are doing and what you expect to get.

I get it. MMA training will give you the skills to throw down with someone else, and gives you a pretty good set of options to use. But, its not preparing you for a life or death hand to hand combat situation in the street. Now, you can add things to it... like awareness and some weapon familiarity. But, you can add things to each art out there. At the end of the day, its the fighter that succeeds or fails not the art. Further, I believe all these different styles of competition, can help you develop different things that can make you better at fighting. Just make sure that you understand where you want your training to take you and where your training is actually taking you. Then you can adjust accordingly. 

And before I get the hate replies... yes I do think the MMA training will get you closer to actual street fighting than other arts. (it will get you even closer if you can identify what it lacks for the street fighting situation, and adjust your training accordingly... if street fighting is where you want to go)


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> as soon as there was more than one guy, a weapon



That pretty much. Nobody does well against multiples with weapons.

If you look at a guy like forrest griffin. He has lived a life outside the sanitory confines of MMA. And when people make these points they conveniently forget that.

So to say that he was effected by some sort of lack of real world experience is wrong. As he probably has more street than the guys making the critique.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> According to google, BJJ is all over Mississippi.  Maybe you just aren’t looking for it.


You are right about that.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> Certain arts show proficiency faster because they're doing hard contact sparring, and because they're practical. In BJJ for example, you can begin using skills in a practical situation within 6 months of continuous training. Why? Because the techniques are practical and not filled with nonsense and fluff from ancient Asian traditions that hinder your fighting ability.


No, bjj shows quicker results because it is grappling training aimed at submission, thus techniques can be trained with full resistance without hurting anyone.

You can't punch someone in the face at full power and still train with them for another hour and fifty minutes.
Nor can you break their wrist more than once in a session. 

An undesirable outcome isn't always the result of stupidity.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> No, bjj shows quicker results because it is grappling training aimed at submission, thus techniques can be trained with full resistance without hurting anyone.
> 
> You can't punch someone in the face at full power and still train with them for another hour and fifty minutes.
> Nor can you break their wrist more than once in a session.
> 
> An undesirable outcome isn't always the result of stupidity.


And yet people who train boxing, muay Thai, san shou and kyokushin karate build reliable skill in a very predictable manner relatively quickly while some other arts take a very long time, if ever, to do same.   Its not grappling or striking.  Its applying or not applying.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> And yet people who train boxing, muay Thai, san shou and kyokushin karate build reliable skill in a very predictable manner relatively quickly while some other arts take a very long time, if ever, to do same.   Its not grappling or striking.  Its applying or not applying.


Give us examples of the arts you imply never teach anything?


----------



## Steve

They all teach something.  Just not fighting ability .


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> And yet people who train boxing, muay Thai, san shou and kyokushin karate build reliable skill in a very predictable manner relatively quickly while some other arts take a very long time, if ever, to do same.   Its not grappling or striking.  Its applying or not applying.



We all agreed it's applying, I was pointing out that the more close to real life that your application can be, the more effective it is. 

This gives submission grappling arts a training advantage and it's why boxing gyms have heavy bags.

But this idea that only sport heavy styles regularly apply their art in training is nonsense. 

If your yard stick is who produces mma fighters, why would you expect schools that don't market themselves as combat sports to produce as many combat sportsmen as actual combat sports???

The people who go to one are not the same as the people who go to the other.

The karate school I go to currently has about 5 adults, and around 30 kids who's numbers decrease by age.

The muay thai school I visit has almost all young men 18-35 plus a few outliers and you can spot the fighters a mile away. 

And of all the striking martial arts I've done they all did application work at around the same level. In fact I think I've spent less time in front of a partner in the combat sports since cardio and pad work are such big parts of the class.

Generally 1/3 warmup/cardio, 1/3 solo techniques 1/3 partner work with sparring once or twice a week is normal. Maybe it's much more in most combat sports.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> We all agreed it's applying, I was pointing out that the more close to real life that your application can be, the more effective it is.
> 
> This gives submission grappling arts a training advantage and it's why boxing gyms have heavy bags.
> 
> But this idea that only sport heavy styles regularly apply their art in training is nonsense.
> 
> If your yard stick is who produces mma fighters, why would you expect schools that don't market themselves as combat sports to produce as many combat sportsmen as actual combat sports???
> 
> The people who go to one are not the same as the people who go to the other.
> 
> The karate school I go to currently has about 5 adults, and around 30 kids who's numbers decrease by age.
> 
> The muay thai school I visit has almost all young men 18-35 plus a few outliers and you can spot the fighters a mile away.
> 
> And of all the striking martial arts I've done they all did application work at around the same level. In fact I think I've spent less time in front of a partner in the combat sports since cardio and pad work are such big parts of the class.
> 
> Generally 1/3 warmup/cardio, 1/3 solo techniques 1/3 partner work with sparring once or twice a week is normal. Maybe it's much more in most combat sports.


I would agree with the first paragraph, but would rephrase it slightly to say that every style applies something.  When the application of the training is consistent with the intended goal of the training, the training can be deemed effective.   For example, ninjutsu is an easy target for being considered ineffective.   But guys who train ninjutsu learn to do things.   Those things just aren't fighting skill.  Aikido is the same.  

You might argue that boxing doesn't correlate directly to a random attack on the street.   But you must acknowledge that boxers are skilled at applying the skills the learn through boxing.  This is because the skills they intend to develop are consistent with the skills they are applying .  has nothing to do with striking vs grappling because we see this relationship and predictable development of skill in every physical acticity.  No exceptions . 

To bring this back to the topic, styles which are not effective will be those styles which suggest that they are teaching skills which are not used by the average student outside of training.  Its like learning to cook by playing with your child's cooking playset . Sure, you're physically mimicking a stirring motion in a pot with a spoon, but no reasonable person would suggest you are learning to cook.   In the same way, if your training doesn't lead to application either  on the job or in competition, there is a practical disconnect between what you are learning and what you think you're learning.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Give us examples of the arts you imply never teach anything?


They all teach something, but to be more specific, any art that suggests it isn't suitable for mma because it's too complicated or deadly is likely relevant to this discussion.


----------



## FriedRice

wab25 said:


> Remember this: Here's what happened when UFC fighters took on Marine Corps martial-arts experts This is an article, with video, of MMA stars going to train with the Marines, and the Marines beating them silly. All the "MMA training will make me good at a real fight" stuff went out the window, as soon as there was more than one guy, a weapon, no rounds... I get it. These were Marines, and knowing they were bringing in MMA stars for the event, these were probably hand picked Marines.



  I remember this. This article was mostly BS. The US Marine Corps was like the biggest sponsor of the UFC, especially when the Fertittas Brothers bought it cheap for $2 million because it was in the process of going completely under. The UFC still continued to be a money pit for many years and the Fertittas reportedly dumped in $50 million cash, so their own money....otherwise it would go into bankruptcy. Without paid ads from the USMC, they'd be in much worse trouble...but this was during the peak of the Iran/Iraq war where the US Military needed lots and lots of recruits.  USMC ads were freakin' everywhere in the UFC.

You think that Dana Mr. Clean White, was going to let his Fighters go in there and trash his biggest paid advertiser????? Not only that, many soldiers were into the sport, buying tickets, merchandise, etc.

It wasn't until 20 years later that I heard Urijah Faber slightly mentioned  Joe Rogan's 3hour podcast about how they could've wrecked those Marines so easily when training with them for that publicity stunt. Faber was one of the Fighters who was there.

Tons of soldiers and cops train at MMA gyms? When they first come in with nothing more than what they've been taught by their perspective military branches, ie. MCMAP, etc....then they usually are just a little better than the average noob. They can have all the combat experience and many tours, but that's pulling a trigger and calling in air strikes. But for choking and/or knocking someone out w/o weapons, then a male nurse who trains 3x/week for a year will beat these Marines' ***.


----------



## FriedRice

wab25 said:


> And before I get the hate replies... yes I do think the MMA training will get you closer to actual street fighting than other arts. (it will get you even closer if you can identify what it lacks for the street fighting situation, and adjust your training accordingly... if street fighting is where you want to go)



Can you be more specific? Say name 5 techniques of street fighting that an MMA fighter needs to learn.


----------



## wab25

FriedRice said:


> Faber was one of the Fighters who was there.


Are we talking about the same article? The fighters in the article, and in the video are:Marcus Davis, Rashad Evans, Forrest Griffin, and Brian Stann. Maybe Faber is uncredited and I don't recognize him... Anyway, sure, that may have been staged, they may have been play acting. But, the MMA fighters that got into the fight at the gas station were not acting, they got jumped by drunks and one was severely hurt with a 2x4. At the gas station, the MMA guys responded very much like the guys "acting" in the Marine video. 



FriedRice said:


> Can you be more specific? Say name 5 techniques of street fighting that an MMA fighter needs to learn.


Do they have to be techniques? Really, 5?


Awareness of the people involved. You need to learn to be aware of how many people you are fighting, and where they are. While there isn't a really good answer for this problem in any art... these guys never even made the effort to notice any one other than one opponent.
Awareness of environment. They didn't use anything in the environments to help. They didn't even look for things to use... just immediately went into 1 on 1 sparring mode, circling to give the other opponents (the ones with the weapons) their back... 
Decisiveness and commitment. Actually Brian Stann's first fight in Strike Force was a great example. He was up against a guy that out classed him... when the bell rang, Stann charged in, and KOed him before the other fighter could get his bearings. This is exactly what the Marines did to the MMA fighters, exactly what the advice to the MMA guys was and what the drunks did at the gas station.
How to use a knife. 
How to use a club.
How to use a gun.
How to de-escalate.
When to run away.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> They all teach something, but to be more specific, any art that suggests it isn't suitable for mma because it's too complicated or deadly is likely relevant to this discussion.


Biased a little are we?


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Give us examples of the arts you imply never teach anything?



It is arts where results dont matter.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> It is arts where results dont matter.


Like ballet?


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Biased a little are we?



You don't get to have multiple observable self defence situations. So MMA is about the best source for analysis.

That isn't bias. That is scientific method.

Basically self defence falls in to the same category as psycic powers. It is based on what we think should work and ancecdotal evidence. And to some people it appears to work.

But when psycic powers are tested scientifically we can discern what does work and what doesn't.





I mean it doesn't have to only be MMA but it has to work somewhere other than in strories or on your friends.And It has to work enough times to not be chance.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Like ballet?



In ballet results are judged on athetics. There is a universal standard. It is not supposed to reflect anything other than ballet.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Like ballet?



But if I was to say ballet teaches coordination or fitness or flexibility. All of that could be tested. And then results would matter.

If we do a weight loss camp. We track peoples weight loss. Because results matter.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> You don't get to have multiple observable self defence situations. So MMA is about the best source for analysis.
> 
> That isn't bias. That is scientific method.
> 
> Basically self defence falls in to the same category as psycic powers. It is based on what we think should work and ancecdotal evidence. And to some people it appears to work.
> 
> But when psycic powers are tested scientifically we can discern what does work and what doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it doesn't have to only be MMA but it has to work somewhere other than in strories or on your friends.And It has to work enough times to not be chance.


I agree but it is also anecdotal to say Martial Arts don't work for SD. It is true to say that MMA isn't going to work in every situation just like MA. The skills, experience and makeup of the individual are much more important every time.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I agree but it is also anecdotal to say Martial Arts don't work for SD. It is true to say that MMA isn't going to work in every situation just like MA. The skills, experience and makeup of the individual are much more important every time.



Yeah but you are arguing semantics.

No evidence that insert style, system or technique works any better than dumb luck. 

Is in laymans terms doesn't work.

If your argument that the individual is more important in defining success. Then you are suggesting martial arts doesnt work.

If you threw a bunch of guys on a horse. Some would be able to automatically ride better than others. If you expected me to believe horse riding training works they should all ride consistantly better.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I agree but it is also anecdotal to say Martial Arts don't work for SD. It is true to say that MMA isn't going to work in every situation just like MA. The skills, experience and makeup of the individual are much more important every time.


the key in this discussion is try and think about how your skills are being tested.   What are the behaviors and skills you are being pushed to deliver?  In BJJ, judo, and wrestling, it’s very clear what you are and are not learning.   And because the skills you are learning are consistent with the test, you (as in you the individual) can be confident in your development.  

In aikido, the skills you are developing are expert demonstrator.   In some styles of karate, it is expert kata performer.   In ninjutsu, it’s... well, truly, I have no idea what one learns.  Point is, the skills you’re really learning are the things you’re actually doing. 

And no one does self defense.   Everyone does something to develop relevant skills that can be applied infrequently in a self defense context.  Whether that’s soldiering, policing, bouncing, or competing.


----------



## marques

drop bear said:


> You don't get to have multiple observable self defence situations. So MMA is about the best source for analysis.


I am sad I need to agree with you.  I hate a few things around MMA (extreme weight loss, trashtalk, distorced faces...), but the cage is really a lab to be exploited by a range sciences. What happens there is well documented, measurable, comparable, countable... Fighters and his training is not necessary a secret and so on. 

Should we have the same for self defence and we would have less to none 'local heros', I mean egos...


----------



## drop bear

marques said:


> I am sad I need to agree with you.  I hate a few things around MMA (extreme weight loss, trashtalk, distorced faces...), but the cage is really a lab to be exploited by a range sciences. What happens there is well documented, measurable, comparable, countable... Fighters and his training is not necessary a secret and so on.
> 
> Should we have the same for self defence and we would have less to none 'local heros', I mean egos...



Smaller shows have less hype and will show first and second  time fighters that might be a bit more self defency anyway.


----------



## FriedRice

wab25 said:


> Are we talking about the same article? The fighters in the article, and in the video are:Marcus Davis, Rashad Evans, Forrest Griffin, and Brian Stann. Maybe Faber is uncredited and I don't recognize him... Anyway, sure, that may have been staged, they may have been play acting.



I'm pretty sure that Faber was there for one of these sessions as I saw a commercial like excerpt from it during a really old UFC event. I remembered Griffin and Stann there too.

But are you sure you're familiar with the Marines' training though? You know it only takes like 18 months to qualify to be a Marine, right? And that includes boot camp. You think they spend all day training chopsocky and charging straw dummies with rifle & bayonet like in the movies? They have a ton of other things to train, especially their primary weapon which is a badass assault rifle and a bunch of other state of the art weaponry & gadgets. And to top it all off, they train MCMAP....which is basically MMA Lite.....because real MMA will crack their heads, sprain & break their bones, etc...and what good are injured soldiers?  Why would they even bother training that hard at H2H when they have a freakin' M4 + radio to call in air support + supply trucks full of ammo?  For that slight chance in a million that they ran out of ammo and would have to bust some heads with their chopsocky? Remember Black Hawk Down? 

Dude, that was a PR move by the UFC + USMC to recruit for the post-911 wars in Afghan/Iraq, it was so obvious. Maybe you don't get many Marines and soldiers rolling through your school because they want more tougher training like, MMA. We get lots of soldiers and when they're new, they ain't anything special....and they certainly aren't at Combat Sport Athlete level, let alone UFC Champion levels.  And our gym is nothing in comparison to Faber's UFC Champion producing gym neither, so that's so easy to see it was all BS to make the Marines look good.



> But, the MMA fighters that got into the fight at the gas station were not acting, they got jumped by drunks and one was severely hurt with a 2x4. At the gas station, the MMA guys responded very much like the guys "acting" in the Marine video.



Are you talking about some really old video of some Brazilian MMA fighter in Brazil hitting on some dude's girl, so that dude and his buddies jumped him? I never said that MMA fighters are invincible, especially if they got jumped with weapons. I'm still confident to say that most SD training is like Larping though in comparison to MMA training. I mean c'mon, there are good reasons why that it's usually the weaker, older and out of shape men in SD classes with women, old women and hot chicks there....while you don't see many of these (if any) in MMA class. This may sound rude, but it's the dead truth.

And who was that MMA fighter that got whopped at that gas station anyway? Was he any good? Was he drunk? On drugs. Having a good time out on the town? There are lots of possible factors.  I vaguely remember that video.



> Do they have to be techniques? Really, 5?
> 
> Awareness of the people involved. You need to learn to be aware of how many people you are fighting, and where they are. While there isn't a really good answer for this problem in any art... these guys never even made the effort to notice any one other than one opponent.


You're just fixated on that ONE, video, like it represents everything there is to represent about all MMA fighters' capabilities in the streets.



> Awareness of environment. They didn't use anything in the environments to help. They didn't even look for things to use... just immediately went into 1 on 1 sparring mode, circling to give the other opponents (the ones with the weapons) their back...



He was probably drunk and **** happens I guess.




> [*]Decisiveness and commitment. Actually Brian Stann's first fight in Strike Force was a great example. He was up against a guy that out classed him... when the bell rang, Stann charged in, and KOed him before the other fighter could get his bearings. This is exactly what the Marines did to the MMA fighters, exactly what the advice to the MMA guys was and what the drunks did at the gas station.



So you're saying to charge and suckerpunch anyone who's approaching you in public at night and knock them the **** out? Remember, he may not have known that this was the girl's hubby or something. And Brian Stann had the bell ring to start the round, while here, you're just teaching people to go straight to prison for trying to kill people.



> How to use a knife.
> How to use a club.
> How to use a gun.
> How to de-escalate.
> When to run away.



Most of this is just common sense. I mean if you want to pay someone to teach you some elaborate Larping scenarios, then I guess it can help. I'd rather just train to punch & kick people in the head for the KO and move to the next.

Of course the gun beats everything, and I'm already into prepping, carrying, etc.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> You don't get to have multiple observable self defence situations. So MMA is about the best source for analysis.
> 
> That isn't bias. That is scientific method.
> 
> Basically self defence falls in to the same category as psycic powers. It is based on what we think should work and ancecdotal evidence. And to some people it appears to work.
> 
> But when psycic powers are tested scientifically we can discern what does work and what doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it doesn't have to only be MMA but it has to work somewhere other than in strories or on your friends.And It has to work enough times to not be chance.


What if your friends are a bunch of guys who go out looking for fights at the bars on Friday and Saturday nights?  And they’re pretty good at fighting?  You you beat their a$$es every time they step to you, which has happened several times in their drunken stupors?


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> What if your friends are a bunch of guys who go out looking for fights at the bars on Friday and Saturday nights?  And they’re pretty good at fighting?  You you beat their a$$es every time they step to you, which has happened several times in their drunken stupors?



What if psychic Phil really nailed my reading. And cured my cold.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> What if psychic Phil really nailed my reading. And cured my cold.


He was 100% on with my reading.  How’d he know I was going to make some decisions yesterday?


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> No, bjj shows quicker results because it is grappling training aimed at submission, thus techniques can be trained with full resistance without hurting anyone.



Yet Aikido is also a grappling system with submissions, and it supposedly takes years to just become functional.

What's the difference?


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Yet Aikido is also a grappling system with submissions, and it supposedly takes years to just become functional.
> 
> What's the difference?


A fighting system vs performance art.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> Yet Aikido is also a grappling system with submissions, and it supposedly takes years to just become functional.
> 
> What's the difference?



Aikido never framed itself (at least to my knowledge) as any kind of dueling art. 
It makes use of limb and joint manipulation but it's main focus is harmonising with the opponents force. A method of dealing with conflict given form.

I'm not saying it's magic that is super effective given enough training, just that it has a million and one differences, not least of all that it's not intended for duelling.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Aikido never framed itself (at least to my knowledge) as any kind of dueling art.
> It makes use of limb and joint manipulation but it's main focus is harmonising with the opponents force. A method of dealing with conflict given form.
> 
> I'm not saying it's magic that is super effective given enough training, just that it has a million and one differences, not least of all that it's not intended for duelling.


Dueling seems like a very specific choice of words.  Is that purposeful?


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Aikido never framed itself (at least to my knowledge) as any kind of dueling art.
> It makes use of limb and joint manipulation but it's main focus is harmonising with the opponents force. A method of dealing with conflict given form.
> 
> I'm not saying it's magic that is super effective given enough training, just that it has a million and one differences, not least of all that it's not intended for duelling.



BJJ isnt for "dueling" either. It's for self defense, just like Aikido is purported to be.


----------



## hoshin1600

Hanzou said:


> BJJ isnt for "dueling" either. It's for self defense, just like Aikido is purported to be.


To be specific BJJ is about self defense, the founders said so. Aikido on the other hand .....Ueshiba made it quite clear in his talks and in his writings that Aikido is for human development and was fully against competition and conflict.
People now will argue, well yes BUT.....
If the founder never intended his art to be about self defense then people looking for self-defense are putting make up on a pig.
I would advise those people to train Daito ryu or make your own style.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> BJJ isnt for "dueling" either. It's for self defense, just like Aikido is purported to be.


Fair enough, I've only seen the rolling around on the floor side of BJJ. I was under the impression it was developed for fighting in Brazilian nhb competition. 

That would make its effectiveness in competition a great stroke of luck. 

That being said, it's still a very different animal to Aikido as Hoshin points out.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Dueling seems like a very specific choice of words.  Is that purposeful?


Yes, I use the term to describe pre-arranged/consensual one on one fighting, whether competition or challenge match, or "monkey dance".


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Yes, I use the term to describe pre-arranged/consensual one on one fighting, whether competition or challenge match, or "monkey dance".


It’s not a fight anymore?  This feels a lot like parsing words to make things that are the same seem different.  Considering the topic of this discussion, do you think aikido is effective at teaching people how to fight in any context?


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Fair enough, I've only seen the rolling around on the floor side of BJJ. I was under the impression it was developed for fighting in Brazilian nhb competition.
> 
> That would make its effectiveness in competition a great stroke of luck.
> 
> That being said, it's still a very different animal to Aikido as Hoshin points out.



Old school Bjj has quite a few standing techniques:






While Hoshin and others may argue that Ueshiba wasn't attempting to create a self defense system, his disciples have certainly marketed Aikido as a form of self-defense.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> It’s not a fight anymore?  This feels a lot like parsing words to make things that are the same seem different.  In the context of this discussion, do you think aikido is effective at teaching people how to fight in some other context?



How does the phrase "consensual one on one fighting" suggest it's not a fight anymore?

As for aikido, every encounter I had policing in London where I was attacked first I defended with Aikidoesq techniques, redirecting body charges mostly.






I also previously posted a video of a guy explaining how to modify aikido training so that you can use it in more contexts.





I do think that in simple self defense a well trained aikidoka can defend himself but I fully acknowledge that it's hard. I definitely think the aikidoka has a much better chance against the aggressive drunk or untrained robber than the cage fighter.

Aikido is imo more of a philosophy than a fighting style. 

I think it's a great skill refinement exercise for advanced martial artists of other disciplines.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> How does the phrase "consensual one on one fighting" suggest it's not a fight anymore?
> 
> As for aikido, every encounter I had policing in London where I was attacked first I defended with Aikidoesq techniques, redirecting body charges mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also previously posted a video of a guy explaining how to modify aikido training so that you can use it in more contexts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that in simple self defense a well trained aikidoka can defend himself but I fully acknowledge that it's hard. I definitely think the aikidoka has a much better chance against the aggressive drunk or untrained robber than the cage fighter.
> 
> Aikido is imo more of a philosophy than a fighting style.
> 
> I think it's a great skill refinement exercise for advanced martial artists of other disciplines.


I will post more when i can, but jist. Quick reaction it seems like your post abive has a lot to do with fixing the typical aikido training model by adding application.   I'll read yiur post more carefully when I have more time.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I think it might aid the discussion if we take a more granular approach to breaking things down ...

"Self-defense" is such a broad category that no one can reasonably be expert in all potential scenarios. Depending on how you define the term, a few examples might be:
Calming down an irate drunk
Fending off a rapist while on a date
Escaping a gang of armed assailants
Knocking down a schoolyard bully
Anticipating and evading a sucker punch
Recovering from a sucker punch that you didn't anticipate
... and so on and so on.

Attackers may be singular or multiple, armed or unarmed, casual bullies or professional predators. There is no one size fits all solution.

Furthermore, as Steve points out, there are not many seasoned veterans with tons of experience in even the more common forms of civilian self-defense.

Coming at it from the other end, it's a bit reductive to say "martial art X is just about training for Y", where Y may be self-defense, competition, fitness, cultural tradition, discipline, whatever. Wrestling training may prepare you for wrestling tournaments, but it does a lot else besides.

What I would suggest is examining the individual _testable _skills and attributes developed in training a given system. If you are interested in whether your training will help you prepare for self-defense, then look at common self-defense situations and see whether those skills and attributes could be helpful. (Also consider _how_ you have tested those skills.)

I'll list a couple of examples from my own background ...

I know that if I am on the ground with someone on top of me trying to hit me or choke me or hold me down, I have a reliably high level of skill in protecting myself and escaping the position. This is testable. I've tested it with hundreds of people, with all kinds of body types and training backgrounds. I've tested it in high intensity, unscripted exercises with partners who were doing their best not to let me win. I've done it when I'm tired. I've done it against bigger, stronger opponents. I've done it on varied surfaces, indoors and outdoors.

Could this help me in a self-defense context? I would hope to never end up in that position in a real world attack, because it's a bad place to be. Still, a survey of real world assaults shows that it's a position that happens pretty regularly, so if an assailant were to tackle me and jump on top of me, those skills would likely be pretty helpful. In a different situation, those abilities might never come up.

I also know that I am reasonably proficient in escaping leg locks. I have a fair amount of experience doing this against some skilled leg lockers.

Could this help me in a self-defense context? Probably not. I've never heard of a mugger jumping out of a dark alley and diving for a heel hook. There could be an indirect benefit in that learning to escape leg locks has made me better at applying them and there could be a conceivable scenario where I found it necessary to apply a leg lock. It's unlikely, though.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> I know that if I am on the ground with someone on top of me trying to hit me or choke me or hold me down, I have a reliably high level of skill in protecting myself and escaping the position. This is testable. I've tested it with hundreds of people, with all kinds of body types and training backgrounds. I've tested it in high intensity, unscripted exercises with partners who were doing their best not to let me win. I've done it when I'm tired. I've done it against bigger, stronger opponents. I've done it on varied surfaces, indoors and outdoors.
> 
> Could this help me in a self-defense context? I would hope to never end up in that position in a real world attack, because it's a bad place to be. Still, a survey of real world assaults shows that it's a position that happens pretty regularly, so if an assailant were to tackle me and jump on top of me, those skills would likely be pretty helpful. In a different situation, those abilities might never come up.



As someone who has been in a self defense situation on the ground with an armed person on top of me, I can attest to this. Without my knowledge of ground fighting from Bjj, I'd probably be in a casket right now. I think one of the worst things an instructor can tell a student is that the best defense for ending up on the ground is to not end up on the ground. I'm a decent sized person, I'm reasonably athetlic, and I was trained and I ended up on the ground in the blink of an eye.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> Probably. You would figure out very quickly how to apply things


Or, at least, which things don't have a quick path to application (and spending too much time on those slows overall competency development).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I hear what you're saying, but would disagree. Resistance training is the means to the end. Competition is the end goal. If you don't have an end goal, the training becomes the end goal, which is exactly why some arts fail to produce reliable results. My hypothesis here is that, if you add an end goal to any training, it will make the training more effective, and the result will be faster, more reliable results.


You and I have talked about this before, Steve. I don't think this is a true dichotomy (competition as the end goal, or essentially nothing as the end goal). It's entirely possible for someone to train with resistance, never compete, and still have the goal of being able to perform the techniques against someone who doesn't want them to do that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> This seems weird to me though. In every martial art, at least the vast majority, there are at least overtones of learning some sort of fighting skills. Even if you never want to use them, you still want the skills. Otherwise what are you even doing?
> 
> Imagine taking ballet, but you don't care if what you are learning can actually help you dance. You might never want to dance at all, but you should at least know how when you leave the studio. In other words, pretense without delivery is sorta pointless.


I think a better analogy might be taking dance classes based on ballet, and not knowing if what you're learning would really serve you in performing in a ballet. If you're not planning to perform in a ballet, you might not care, so long as you enjoy the movement and like what you're doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> *What It Takes to be Number One*
> "Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.
> 
> There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
> 
> Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second.
> 
> Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.
> 
> It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.
> 
> And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.
> 
> I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."
> 
> _- Coach Vincent T. Lombardi
> 
> What It Takes to be Number One | Vince Lombardi_


I've never been able to buy into that. I enjoy competing against people who are better than me. Sometimes I actually win. More often - under those circumstances - I lose and learn something. For most people, the only way to never lose is to never accept a challenge that really tests us.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> Lombardi’s What It Takes to be Number 1 probably deserves its own thread, but I found its appropriate here, with all the talk of winning and all.
> 
> I think it’s 100% on the money.  My take on it is what is winning?  If all it is is your hand raised at the conclusion of the match, that’s a pretty shallow definition.
> 
> My idea of winning is giving it everything you’ve got.  When everyone’s left and you’re alone looking in the mirror, you know you did at least everything you know you’re capable of.  Even more, you surprised yourself and outdid what you thought you could do.  That’s winning.
> 
> When I compete, the judges will score however they want.  I can’t control that.  The competition field might suck, might be world-class, or somewhere in between.  I can’t control that.  All I can do is get out there and do my thing to the best of my ability.  I do that, and I won.  Anything short of that, and I lost. I’d rather get completely outclassed and walk away knowing I left it all on the floor than beat a bunch of bums without breaking a sweat.
> 
> Winning isn’t everything.  It’s the only thing.


Okay, I can accept that interpretation. I like competing (though not always formally) - I enjoy the striving and putting my best forward. I even enjoy being beaten by someone better, so long as I was able to do my level best along the way. The only time I don't enjoy it is when I feel the limiting factor was actually me (an injury, or under-commitment), or because I'm simply not interested in what "winning" requires.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A tie means that your life time tournament winning record has been broken. If you have a perfect tournament winning record, you will try very hard to protect it (even with your life).
> 
> If your best skill won't work on your opponent, -> your opponent's best skill may work on you. -> You may lose.


Sorry, but I personally dislike this view. It leads to not being willing to take a challenge that really tests skill. I'm far more interested in the mindset of someone who continues to win after a loss, than someone who gives up after a tie.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Training for sport is the path. Combat is the goal.
> 
> If your goal is to extend your head out like this when you fight, your training are deadly wrong. In other words, even if punching is not allowed, you still have to assume that fists are flying.


Not if you're training for that particular sport. Those guys put their heads forward, because it works well in that context. There's nothing wrong with their training, if that competition is the end goal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You have it exactly right.   I don’t disagree at all.  The point is not that every sport makes one a fighter.  The point is that competition is application of technique which builds actual skill.  So,, a guy who competes in point fighting will be able to do what they train under pressure,   It might not be fighting, but it will be real skill.   People who don’t compete, or otherwise using the skills in context, are not ever moving out of training,   And so, we get people who are experts in martial arts styles who cannot fight.  Further, we get entire styles where this is a problem.   And it’srelevsnt that these same styles argue that this is because they are somehow harder or take longer by design.


I don't think it's the competition that builds the skill. It motivates and adds urgency, but almost no time is spent in competition, so the skill is built outside that setting. That's a key point, IMO.

Beyond that point, I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> I am sure there are some out there but you don't see BJJ very much east of the Mississippi.


If you mean competitions, I can't speak to that. If you mean schools/gyms/programs, I can think of close to a dozen within 4 hours of my house - and that's just what I'm personally aware of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Like I said,  I am sure it is out there. Must be more of a Northern thing.


Pretty easy to find down here in the South, too.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You and I have talked about this before, Steve. I don't think this is a true dichotomy (competition as the end goal, or essentially nothing as the end goal). It's entirely possible for someone to train with resistance, never compete, and still have the goal of being able to perform the techniques against someone who doesn't want them to do that.


Interestingly, neither do I, and have offered several examples of application that are not competition.  I am not suggesting competition is the only form of application that exists.  I'm suggesting that application is essential in the development of real skill, and competition is an example of application. 

It irritates me when you create a straw man and attribute it to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No evidence that insert style, system or technique works any better than dumb luck.
> 
> Is in laymans terms doesn't work.


This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Interestingly, neither do I, and have offered several examples of application that are not competition.  I am not suggesting competition is the only form of application that exists.  I'm suggesting that application is essential in the development of real skill, and competition is an example of application.
> 
> It irritates me when you create a straw man and attribute it to me.


It seemed to me that was the dichotomy you were drawing in the post I quoted. If that was not your intention, that's on me. Looking back at your post, I see how I came to that conclusion, and I also see that I over-read your point.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's the competition that builds the skill. It motivates and adds urgency, but almost no time is spent in competition, so the skill is built outside that setting. That's a key point, IMO.
> 
> Beyond that point, I agree wholeheartedly.


Training and simulation on take you so far.  When cops graduate from the police academy, they are trained but no one (I don't think) would consider them to be experts.  When recruits graduate from their tech schools and go to their first assignments, no one (I don't think) would consider them to be even proficient.  Why do you think that is?  Or maybe more relevant, if you think the military could train someone to an expert level in anything, wouldn't they?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the real value of training.  Training is entirely dependent upon the feedback gained from application.  Absent some genuine form of application, the training becomes the application, and then you get folks who are experts at training.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It seemed to me that was the dichotomy you were drawing in the post I quoted. If that was not your intention, that's on me. Looking back at your post, I see how I came to that conclusion, and I also see that I over-read your point.


I literally explained this in the next paragraph, Gerry.  You're too smart to get a pass on this.  Absent a few grammatical errors, the point is, I believe, very clear.  I specifically explain that the point isn't competition, it's that application is taking skills learned in training and applying them in a different, applied context.  



Steve said:


> I hear what you're saying, but would disagree.  Resistance training is the means to the end.  Competition is the end goal.  If you don't have an end goal, the training becomes the end goal, which is exactly why some arts fail to produce reliable results.   My hypothesis here is that, if you add an end goal to any training, it will make the training more effective, and the result will be faster, more reliable results.
> 
> *I think you're cautions with regards to competition are spot on.  These came[sic] cautions could be applied to any application.  Whether you're a bouncer, cop, or mafia enforcer, you will need to adapt your skills to different contexts depending on the specific self defense situation*.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Training and simulation on take you so far.  When cops graduate from the police academy, they are trained but no one (I don't think) would consider them to be experts.  When recruits graduate from their tech schools and go to their first assignments, no one (I don't think) would consider them to be even proficient.  Why do you think that is?  Or maybe more relevant, if you think the military could train someone to an expert level in anything, wouldn't they?
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the real value of training.  Training is entirely dependent upon the feedback gained from application.  Absent some genuine form of application, the training becomes the application, and then you get folks who are experts at training.


I don't disagree. I'm just saying that the few hours a year someone in a competition art spends actually competing (on the mats, with an opponent, in a competition) isn't where they're developing the skill. It's an important piece of feedback, but that's not where the skill grows. The competition gives them a place to measure their results, and a reason to focus in a given time period (a lot of folks train harder leading up to competition). So it has a definite effect, but the competition isn't where that skill forms. If someone was training at that same school, working with the same intensity, but not actually competing at the events, it would be possible for them to make similar progress. I'd assume the school isn't waiting for competition to get some useful feedback - they're probably getting feedback regularly during training, too.

Whether they have enough motivation or not - and whether the competition adds any motivation - will vary by individual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I literally explained this in the next paragraph, Gerry.  You're too smart to get a pass on this.  Absent a few grammatical errors, the point is, I believe, very clear.  I specifically explain that the point isn't competition, it's that application is taking skills learned in training and applying them in a different, applied context.


I didn't get that from the following paragraph, but that's probably just my jet-lagged brain not firing on all cylinders. As I said, the misunderstanding is on me.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I didn't get that from the following paragraph, but that's probably just my jet-lagged brain not firing on all cylinders. As I said, the misunderstanding is on me.


Aww, I can't stay mad at you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Aww, I can't stay mad at you.


Group hug!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Sorry, but I personally dislike this view. It leads to not being willing to take a challenge that really tests skill. I'm far more interested in the mindset of someone who continues to win after a loss, than someone who gives up after a tie.


I can only speak for myself. I had won 3 years US Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) heavy weight champion back in 1982, 1983, and 1984. During 1984, I moved myself to super heavy weight. After 1984, I retired and no longer competed in tournament for the following reasons:

- Winning 3 years in a roll is good enough for me. Trying to win 4 years in a roll won't mean much to me.
- I had tested my skill against people who were 30 lb or even 50 lb heavier than me.
- For the rest of my life, I want to remember "winning" and not "losing".

The back wave will always push the front wave. The front wave will always crash on the rock. No matter how high and how long the wave can maintain, it will crash on the rock and disappear. That's just the nature order.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can only speak for myself. I had won 3 years US Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) heavy weight champion back in 1982, 1983, and 1984. During 1984, I moved myself to super heavy weight. After 1984, I retired and no longer competed in tournament for the following reasons:
> 
> - Winning 3 years in a roll is good enough for me. Trying to win 4 years in a roll won't mean much to me.
> - I had tested my skill against people who were 30 lb or even 50 lb heavier than me.
> - For the rest of my life, I want to remember "winning" and not "losing".
> 
> The back wave will always push the front wave. The front wave will always crash on the rock. No matter how high and how long the wave can maintain, it will crash on the rock and disappear. That's just the nature order.


The first two points are good points. I see nothing wrong with either. The third, while I don't agree with the implication that losing some would mean you'd spend your life remembering losing (most of us spend more time remembering our wins), I can see how a person might just be ready to quit competing after a few really good years. There's no obligation to keep going until someone beats you, and it sounds like you were done with what you wanted to do in competition. That's different from quitting competition for the primary purpose of not losing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.



In martial art because there are so many false claims and misconceptions. And because martial arts is quite often not results driven It is just a more practical way to handle it.

Trying to grind out any sort of evidence out of people who have none is just too hard. 

And people put time and money in to this in the hope they will get a result. 

People need a quick short cut rule of thumb. And no evidence, no good is pretty dependable.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.


ThIs is an argument from ignorance and is an informal logical fallacy.    You could literally use this fallacious logic to argue any position.  The flying spaghetti monster is an example of this.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.



Unfortunately the reality is that we've seen just about every style pop up in MMA and the results have largely stayed the same. Even worse, the same thing occurred in Vale Tudo for decades and again the results have largely stayed the same. At this point (25+ years), it's simply unbelievable that a practitioner of a maligned TMA wouldn't have entered MMA and made themselves a fortune, or a MMA coach wouldn't be forcing their fighters to learn some super effective TMA style in order to give them an edge in the ring. The simple fact is (as DB stated) you're dealing with a results driven industry, and no one is going to waste time and money with something that isn't producing results.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In martial art because there are so many false claims and misconceptions. And because martial arts is quite often not results driven It is just a more practical way to handle it.
> 
> Trying to grind out any sort of evidence out of people who have none is just too hard.
> 
> And people put time and money in to this in the hope they will get a result.
> 
> People need a quick short cut rule of thumb. And no evidence, no good is pretty dependable.


Okay, as a shortcut, it serves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> ThIs is an argument from ignorance and is an informal logical fallacy.    You could literally use this fallacious logic to argue any position.  The flying spaghetti monster is an example of this.


Not really. It's a meaningful distinction, Steve. Saying something isn't true simply because there's not sufficient evidence it's true isn't good logic. It's a reasonable point for added skepticism and even suspicion, but isn't a valid conclusion, from a logical standpoint.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately the reality is that we've seen just about every style pop up in MMA and the results have largely stayed the same. Even worse, the same thing occurred in Vale Tudo for decades and again the results have largely stayed the same. At this point (25+ years), it's simply unbelievable that a practitioner of a maligned TMA wouldn't have entered MMA and made themselves a fortune, or a MMA coach wouldn't be forcing their fighters to learn some super effective TMA style in order to give them an edge in the ring. The simple fact is (as DB stated) you're dealing with a results driven industry, and no one is going to waste time and money with something that isn't producing results.


There's a difference between something being efficient enough for that competition and being effective at a base level. Much of what I teach, for instance, shows up in MMA on a regular basis. Some shows up rarely. Some might have shown up, but I've never seen it. That leads me to think that what I teach includes a fair amount that isn't best practice for MMA (some of it has an anti rely different purpose). So my curriculum wouldn't be a good choice for training for MMA. There are better choices for that, and better coaches. But that's about efficiency for the purpose, and I have a wider, less-focused set of purposes. On the other hand, I've taught and trained with LEO, corrections officers, bouncers, etc., who found the training effective for their needs.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> Not really. It's a meaningful distinction, Steve. Saying something isn't true simply because there's not sufficient evidence it's true isn't good logic. It's a reasonable point for added skepticism and even suspicion, but isn't a valid conclusion, from a logical standpoint.


It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.

Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

kempodisciple said:


> It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.
> 
> Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.


That said, I know almost nothing about professional table tennis past the movie balls of fury, so I have no idea what the best way to hold a paddle is. So watch a competitive match and turn the paddle upside down from that position if you need a visual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.
> 
> Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.


There you hit on what I was trying to say in another post: as effective. The ping pong analogy is good for this point. I used to play pretty well, holding the paddle in that odd manner you sometimes see. It's a less-effective manner, based on the evidence we have. But it worked quite well for me and the guy I picked it up from. So, less effective isn't the same as not effective. That's what I was getting at.

I think MMA training might be the shortest path to fight competency, except maybe compared to boxing. But that doesn't make a longer path ineffective - just makes it a poor choice for fast fight prep, and probably too inefficient for competing in that context.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Not really. It's a meaningful distinction, Steve. Saying something isn't true simply because there's not sufficient evidence it's true isn't good logic. It's a reasonable point for added skepticism and even suspicion, but isn't a valid conclusion, from a logical standpoint.


Thats actually completely, factually incorrect.  I wasn't posting an opinion.   It is a fact that your post is an example of an argument from ignorance.  It is literally the opposite of good logic.

Edit.  To be clear, your earlier post which I responded to was an argument from ignorance.  The straw man you just posted is a straw man.  

And there is evidence that some styles do not produce competent fighters.  The evidence is dismissed by people who train in those styles for a variety of reasons.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There's a difference between something being efficient enough for that competition and being effective at a base level. Much of what I teach, for instance, shows up in MMA on a regular basis. Some shows up rarely. Some might have shown up, but I've never seen it. That leads me to think that what I teach includes a fair amount that isn't best practice for MMA (some of it has an anti rely different purpose). So my curriculum wouldn't be a good choice for training for MMA. There are better choices for that, and better coaches. But that's about efficiency for the purpose, and I have a wider, less-focused set of purposes. On the other hand, I've taught and trained with LEO, corrections officers, bouncers, etc., who found the training effective for their needs.



Bouncers and Leo's are a low bar.

As an example. This would not be an effective example of practical use of Aiki as it has been described to me.






And until I saw them actually use that concept I am going to doubt their ability to perform it.

Now ironically people are using this method to judge proficiency in something. And I am not at all sure what and not at all sure how.

So I am going to look at that and say that doesn't work.

If at some stage you make it work. I will be swayed by evidence.

Even if the same sort of technique does work when it is done by a different guy.

This way I can learn the technique that works off the guy who can make it work.

So we have seen a double leg work against experienced guys. Doesn't mean this double leg is going to work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Thats actually completely, factually incorrect.  I wasn't posting an opinion.   It is a fact that your post is an example of an argument from ignorance.  It is literally the opposite of good logic.
> 
> Edit.  To be clear, your earlier post which I responded to was an argument from ignorance.  The straw man you just posted is a straw man.
> 
> And there is evidence that some styles do not produce competent fighters.  The evidence is dismissed by people who train in those styles for a variety of reasons.


You're talking in circles, Steve. Argument from ignorance requires a claim of truth due to the absence of contrary evidence. That is not what I said, nor particularly close to what I said. You are creating a strawman of my argument, while claiming I'm creating strawmen.

What is the strawman you believe I've created?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Bouncers and Leo's are a low bar.
> 
> As an example. This would not be an effective example of practical use of Aiki as it has been described to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until I saw them actually use that concept I am going to doubt their ability to perform it.
> 
> Now ironically people are using this method to judge proficiency in something. And I am not at all sure what and not at all sure how.
> 
> So I am going to look at that and say that doesn't work.
> 
> If at some stage you make it work. I will be swayed by evidence.
> 
> Even if the same sort of technique does work when it is done by a different guy.
> 
> This way I can learn the technique that works off the guy who can make it work.
> 
> So we have seen a double leg work against experienced guys. Doesn't mean this double leg is going to work.


If regular use "in the wild" is a low bar for folks who train for the purpose of that exact use, I'm not sure there's any appropriate measure for application for those folks.


----------



## pdg

I'm lost...

Again...

Has this turned into another "if I don't see it in MMA then it doesn't work in MMA, and if it doesn't work in MMA it obviously doesn't work anywhere" argument?


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I'm lost...
> 
> Again...
> 
> Has this turned into another "if I don't see it in MMA then it doesn't work in MMA, and if it doesn't work in MMA it obviously doesn't work anywhere" argument?



Not just MMA, but challenge matches as well. 

In all seriousness, why so you think it's not fair for styles to be judged in that way?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Not just MMA, but challenge matches as well.
> 
> In all seriousness, why so you think it's not fair for styles to be judged in that way?



The context of the judgement defines whether the judgement is fair or not.

There was a video of a (iirc) wing chun guy being a bit of a twat when he got rejected for an MMA fight.

But looking at it from his perspective, I fully understand where he was coming from.

He entered on the premise that he could make his art work against MMA fighters despite what people were saying.

During the selection, he was told again and again that his techniques weren't acceptable in the competition - his kicks were wrong, his punches were wrong, he should get on the ground.

Not that they wouldn't work, but that they "weren't MMA".

He was kicked out of selection before getting to actually fight.

Now that's the prerogative of the promoters, they know what they want, from feedback they know what their audience wants - it's up to them who they allow to fight.

And that is exactly where the "MMA is the benchmark for rooting out effectiveness" falls right on it's ****.

Maybe that guy would have failed, maybe he would have prevailed - we'll honestly never know because him and others like him from other arts (who want to attempt to fight pure) aren't allowed to try.

As for challenge fights, well...

The famous ones of MMA Vs TMA in China are frankly pathetic. The trad guys look out of their depth from the start. It'd be like putting me against a 6 year old and saying my art is best when I win.

Those are usually derided because y'know, why would the government allow an art that's supposed to be representative of their country get so thoroughly trounced?

They don't want their population to be effective fighters, that's why. That's why all the state sanctioned stuff is demo level wushu.


----------



## pdg

Additional:

Let's say some grinning idiot in a dress (looking at you @gpseymour ) completely eschews the philosophy of their art and manages to blag through an MMA competition selection and then uses "pure aiki" to win.

They'll never get put on another card, ever.

Stands to reason.

The promoters simply wouldn't allow it.

And why should they?

There's a huge industry built around it, if something else is shown to beat it then people go elsewhere and what have they got then to put food on their tables and fuel in their Bentleys?


Another comparison is this:

It'd be relatively easy these days to build an electrically powered, silent track laying vehicle with laser terrain mapping and active suspension that could drive over a car without leaving a scratch. You could also make it VLGP (very low ground pressure) with traction control so it can drive over mud without sinking and spraying mud everywhere from wheelspin. 

Who the hell would pay to see that at a monster truck rally?

People who go to those want impact, they want noise, they want smashing, they want destruction and flames.

They want MMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Let's say some grinning idiot in a dress (looking at you @gpseymour ) completely eschews the philosophy of their art and manages to blag through an MMA competition


I rarely grin when blagging.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> The context of the judgement defines whether the judgement is fair or not.
> 
> There was a video of a (iirc) wing chun guy being a bit of a twat when he got rejected for an MMA fight.
> 
> But looking at it from his perspective, I fully understand where he was coming from.
> 
> He entered on the premise that he could make his art work against MMA fighters despite what people were saying.
> 
> During the selection, he was told again and again that his techniques weren't acceptable in the competition - his kicks were wrong, his punches were wrong, he should get on the ground.
> 
> Not that they wouldn't work, but that they "weren't MMA".
> 
> He was kicked out of selection before getting to actually fight.
> 
> Now that's the prerogative of the promoters, they know what they want, from feedback they know what their audience wants - it's up to them who they allow to fight.
> 
> And that is exactly where the "MMA is the benchmark for rooting out effectiveness" falls right on it's ****.
> 
> Maybe that guy would have failed, maybe he would have prevailed - we'll honestly never know because him and others like him from other arts (who want to attempt to fight pure) aren't allowed to try.
> 
> As for challenge fights, well...
> 
> The famous ones of MMA Vs TMA in China are frankly pathetic. The trad guys look out of their depth from the start. It'd be like putting me against a 6 year old and saying my art is best when I win.
> 
> Those are usually derided because y'know, why would the government allow an art that's supposed to be representative of their country get so thoroughly trounced?
> 
> They don't want their population to be effective fighters, that's why. That's why all the state sanctioned stuff is demo level wushu.



You're talking about Shawn Obasi, and he got his chance to use WC in MMA, and he got smashed for his efforts. So he should have listened to the coaches. He now spends his time teaching WC with broken MMA concepts. He's largely considered a joke by the MMA community because he embarrassed himself, and by the WC community because he embarrassed WC.

As for what the audience wants, there is some truth to that, however it isn't a completely true statement. Ryan Hall for example is utilizing a Bjj style in the UFC that some people hate, but is winning him fights. Hall's general goal is to prove that sport Bjj can work in MMA and self defense, and so far he's proving it. If an Aikidoka or WC practicioner came into the UFC or other major MMA promotion doing those techniques (and won) it would go a long way towards changing the general perception of those styles. The best way to prove those coaches wrong is to actually win fights.


----------



## punisher73

I agree with Steve's basic premise.  If you look at "adult learning", most adults to not learn anything.  They are informed of things and gather information about it, but don't practice it to the point that they "know it".  Too many schools just do kata or fixed drills without resistance, so the person has been "informed" of what they should do, but they haven't truly "learned" what they should be doing with ingrained body knowledge of the technique.

For example, when learning to ride a bike you fall over an over while your brain is making the necessary neural pathways to ride a bike successfully.  Riding is MUCH more than the mechanics of pedaling and requires LOTS of biomechanical FEEL for balance shifts etc. When you are learning to ride the bike, you don't keep the training wheels on after you have learned how to somewhat pedal and turn etc. (the basics).  You HAVE to take the wheels off in a live environment to truly learn how to ride a bike.

Same thing with MA.  Too many people are content with "riding with their training wheels on" and don't take the wheels off and apply it in a live environment.  You can KNOW the defenses and shifts and footwork that you learned in a kata, but until you apply them in an increasing more realistic manner, you are never going to learn and know the timing, distancing etc. that make the technique truly work.

In combat sports, you DO get results faster (in general) because of the constant feedback of the technique working or not working.  You know when you fall off the bike and what you need to do to correct it.  Any art that uses drills to work these details and works them into a progressively more "free form" environment will be better prepared and quicker than a school that doesn't.


----------



## punisher73

punisher73 said:


> I agree with Steve's basic premise.  If you look at "adult learning", most adults to not learn anything.  They are informed of things and gather information about it, but don't practice it to the point that they "know it".  Too many schools just do kata or fixed drills without resistance, so the person has been "informed" of what they should do, but they haven't truly "learned" what they should be doing with ingrained body knowledge of the technique.
> 
> For example, when learning to ride a bike you fall over an over while your brain is making the necessary neural pathways to ride a bike successfully.  Riding is MUCH more than the mechanics of pedaling and requires LOTS of biomechanical FEEL for balance shifts etc. When you are learning to ride the bike, you don't keep the training wheels on after you have learned how to somewhat pedal and turn etc. (the basics).  You HAVE to take the wheels off in a live environment to truly learn how to ride a bike.
> 
> Same thing with MA.  Too many people are content with "riding with their training wheels on" and don't take the wheels off and apply it in a live environment.  You can KNOW the defenses and shifts and footwork that you learned in a kata, but until you apply them in an increasing more realistic manner, you are never going to learn and know the timing, distancing etc. that make the technique truly work.
> 
> In combat sports, you DO get results faster (in general) because of the constant feedback of the technique working or not working.  You know when you fall off the bike and what you need to do to correct it.  Any art that uses drills to work these details and works them into a progressively more "free form" environment will be better prepared and quicker than a school that doesn't.



sorry, tried to edit my post.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.
> 
> Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.


but what would you conclude if someone holds the paddle in a way that looks very ineffective, provides no evidence to the contrary, insists that it could be effective, but also insists that they don't train for table tennis, they train for pickleball?  That is the argument we are presented with. 

And the new wrinkle is to suggest that because we can't prove it doesnt work for anyone anywhere, we must accept that it might work for someone somewhere.   As I said earlier, this is the same argument that leads to teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution.

As a quick aside, table tennis and pickleball are both competitive and therefore provide real feedback in context.   You can know that the paddle technique works or doesn't based on real feedback.  Even when a technique feels wrong at first, like a golf swing, if you continue to play golf and refine the swing, you will see measurable, clear results.  To be a good golfer, you need the driving range, the coach, and to play golf in the wild.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And the new wrinkle is to suggest that because we can't prove it doesnt work for anyone anywhere, we must accept that it might work for someone somewhere.


If this is a reference to my earlier post, you're misunderstanding my point.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> If this is a reference to my earlier post, you're misunderstanding my point.


could be.  We have no evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> There you hit on what I was trying to say in another post: as effective. The ping pong analogy is good for this point. I used to play pretty well, holding the paddle in that odd manner you sometimes see. It's a less-effective manner, based on the evidence we have. But it worked quite well for me and the guy I picked it up from. So, less effective isn't the same as not effective. That's what I was getting at.
> 
> I think MMA training might be the shortest path to fight competency, except maybe compared to boxing. But that doesn't make a longer path ineffective - just makes it a poor choice for fast fight prep, and probably too inefficient for competing in that context.


@gpseymour, when you say, "less effective," you imply that there is some evidence that this method of holding a paddle is on the spectrum of effective.  It is not "ineffective."   Just not AS effective. 

But for "fight competency" there are some styles that have no evidence.  And for many other styles, there is evidence to that the style may be effective by modifying the training model (e.g., Machida/Shotokan Karate). 

I don't think one could seriously argue that Aikido, as commonly trained, produces competent fighters.  I also think it's fair to suggest that Aikido *might* produce competent fighters if trained differently.  Specifically, if you align the purpose of the training with the application of the training.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> You're talking about Shawn Obasi, and he got his chance to use WC in MMA, and he got smashed for his efforts. So he should have listened to the coaches



I'm not so sure I count one single official fight 7 years ago as "getting his chance".

If he quit trying after one loss, that's on him.

If he wasn't allowed to try again after one loss (maybe he wasn't entertaining enough), that's on the organisation.

If the organisation officially claims that it's the single best style and sells on that then they should truly open it up and let anyone fight in whatever manner they choose and not screen out people who don't fit the MMA model.

Take boxing. Boxing organisations don't claim to be the best fighting model that can beat every other fighting method.

If I enter a boxing match (which in itself would mean I'd have to cheat the screening) and kick someone in the head, I get disqualified. It doesn't mean using my feet is a better or worse method, it means it's not allowed.

I support boxing orgs screening out people who can't box.

I also support MMA orgs screening out people who can't MMA.

Just don't try to claim that screening process is because it's superior.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> As for what the audience wants, there is some truth to that, however it isn't a completely true statement. Ryan Hall for example is utilizing a Bjj style in the UFC that some people hate, but is winning him fights. Hall's general goal is to prove that sport Bjj can work in MMA and self defense, and so far he's proving it. If an Aikidoka or WC practicioner came into the UFC or other major MMA promotion doing those techniques (and won) it would go a long way towards changing the general perception of those styles. The best way to prove those coaches wrong is to actually win fights.



I really have to say that's an invalid argument.

BJJ by definition meshes more with the MMA model.

A "pure" practitioner of an art that doesn't mesh so well simply isn't going to get the chance to prove those coaches wrong because they won't get on card.

And anyway, why would it be proving them wrong? They've been coaching MMA fighters to win MMA fights, and doing so correctly.

If I wanted to MMA, I'd get under an MMA coach, not a table tennis coach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> @gpseymour, when you say, "less effective," you imply that there is some evidence that this method of holding a paddle is on the spectrum of effective.  It is not "ineffective."   Just not AS effective.


Not necessarily. "Ineffective" would be the far end of that spectrum, so something being "less effective" doesn't necessarily mean it's effective. But you make a good point - just because we can't say for sure something isn't ineffective. that doesn't mean it isn't. My point was sort of the other side of that: just because we can't say something is maximally effective, that doesn't mean it's functionally ineffective.



> But for "fight competency" there are some styles that have no evidence.  And for many other styles, there is evidence to that the style may be effective by modifying the training model (e.g., Machida/Shotokan Karate).
> 
> I don't think one could seriously argue that Aikido, as commonly trained, produces competent fighters.  I also think it's fair to suggest that Aikido *might* produce competent fighters if trained differently.  Specifically, if you align the purpose of the training with the application of the training.


Agreed. My point earlier wasn't meant to say that we have to accept that something is likely effective simply because we can't prove the opposite (which is probably a logical impossibility). I was more saying that we have to be careful drawing too strong a conclusion from whether we see something represented in competitions at a visible level.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I'm not so sure I count one single official fight 7 years ago as "getting his chance".



He lost within 2 minutes of the first round.



> If he quit trying after one loss, that's on him.
> 
> If he wasn't allowed to try again after one loss (maybe he wasn't entertaining enough), that's on the organisation.
> 
> If the organisation officially claims that it's the single best style and sells on that then they should truly open it up and let anyone fight in whatever manner they choose and not screen out people who don't fit the MMA model.
> 
> Take boxing. Boxing organisations don't claim to be the best fighting model that can beat every other fighting method.
> 
> If I enter a boxing match (which in itself would mean I'd have to cheat the screening) and kick someone in the head, I get disqualified. It doesn't mean using my feet is a better or worse method, it means it's not allowed.



This is a flawed argument. There is nothing in the MMA ruleset that would restrict a martial art the way Boxing would.



> I support boxing orgs screening out people who can't box.
> 
> I also support MMA orgs screening out people who can't MMA.
> 
> Just don't try to claim that screening process is because it's superior.



The problem is that fighters like Obasi claim to be traditional Kung Fu, when in fact if you actually look at him fight, he's using MMA and Bjj almost the entire time. I have no issue with that if you're being honest, but if you're claiming to be a real WC fighter in MMA and using anything but WC to stay alive in the Octagon, then you're simply a dishonest huckster.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I really have to say that's an invalid argument.
> 
> BJJ by definition meshes more with the MMA model.



What exactly is the "MMA model"?



> A "pure" practitioner of an art that doesn't mesh so well simply isn't going to get the chance to prove those coaches wrong because they won't get on card.
> 
> And anyway, why would it be proving them wrong? They've been coaching MMA fighters to win MMA fights, and doing so correctly.
> 
> If I wanted to MMA, I'd get under an MMA coach, not a table tennis coach.



People have often said that sport Bjj would be ineffective in MMA due to striking negating the crazy open guards that they use. Sound familiar? Hall enters TUF utilizing a sport Bjj guard that he created and wins the competition, and then enters the UFC and is currently undefeated.

If Obasi was pulling some Ip Man crap in the MMA and actually winning fights, he'd be in the same spot Hall is in right now, and like Hall he'd be changing the game (probably even moreso because Bjj is already the grappling standard in MMA while WC isn't the standard of MMA striking). Again, this is a business, and winning equals more money on multiple levels, Hall for example is rolling in the dough from his DvDs, school, and his MMA earnings. If he beats Bj Penn this December, he's going to make even more money and get more notoriety. Even Obasi got some notoriety for being a WC guy fighting in MMA. If he would have won (actually using Wing Chun), his fame would have exploded. The simple reality is that those Kung Fu guys aren't winning in the MMA format for whatever reason, and its been that way since the beginning (even before the first UFC).


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> I'm not so sure I count one single official fight 7 years ago as "getting his chance".
> 
> If he quit trying after one loss, that's on him.
> 
> If he wasn't allowed to try again after one loss (maybe he wasn't entertaining enough), that's on the organisation.
> 
> If the organisation officially claims that it's the single best style and sells on that then they should truly open it up and let anyone fight in whatever manner they choose and not screen out people who don't fit the MMA model.
> 
> Take boxing. Boxing organisations don't claim to be the best fighting model that can beat every other fighting method.
> 
> If I enter a boxing match (which in itself would mean I'd have to cheat the screening) and kick someone in the head, I get disqualified. It doesn't mean using my feet is a better or worse method, it means it's not allowed.
> 
> I support boxing orgs screening out people who can't box.
> 
> I also support MMA orgs screening out people who can't MMA.
> 
> Just don't try to claim that screening process is because it's superior.


Other than Bui Jee to the eyes there is nothing in the WC syllabus that is illegal in MMA. There was nothing stopping obasi from taking a goat stance/mansau wusau and fighting like that.

I would say that if someone did that and won, whatever org they fought for would rebook them immediately.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> but if you're claiming to be a real WC fighter in MMA and using anything but WC to stay alive in the Octagon, then you're simply a dishonest huckster.



What do you think of these guys?


----------



## Hanzou

Martial D said:


> What do you think of these guys?



No issue, they fully acknowledge that their style isnt traditional WC and that its something different.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> No issue, they fully acknowledge that their style isnt traditional WC and that its something different.


Indeed. I ask because I am in a similar boat to them. I would think a good deal of WC guys would say what I do isn't WC, but I would say that it is..as would Rackemann and co.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Indeed. I ask because I am in a similar boat to them. I would think a good deal of WC guys would say what I do isn't WC, but I would say that it is..as would Rackemann and co.


I think a lot of that happens because traditionalists want to freeze a style at an artificial point in time - usually the way the founder or some key person in the past left it. Or they get hung up on what's different about the art, and focus on that to the exclusion of anything that is similar to other arts. So then, if you allow the art to evolve naturally, or you embrace more of the universally useful bits, you start not "looking like" your primary art.


----------



## punisher73

pdg said:


> Additional:
> 
> Let's say some grinning idiot in a dress (looking at you @gpseymour ) completely eschews the philosophy of their art and manages to blag through an MMA competition selection and then uses "pure aiki" to win.
> 
> They'll never get put on another card, ever.
> 
> Stands to reason.
> 
> The promoters simply wouldn't allow it.
> 
> And why should they?
> 
> There's a huge industry built around it, if something else is shown to beat it then people go elsewhere and what have they got then to put food on their tables and fuel in their Bentleys?
> 
> 
> Another comparison is this:
> 
> It'd be relatively easy these days to build an electrically powered, silent track laying vehicle with laser terrain mapping and active suspension that could drive over a car without leaving a scratch. You could also make it VLGP (very low ground pressure) with traction control so it can drive over mud without sinking and spraying mud everywhere from wheelspin.
> 
> Who the hell would pay to see that at a monster truck rally?
> 
> People who go to those want impact, they want noise, they want smashing, they want destruction and flames.
> 
> They want MMA.



I disagree with this, people want exciting fights no matter how they win.  If you start winning in MMA competitions, as long as its within the rules, you are going to keep fighting.  IMHO, if a TMA guy was wiping the floor in MMA competitions, he would be even more marketable to sell tickets.

There is no "something else", MMA is not a "style" that cares what works only based on where it comes from.  If it works, it works no matter the source.  Different MMA gyms train their guys on what is working the best currently in a SPECIFIC mma ruleset.  Everyone did horrible hook punches do a down opponent on the ground until Sakuraba started to drop hammer fists instead.  Now you see that as a standard technique, why?  Because it worked.  If someone had a different technique or strategy that worked very well in MMA, you would see those gyms going out and trying to find coaches/teachers to teach their guys that skillset.  How do we know this?  Because its what has happened across the board everytime something new is working very well.


----------



## pdg

Ok then, here's a hypothetical.

I do TKD (in case anyone doesn't know).

I want to UFC, only using my TKD.

Where do I sign up? Do I just rock up to the arena in my dobok and have at it?


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Ok then, here's a hypothetical.
> 
> I do TKD (in case anyone doesn't know).
> 
> I want to UFC, only using my TKD.
> 
> Where do I sign up? Do I just rock up to the arena in my dobok and have at it?


You'd probably work with your coach/instructor or reach out to someone like @Tez3 who is connected to the local fight scene, and ask her how one might get into a sanctioned, amateur event.  She might try to talk you out of it, if you're not prepared, but then... she might let you learn the hard way.

But, if you get in there and see success, good on ya.  It will work until it doesn't.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If regular use "in the wild" is a low bar for folks who train for the purpose of that exact use, I'm not sure there's any appropriate measure for application for those folks.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> I'm lost...
> 
> Again...
> 
> Has this turned into another "if I don't see it in MMA then it doesn't work in MMA, and if it doesn't work in MMA it obviously doesn't work anywhere" argument?



More if we don't see it work under controlled conditions.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> The context of the judgement defines whether the judgement is fair or not.
> 
> There was a video of a (iirc) wing chun guy being a bit of a twat when he got rejected for an MMA fight.
> 
> But looking at it from his perspective, I fully understand where he was coming from.
> 
> He entered on the premise that he could make his art work against MMA fighters despite what people were saying.
> 
> During the selection, he was told again and again that his techniques weren't acceptable in the competition - his kicks were wrong, his punches were wrong, he should get on the ground.
> 
> Not that they wouldn't work, but that they "weren't MMA".
> 
> He was kicked out of selection before getting to actually fight.
> 
> Now that's the prerogative of the promoters, they know what they want, from feedback they know what their audience wants - it's up to them who they allow to fight.
> 
> And that is exactly where the "MMA is the benchmark for rooting out effectiveness" falls right on it's ****.
> 
> Maybe that guy would have failed, maybe he would have prevailed - we'll honestly never know because him and others like him from other arts (who want to attempt to fight pure) aren't allowed to try.
> 
> As for challenge fights, well...
> 
> The famous ones of MMA Vs TMA in China are frankly pathetic. The trad guys look out of their depth from the start. It'd be like putting me against a 6 year old and saying my art is best when I win.
> 
> Those are usually derided because y'know, why would the government allow an art that's supposed to be representative of their country get so thoroughly trounced?
> 
> They don't want their population to be effective fighters, that's why. That's why all the state sanctioned stuff is demo level wushu.



Yeah. But he wasn't kicked out of mma. He was not selected for the tuff house.

They let pretty much any mental case fight if he really wants to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


>


We can't afford to ignore evidence that doesn't conveniently show up the way we need it. We can use it with some skepticism, and temper it with what we can get from competition formats. We don't get any good data on what happens in the wild, so developing what information we can from what happens there is better than working without it. We just have to be careful how we make use of that information.

If we ignored all anecdotal evidence, then things like your comments in another thread about joint locks being best executed in the wild by starting high and riding down the arm would be ignored. And that would be a waste of good information.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Ok then, here's a hypothetical.
> 
> I do TKD (in case anyone doesn't know).
> 
> I want to UFC, only using my TKD.
> 
> Where do I sign up? Do I just rock up to the arena in my dobok and have at it?



You could, and you would ran over in seconds because your gi would provide easy grips, and a lack of a ground game would make you an easy target for any sort of grappler.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> Ok then, here's a hypothetical.
> 
> I do TKD (in case anyone doesn't know).
> 
> I want to UFC, only using my TKD.
> 
> Where do I sign up? Do I just rock up to the arena in my dobok and have at it?




I'd smack you first for saying 'UFC', that's a company, the sport is MMA!!! though I bet like me every time you see 'WC' you think 'loo'!

We have fighters from all backgrounds including CMA and TKD, yes we even have some that fight in a Gi, wouldn't necessary recommend it but up to them. I would recommend a ground game of some sort, Neil Adams does good Judo for MMA people. 
You would however be very silly just to rock up asking for a fight, maybe not for the reason you think though. However skilled you are or not, you should negotiate terms with the promoter, you could be a brilliant fighter but he might put you in a catchweight fight ( someone 3 stone heavier than you!), you don't want to fight for free even in an ammy fight, get a ticket deal, expenses and possibly accommodation. Some promoters will even pay a small purse, it depends but never fight for free.


----------



## pdg

Mainly facetious post alert 



Tez3 said:


> I'd smack you first for saying 'UFC', that's a company, the sport is MMA!!!



Toemaytow / tomahtoe 



Tez3 said:


> we even have some that fight in a Gi,



I don't own a gi, they come from a different country...



Tez3 said:


> I would recommend a ground game of some sort



You only need a ground game if you intend to be taken down - if I'm never there why train for it?



Tez3 said:


> you could be a brilliant fighter but he might put you in a catchweight fight ( someone 3 stone heavier than you!),



I thought women were supposed to reassure me that size doesn't matter??? 



Tez3 said:


> you don't want to fight for free



But doing it for money takes all the "I have something to prove" fun out of it...




In seriousness though, is it even possible for someone, say me, to get onto a card with no links or introduction through a coach or similar?

It's not that I'm actually interested in doing it, this is a hypothetical - I don't think I'd like fighting (I like sparring, but that's different), I don't actually enjoy watching fights either...


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We can't afford to ignore evidence that doesn't conveniently show up the way we need it. We can use it with some skepticism, and temper it with what we can get from competition formats. We don't get any good data on what happens in the wild, so developing what information we can from what happens there is better than working without it. We just have to be careful how we make use of that information.
> 
> If we ignored all anecdotal evidence, then things like your comments in another thread about joint locks being best executed in the wild by starting high and riding down the arm would be ignored. And that would be a waste of good information.



Let's put it this way. I had a friend who is training tai chi. And he used magical powers to stop a confrontation.

Dead set touched the guy, used energy manipulation and interrupted his chi or something. And the guy walked off.

Go on ask how long he lasted in mma class?


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> But doing it for money takes all the "I have something to prove" fun out of it...



You won't get paid. You might get travel. I know a guy who fought in the UFC and was out of pocket by the end of it.

And yes I constantly get facebook posts li
Looking for fighters. As some people are hard to match up.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Go on ask how long he lasted in mma class?



I don't really care, but I can tell you're absolutely dying to tell us, so...


How long did he last in MMA class?


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> It's not that I'm actually interested in doing it, this is a hypothetical - I don't think I'd like fighting (I like sparring, but that's different), I don't actually enjoy watching fights either...



It is not going to help you unless you want to fly halfway across the world but here.

Homepage - Aftershock MMA

You can just e mail them and get a match.
And they do start mma fgets with bigger gloves shorter rounds and shin guards. So regardless you probably won't die.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> You won't get paid. You might get travel. I know a guy who fought in the UFC and was out of pocket by the end of it.



Well that settles that then.

If I can't turn a profit while proving I'm better than everyone else there's really no point


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> It is not going to help you unless you want to fly halfway across the world but here.
> 
> Homepage - Aftershock MMA
> 
> You can just e mail them and get a match.



That's not halfway, that's literally the other side. 

Any further and I'm technically on the way back again.

(I'm in England...)


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> That's not halfway, that's literally the other side.
> 
> Any further and I'm technically on the way back again.
> 
> (I'm in England...)



So then pretty much exactly half way.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> Well that settles that then.
> 
> If I can't turn a profit while proving I'm better than everyone else there's really no point



You do it for the love of martial arts apparently. Competition has never really been my thing.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> That's not halfway, that's literally the other side.
> 
> Any further and I'm technically on the way back again.
> 
> (I'm in England...)



Ok. What area are you in?


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> Toemaytow / tomahtoe


Actually you are wrong, MMA existed before the UFC did. The UFC is a promotional company it's not the style nor the sport. 




pdg said:


> But doing it for money takes all the "I have something to prove" fun out of it...



Tell that to your family when you have to take unpaid days off work because you have been injured in your fight.




pdg said:


> In seriousness though, is it even possible for someone, say me, to get onto a card with no links or introduction through a coach or similar?



The only 'promoters' who would take you are those who care nothing for fighter's safety and are in in for the money they can make out of you.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It is not going to help you unless you want to fly halfway across the world but here.



Well my daughter is flying out to your neck of the woods again, yep it's coming up to Melbourne Cup time again ( her husband is already out there) but she won't be fighting ( she can, she has a good record) cos she's expecting our first grandchild!!!!! 


*YAY! *


----------



## Hanzou

All you need to do @pdg is make an open challenge on social media. Name the rules, and the location. You'll have someone willing to fight you in no time.
 Just make sure the event gets recorded so we can all watch it


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Actually you are wrong, MMA existed before the UFC did. The UFC is a promotional company it's not the style nor the sport.



I did say facetious post 

Technically, didn't MMA exist long before it was actually named MMA?

It's not like nobody ever cross trained in an effort to improve their performance before...



Tez3 said:


> Tell that to your family when you have to take unpaid days off work because you have been injured in your fight.



Choose the funniest answer from the following:

I'm far too good to get injured.

Or

And that's why I don't think I'd like fighting.



Tez3 said:


> The only 'promoters' who would take you are those who care nothing for fighter's safety and are in in for the money they can make out of you.



So in other words, a responsible promoter would only allow someone to compete who has a certain level of competence in all the 'usual' areas - stand up, striking, grappling, ground?

Which while sensible, actually reinforces what I said before that a "pure" practitioner of a single art would have serious trouble actually getting in.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Let's put it this way. I had a friend who is training tai chi. And he used magical powers to stop a confrontation.
> 
> Dead set touched the guy, used energy manipulation and interrupted his chi or something. And the guy walked off.
> 
> Go on ask how long he lasted in mma class?


In class? Probably not that long. But put that guy in the ring, and you got a new champ!


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> So then pretty much exactly half way.



Yeah, half way _around_.

You initially said halfway _across_, which would be somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Americas.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> All you need to do @pdg is make an open challenge on social media. Name the rules, and the location. You'll have someone willing to fight you in no time.
> Just make sure the event gets recorded so we can all watch it



I get to name the rules?

Ace.

Rule 1. You can't forcefully hit me with anything.
Rule 2. You can't grab me.
Rule 3. You can't call me nasty names.

Should be an easy win.


----------



## pdg

kempodisciple said:


> In class? Probably not that long. But put that guy in the ring, and you got a new champ!



I love it when you're unambiguously serious in your responses.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I get to name the rules?
> 
> Ace.
> 
> Rule 1. You can't forcefully hit me with anything.
> Rule 2. You can't grab me.
> Rule 3. You can't call me nasty names.
> 
> Should be an easy win.



Oh no, you definitely want grabbing. If you can avoid the takedown using TKD, you'll become rich and famous overnight.

More likely though you're going to get taken down, and your face is going to get pounded like hamburger meat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Let's put it this way. I had a friend who is training tai chi. And he used magical powers to stop a confrontation.
> 
> Dead set touched the guy, used energy manipulation and interrupted his chi or something. And the guy walked off.
> 
> Go on ask how long he lasted in mma class?


That's a single instance, from a single source. We've talked about this before - it's possible to be skeptical and still use anecdotal evidence. You have to get input from multiple sources and look for what seems to be common. If I talk to 3 cops about what they find useful from their training (even if they're all from the same art), then I start to get actual useful information. If I add more people, from different arts, in different occupations, I start to get something that serves as data. I expect we all know the dangers of self-reporting, and also know it is often used where other sources of data aren't available.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's a single instance, from a single source. We've talked about this before - it's possible to be skeptical and still use anecdotal evidence. You have to get input from multiple sources and look for what seems to be common. If I talk to 3 cops about what they find useful from their training (even if they're all from the same art), then I start to get actual useful information. If I add more people, from different arts, in different occupations, I start to get something that serves as data. I expect we all know the dangers of self-reporting, and also know it is often used where other sources of data aren't available.



And yet still on par with horoscopes.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> The only 'promoters' who would take you are those who care nothing for fighter's safety and are in in for the money they can make out of you.



Ring up a place that does C class fights. Tell them you are a taekwondoleer with no fights and they will generally hook you up.

Quick search found battle arena in UK.

MMA Battlearena | European Mixed Martial Arts

Then it is just on you. If you think you can get a guy with a few fights experience take that. If you want to take a crack at a noob. Go for that 

It really isn't the mysterious super sport it used to be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And yet still on par with horoscopes.


Not really. You're suggesting we have to either accept all anecdotal evidence without question or deny t all with prejudice. There is another option, and we use it all the time when we discuss what works in any context, industry, or endeavor.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Ring up a place that does C class fights. Tell them you are a taekwondoleer with no fights and they will generally hook you up.
> 
> Quick search found battle arena in UK.
> 
> MMA Battlearena | European Mixed Martial Arts
> 
> Then it is just on you. If you think you can get a guy with a few fights experience take that. If you want to take a crack at a noob. Go for that
> 
> It really isn't the mysterious super sport it used to be.





LOL, they won't take you with no experience. I think, hope even, that you are being sarcastic. They are under ISKA rules rather than the unified rules most of us use so is a bit different. You might get a kickboxing fight but I don't think much of ISKA KB rules.

From 'Battlearena' site.

"Matchmaking discipline: Nobody likes to see a one-sided contest; therefore, we thoroughly research and skillfully match our athletes before booking them on our cards. We have longstanding relationships with gyms and clubs nationwide, as they’re comfortable in the knowledge that we will provide the right opponents for their fighters."


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> LOL, they won't take you with no experience. I think, hope even, that you are being sarcastic. They are under ISKA rules rather than the unified rules most of us use so is a bit different. You might get a kickboxing fight but I don't think much of ISKA KB rules.
> 
> From 'Battlearena' site.
> 
> "Matchmaking discipline: Nobody likes to see a one-sided contest; therefore, we thoroughly research and skillfully match our athletes before booking them on our cards. We have longstanding relationships with gyms and clubs nationwide, as they’re comfortable in the knowledge that we will provide the right opponents for their fighters."



For a c class against a noob. Why not. Neither of them would have experience


----------



## now disabled

Tez3 said:


> Well my daughter is flying out to your neck of the woods again, yep it's coming up to Melbourne Cup time again ( her husband is already out there) but she won't be fighting ( she can, she has a good record) cos she's expecting our first grandchild!!!!!
> 
> 
> *YAY! *




Now I get why she in Newmarket area lol 

Jeez have they got a runner in the cup?


----------



## kravmaga1

Thanks for this blog, I got to know many things about the training session. Training is very important for every work.


----------



## Tez3

now disabled said:


> Now I get why she in Newmarket area lol
> 
> Jeez have they got a runner in the cup?




Yes ( and other races) and they won the Derby this year.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> For a c class against a noob. Why not. Neither of them would have experience




And they still wouldn't get a match, no one would pay to watch two people with no experience fight. it would be very boring.


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> And they still wouldn't get a match, no one would pay to watch *two people with no experience* fight. it would be very boring.



Depends on who the people are. There are some politicians here in the States that I would pay big bucks to see duke it out!


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> And they still wouldn't get a match, no one would pay to watch two people with no experience fight. it would be very boring.



That is what the under card is for.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tez3 said:


> LOL, they won't take you with no experience. I think, hope even, that you are being sarcastic. They are under ISKA rules rather than the unified rules most of us use so is a bit different. You might get a kickboxing fight but I don't think much of ISKA KB rules.
> 
> From 'Battlearena' site.
> 
> "Matchmaking discipline: Nobody likes to see a one-sided contest; therefore, we thoroughly research and skillfully match our athletes before booking them on our cards. We have longstanding relationships with gyms and clubs nationwide, as they’re comfortable in the knowledge that we will provide the right opponents for their fighters."


Googled mma in my area. I could, right now, sign up for a fight with no record, no set style, and no coach. Oddly, they did want to know what my rank in bjj is though, no option to say my rank in another system. As im a white belt in bjj that might disqualify me


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> That is what the under card is for.




From a fighter's view perhaps, from a promoter's view, no. Each match needs to be one that sells tickets. Two beginners pratting around the cage doesn't sell seats. It will get booed and derided.

I'm sure there are promotions that will take complete beginners, I would not recommend anyone fights on them though even experienced fighters. Too many cowboys. bear in mind that in the UK there is no authority in charge of MMA promotions so basically anyone can run a fight night with any rules, no medics, no qualified refs etc.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Googled mma in my area. I could, right now, sign up for a fight with no record, no set style, and no coach. Oddly, they did want to know what my rank in bjj is though, no option to say my rank in another system. As im a white belt in bjj that might disqualify me



They probably don't want a 5 second match where its immediately over after a takedown.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> They probably don't want a 5 second match where its immediately over after a takedown.


No option for me to list my judo or sambo experience. I could click a box that offers styles i practice, both wrestling and judo were there, sambo was not, and i couldnt list my experience for any of those.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> Depends on who the people are. There are some politicians here in the States that I would pay big bucks to see duke it out!


Frankly, there are very few I wouldn't pay money to see in an octagon.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> They probably don't want a 5 second match where its immediately over after a takedown.




Promoters nightmare, fight after fight that ends in the first round. There's a lot of intervals in nights like that. 
People come for an evening of fights, each one should go the distance, keep the spectators on the edge of their seats and happy so they buy plenty of drinks and should leave them going home feeling they got their monies worth.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> They probably don't want a 5 second match where its immediately over after a takedown.



Either that or much more likely that they've bought into the same "BJJ is the magic solution to everything" prejudice that you have.

I'm in no way saying it's not an effective art, but the way you bang on and on reminds me muchly of no-touch proponents.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Either that or much more likely that they've bought into the same "BJJ is the magic solution to everything" prejudice that you have.
> 
> I'm in no way saying it's not an effective art, but the way you bang on and on reminds me muchly of no-touch proponents.



No, it's exactly what I said. There's a reason why Tez recommended that you learn some groundwork, and its because if you dont know any you're going to get taken down and never getting back up again.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> No option for me to list my judo or sambo experience. I could click a box that offers styles i practice, both wrestling and judo were there, sambo was not, and i couldnt list my experience for any of those.



Honestly with that background you could probably say purple belt in Bjj and get away with it.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> No, it's exactly what I said. There's a reason why Tez recommended that you learn some groundwork, and its because if you dont know any you're going to get taken down and never getting back up again.



I'm doing some groundwork at the moment - digging out part of a lawn to lay a gravel path.

What belt does that equal?


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> No, it's exactly what I said. There's a reason why Tez recommended that you learn some groundwork, and its because if you dont know any you're going to get taken down and never getting back up again.




It doesn't have to be BJJ it can be Judo or wrestling. Judo is the easiest to find a place to train in the UK, BJJ is coming up fast but wrestling is hard to find here. A good many places now that coach MMA will teach a generic 'groundwork' class, not quite BJJ but a mixture of things that you can take into a competitive fight, if you have coaches who know MMA this can be very useful, they know what works and will help you find what works for you. 
Bear in mind though some karate styles have throws and takedowns as well so learning groundwork is always worthwhile.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> It doesn't have to be BJJ it can be Judo or wrestling. Judo is the easiest to find a place to train in the UK, BJJ is coming up fast but wrestling is hard to find here. A good many places now that coach MMA will teach a generic 'groundwork' class, not quite BJJ but a mixture of things that you can take into a competitive fight, if you have coaches who know MMA this can be very useful, they know what works and will help you find what works for you.
> Bear in mind though some karate styles have throws and takedowns as well so learning groundwork is always worthwhile.



Agreed. Im just trying to tell @pdg that MMA fighters have to learn SOME form of grappling or they're going to get smashed. It isn't hype, its 25+ years of reality that guys who don't know how to deal with takedowns are in a lot of trouble in MMA.

He seems to believe that he dance all over the place and avoid the takedown like some Kung Fu movie hero.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Agreed. Im just trying to tell @pdg that MMA fighters have to learn SOME form of grappling or they're going to get smashed. It isn't hype, its 25+ years of reality that guys who don't know how to deal with takedowns are in a lot of trouble in MMA.
> 
> He seems to believe that he dance all over the place and avoid the takedown like some Kung Fu movie hero.



I've never even hinted at that.

Against a good grappler I'm going to be on floor trying to figure out how I ended up there.

Against a crap grappler I'm going to be stood over him while he wonders what happened.

Put against a BJJer of roughly similar ability as what I have in striking I stand a reasonable chance of not getting caught up, and he stands a reasonable chance of not getting hit.

My only argument is that BJJ or other grappling is not a magic badge of invincibility that trumps every other method and shouldn't be treated as such (which is seemingly where you have a huge gaping chasm in your understanding).


----------



## pdg

Basically, there are people on here who present themselves as knowing what they're talking about, who teach grappling and related arts and who could probably (actually more than likely) deal with me without breaking a sweat.

Then there are the Hanzous, who project the methodology of "I'll just choke you out easily, grappling easily beats any form of striking".

Either you really are that good (which certainly doesn't come across) or you're just another deluded brainwashed fanboy who thinks they're superman.

I choose to interpret you as a member of the second group.

Those are everywhere, definitely not restricted to grappling, and the thing they have in common is even when they inevitably get proved wrong, they still deny it and blame the other person somehow.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> I've never even hinted at that.
> 
> Against a good grappler I'm going to be on floor trying to figure out how I ended up there.
> 
> Against a crap grappler I'm going to be stood over him while he wonders what happened.
> 
> Put against a BJJer of roughly similar ability as what I have in striking I stand a reasonable chance of not getting caught up, and he stands a reasonable chance of not getting hit.
> 
> My only argument is that BJJ or other grappling is not a magic badge of invincibility that trumps every other method and shouldn't be treated as such (which is seemingly where you have a huge gaping chasm in your understanding).



Hence do a c class fight  it is pretty much made for first timers. You generally can't even get punched in the head on the deck. So worst thing that will happen is you will get subbed


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Hence do a c class fight  it is pretty much made for first timers. You generally can't even get punched in the head on the deck. So worst thing that will happen is you will get subbed




We don't have 'c' class or any other classes really in the UK, as I said there is no governing body for MMA in the UK, no one overlooks rules etc so you could get yourself in a lot of trouble by being a complete beginner and not knowing what you are getting yourself into. Each promoter can do exactly what they want with exactly whatever rules they want, in practice it is mostly better than that but you may still not find a fight with rules that suit you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Hence do a c class fight  it is pretty much made for first timers. You generally can't even get punched in the head on the deck. So worst thing that will happen is you will get subbed


Even I might be tough enough for that.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> .
> 
> My only argument is that BJJ or other grappling is not a magic badge of invincibility that trumps every other method and shouldn't be treated as such (which is seemingly where you have a huge gaping chasm in your understanding).



It kind of is though. History has shown that grapplers without striking beat strikers without grappling almost every single time out. (See early UFC events)


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> It kind of is though. History has shown that grapplers without striking beat strikers without grappling almost every single time out. (See early UFC events)




Early UFC isn't indicative of anything other than early UFC. Some of those fights were worked. There was also no drug testing with the obvious results.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Even I might be tough enough for that.



It is designed almost as a full contact sparring session. And is generally designed for new fighters.

It would be a good opportunity for non MMAers to see what it is like. 

I know a few boxers and kick boxers who try it just to see.

If someone's tkd isn't rubbish they should do alright. He would be going against a guy with 6 months training mabye.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> We don't have 'c' class or any other classes really in the UK, as I said there is no governing body for MMA in the UK, no one overlooks rules etc so you could get yourself in a lot of trouble by being a complete beginner and not knowing what you are getting yourself into. Each promoter can do exactly what they want with exactly whatever rules they want, in practice it is mostly better than that but you may still not find a fight with rules that suit you.



They still run them and call them  C class though.

It is a reference point.

And pdg is better off getting subbed than spending 15 minutes getting elbowed.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> Early UFC isn't indicative of anything other than early UFC. Some of those fights were worked. There was also no drug testing with the obvious results.


Royce didn't look too roided out to me as he was steamrolling everyone.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Royce didn't look too roided out to me as he was steamrolling everyone.



He got caught smoking the roids.

UFC veteran Royce Gracie refutes positive steroid test


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> They still run them and call them  C class though.
> 
> It is a reference point.
> 
> And pdg is better off getting subbed than spending 15 minutes getting elbowed.




Here we have amateur rules, semi pro and pro, sometimes you'll get 'first time' pro rules or basically whatever the promoter wants to call them. 
The rules here will be whatever the promoter wants them to be and the fighters agree to. Many copy the 'UFC' rules but will still make some changes like 'no heel hooks' etc. Often amateur fights will allow strikes to the head standing but not on the ground ( which is often then same as other promotions semi pro rules), other ammy rules say no knees to the head, yet others insist on wearing what they call 'amateur' gloves, the ones that look like bag mitts which allow strikes to the head. We have a couple of ammy promotions with no strikes to the head at all while others allow strikes and elbows to the head, amateur meaning they aren't paid not that the rules are different.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Basically, there are people on here who present themselves as knowing what they're talking about, who teach grappling and related arts and who could probably (actually more than likely) deal with me without breaking a sweat.
> 
> Then there are the Hanzous, who project the methodology of "I'll just choke you out easily, grappling easily beats any form of striking".
> 
> Either you really are that good (which certainly doesn't come across) or you're just another deluded brainwashed fanboy who thinks they're superman.
> 
> I choose to interpret you as a member of the second group.
> 
> Those are everywhere, definitely not restricted to grappling, and the thing they have in common is even when they inevitably get proved wrong, they still deny it and blame the other person somehow.



Interesting that you view me simply telling you to pick up grappling experience if you're serious about entering MMA as some sort of attack on your style.

The difference between you and I is that I have an instructor grade in a striking art, which just happens to be the parent art of the style you currently take. Last I checked, you don't have an instructor grade in any grappling art, and it would appear that you have zero experience in any dedicated grappling art. So unless you're like me, you probably should take a step back and actually listen to what I'm trying to tell you.

I know where your deluded concepts come from, because I used to have similar delusions. I, like you believed that I could simply move around a grappler and do a few choice shots and knock the grappler out. I, like you, used to believe that I could kick someone in a particular spot at any given time and knock them out. I, like you used to believe that hitting pads really hard was just like hitting a moving target made of flesh and bone really hard. I, like you used to believe that Kata was more than what it actually was. Fortunately, it only took going a few rounds with an amateur boxer, and a few Judo classes to realize that I had been fed a spoonful of crap, and that I had to pretty much start from square one. I thought over time this mass delusion among Karate and TKD practicioners would dissipate as reality set in, but I guess I was expecting too much.

You're (probably facetiously) talking about actually fighting in a MMA bout without any grappling experience. I wish you the best of luck, because if you enter that octagon without any grappling experience, you have a good chance of ending up on your back with fists hitting you in the face.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Early UFC isn't indicative of anything other than early UFC. Some of those fights were worked. There was also no drug testing with the obvious results.



It established Bjj as the grappling standard in MMA. Bjj instructors are still called upon to coach MMA fighters to this day. Back when I was 100%, I taught grappling at an MMA gym. It was a nice bit of extra cash every few weeks, and I was only a purple belt.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Royce didn't look too roided out to me as he was steamrolling everyone.




As I didn't name anyone why did you pick him?


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> It established Bjj as the grappling standard in MMA.




Well the whole point of the UFC was publicise BJJ and make it marketable so it did it's job.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Well the whole point of the UFC was publicise BJJ and make it marketable so it did it's job.



For 25+ years? C'mon Tez.. 

Also Rickson popularized Bjj in Asia via Vale Tudo Japan and Pride. Was Vale Tudo Japan and Pride also a giant Gracie work as well?


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> As I didn't name anyone why did you pick him?


Because he was the little grappler murking all the big strikers in early UFC.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Because he was the little grappler murking all the big strikers in early UFC.




What on earth does that mean? Use English man.



Hanzou said:


> For 25+ years? C'mon Tez..
> 
> Also Rickson popularized Bjj in Asia via Vale Tudo Japan and Pride. Was Vale Tudo Japan and Pride also a giant Gracie work as well?



And what are you on about? 24 years? Early UFC, which is what we were discussing, was primarily to publicise BJJ in the USA who didn't give a damn, still doesn't, about Asia. Rorion Grace was one of the organisers of UFC1.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> And what are you on about? 24 years? Early UFC, which is what we were discussing, was primarily to publicise BJJ in the USA who didn't give a damn, still doesn't, about Asia. Rorion Grace was one of the organisers of UFC1.



And my point was that if it wasn't legit, it wouldn't have maintained its position as a MMA mainstay.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> Honestly with that background you could probably say purple belt in Bjj and get away with it.


I wouldnt agree with that, just knowing my own skill level with the ground (less than purple belt). But, my point was rather than a comment box they specifically ask for my bjj belt rank. So i have no way to explain my sambo experience at all, or my length of time or rank in any other art. Not a good way to match people, IMO.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> What on earth does that mean? Use English man.
> 
> 
> 
> And what are you on about? 24 years? Early UFC, which is what we were discussing, was primarily to publicise BJJ in the USA who didn't give a damn, still doesn't, about Asia. Rorion Grace was one of the organisers of UFC1.


That's kind of funny considering all the local slang you use that looks like gibberish to those of us on this side of the pond.

Can you understand "easily beating" then?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Well the whole point of the UFC was publicise BJJ and make it marketable so it did it's job.


That is true but doesn't mean fights were rigged.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Interesting that you view me simply telling you to pick up grappling experience if you're serious about entering MMA as some sort of attack on your style.
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I have an instructor grade in a striking art, which just happens to be the parent art of the style you currently take. Last I checked, you don't have an instructor grade in any grappling art, and it would appear that you have zero experience in any dedicated grappling art. So unless you're like me, you probably should take a step back and actually listen to what I'm trying to tell you.
> 
> I know where your deluded concepts come from, because I used to have similar delusions. I, like you believed that I could simply move around a grappler and do a few choice shots and knock the grappler out. I, like you, used to believe that I could kick someone in a particular spot at any given time and knock them out. I, like you used to believe that hitting pads really hard was just like hitting a moving target made of flesh and bone really hard. I, like you used to believe that Kata was more than what it actually was. Fortunately, it only took going a few rounds with an amateur boxer, and a few Judo classes to realize that I had been fed a spoonful of crap, and that I had to pretty much start from square one. I thought over time this mass delusion among Karate and TKD practicioners would dissipate as reality set in, but I guess I was expecting too much.
> 
> You're (probably facetiously) talking about actually fighting in a MMA bout without any grappling experience. I wish you the best of luck, because if you enter that octagon without any grappling experience, you have a good chance of ending up on your back with fists hitting you in the face.



You actually help with something here - you say you hold an instructor grade in a striking art.

Holding a grade (any grade) doesn't mean you're any good.

An instructor grade doesn't mean you understand application - it doesn't even mean you know how to instruct.

Your later point illustrates this, where an amateur boxer and a few judo classes "woke you up".

You ignorance and lack of understanding of your striking art has no bearing on me to be honest.

If you can't see beyond a block being a block and a strike being a strike then that's on you and your mental capacity.


Thing is, if I was to do anything like this I almost guarantee you'll jump up and down in excitement telling the world how I lied because I wasn't using my striking art - because I "grappled"...


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> That's kind of funny considering all the local slang you use that looks like gibberish to those of us on this side of the pond.
> 
> Can you understand "easily beating" then?




'Local slang' oh you mean the Queen's English. I'm sorry, I didn't realise you don't understand it.



Steve said:


> That is true but doesn't mean fights were rigged.



However many people involved at the time said they were, and it would be naïve to think that some weren't worked fights.
 There's also more than one way to ensure the outcome of a fight.
9 Ways Fights are "Fixed" in Professional MMA


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> And my point was that if it wasn't legit, it wouldn't have maintained its position as a MMA mainstay.



It's a business, a multinational one now, it doesn't have to be 'legit' it just has to make money.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> It's a business, a multinational one now, it doesn't have to be 'legit' it just has to make money.



I think there's a little more to it than that.

From what I gather, a few (very?) exceptional early pioneers used their grappling to defeat 'strikers' who were possibly not expecting that sort of confrontation.

People saw it work like that, and assumed (rightly or wrongly) that it's superior. So, it naturally led to many following that path. Quite a few of the ones who didn't switch still tried to out grapple the grapplers though.

The same thing happens with boxers - which led to that saying "don't try to outbox a boxer".

But what happens? There are many "boxing Vs something" videos that show what happens. Someone from a different art goes against a boxer and tries to do boxing. And gets beaten.

A karateka goes against a judoka and tries to judo - and gets beaten.

A striker goes into an MMA ring with the psychological programming in place that they need to grapple a lot (helped by the fact that the whole thing is set up to favour grappling from the start) and is defeated by a grappler.

What has been denied in the past (and even referred to as marketing hype) is that if you put a grappler under a striking ruleset, they'll either lose or be disqualified.

According to Hanzou previously, me saying that "if I go into a boxing match and sweep his legs and kick for his head it would lead to me being disqualified" is me falling for hype purely designed to stop my art looking bad...


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Thing is, if I was to do anything like this I almost guarantee you'll jump up and down in excitement telling the world how I lied because I wasn't using my striking art - because I "grappled"...



Actually that will never happen, because if you're dumb enough to enter a MMA fight with no grappling experience, there's only one way that fight is going to go.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> It's a business, a multinational one now, it doesn't have to be 'legit' it just has to make money.



A guy using Aikido. Hung Gar, Wing Chun, or Jow Ga would make tons of money in the MMA circuit. The reason you see no one using any of that is because it won't win any fights.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> A striker goes into an MMA ring with the psychological programming in place that they need to grapple a lot (helped by the fact that the whole thing is set up to favour grappling from the start) and is defeated by a grappler.





Please explain how MMA is set up to favor grappling over striking.


----------



## pdg

Oh, this as well.



Hanzou said:


> I have an instructor grade in a striking art, which just happens to be the parent art of the style you currently take.



So, that would be TSD would it?

If so:



Hanzou said:


> I, like you used to believe that Kata was more than what it actually was.



Once again shows how shallow your understanding is.

It doesn't have kata, because kata is a Japanese word.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Oh, this as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So, that would be TSD would it?
> 
> If so:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again shows how shallow your understanding is.
> 
> It doesn't have kata, because kata is a Japanese word.



No, Shotokan, which is the parent art of both TSD and TKD.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> No, Shotokan, which is the parent art of both TSD and TKD.



Well, depending on who you believe that's either a minimum of two generations separate or entirely unrelated.

Still doesn't mean you were any good at it, nor that you understood it.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Well, depending on who you believe that's either a minimum of two generations separate or entirely unrelated.
> 
> Still doesn't mean you were any good at it, nor that you understood it.



Unfortunately Korean sources are rather unreliable when it comes to anything related to the Japanese occupation of the peninsula. Martial Art history is especially bad, filled with all sorts and myths and legends.

However if you look at the kata and the techniques, the three arts are extremely similar.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately Korean sources are rather unreliable when it comes to anything related to the Japanese occupation of the peninsula. Martial Art history is especially bad, filled with all sorts and myths and legends.
> 
> However if you look at the kata and the techniques, the three arts are extremely similar.



That's something I can fully agree with you on.



Edit: except for using the word kata, I don't do kata, I do tul


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> That's something I can fully agree with you on.
> 
> Edit: except for using the word kata, I don't do kata, I do tul



Whatever.

Tell me how MMA favors grappling over striking.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> A guy using Aikido. Hung Gar, Wing Chun, or Jow Ga would make tons of money in the MMA circuit. The reason you see no one using any of that is because it won't win any fights.




You are so fixated on BJJ you don't seem to understand ( or if you do you ignore it) that MMA is what it says on the tin, mixed martial arts, you won't see any one style these days in a fight but an amalgam of as many techniques from as many styles as work for a particular fighter. I have seen, because I actually judge fights, many different moves from CMA, Aikido, karate etc etc all in the same fight. The reason many people don't see this flow of techniques into each other is because a. they refuse to see it and b they are ignorant of other styles so don't know the style the technique comes from and of course there is c. where the same technique with minor tweaking is seen in many styles.



pdg said:


> Once again shows how shallow your understanding is.




His understanding is all of months if not weeks old, he told us a while back he'd only studied karate for a short time, certainly not long enough to gain even an adequate working knowledge of kata and the practical application of it.




pdg said:


> From what I gather, a few (very?) exceptional early pioneers used their grappling to defeat 'strikers' who were possibly not expecting that sort of confrontation.


The history of the UFC is that of the Gracies setting it up to market BJJ ( not saying that is a bad thing btw) 
Rorion Gracie and the day he created the UFC


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Whatever.



And that's the sort of attitude I was referring to.

Instead of actually intelligently looking at an art and seeing how you can really use, just say "whatever" and do something else.



Hanzou said:


> Tell me how MMA favors grappling over striking.



From the ruleset.

Many strikes are illegal moves - especially strikes to areas that are legitimate grappling submission points.

I can't strike the throat, but I can squeeze it. I can't strike the back of the head, or the spine, but I can squeeze it. Etc.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> You are so fixated on BJJ you don't seem to understand ( or if you do you ignore it) that MMA is what it says on the tin, mixed martial arts, you won't see any one style these days in a fight but an amalgam of as many techniques from as many styles as work for a particular fighter. I have seen, because I actually judge fights, many different moves from CMA, Aikido, karate etc etc all in the same fight. The reason many people don't see this flow of techniques into each other is because a. they refuse to see it and b they are ignorant of other styles so don't know the style the technique comes from and of course there is c. where the same technique with minor tweaking is seen in many styles.



You got any video showing this? I can almost guarantee that you're talking about some Chuck Liddell situation where he supposedly studied Kung Fu at some point, yet fights just like your standard MMA fighter who never took Kung Fu in their life.

I want to see someone in MMA doing stuff like this:








> His understanding is all of months if not weeks old, he told us a while back he'd only studied karate for a short time, certainly not long enough to gain even an adequate working knowledge of kata and the practical application of it.



Er what? I studied shotokan karate for 8 years, obtaining a 2nd degree black belt (nidan)


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> And that's the sort of attitude I was referring to.
> 
> Instead of actually intelligently looking at an art and seeing how you can really use, just say "whatever" and do something else.



I was saying whatever because I don't care what you call your Korean Karate forms.



> From the ruleset.
> 
> Many strikes are illegal moves - especially strikes to areas that are legitimate grappling submission points.
> 
> I can't strike the throat, but I can squeeze it. I can't strike the back of the head, or the spine, but I can squeeze it. Etc.



You do know that there are MMA competitions where all of that is legal and the results end up exactly the same right?


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> The history of the UFC is that of the Gracies setting it up to market BJJ ( not saying that is a bad thing btw)



No, it's certainly not a bad thing at all.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> I was saying whatever because I don't care what you call your Korean Karate forms.



When you learn a little respect and intelligence, let me know and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> You got any video showing this?
> 
> 
> 
> Er what? I studied shotokan karate for 8 years, obtaining a 2nd degree black belt (nidan)




 Video lol, your default answer to everything, actually I have hundreds of hours and if you think I'm going to go through them point by point you are very much mistaken, as usual.


Ah so now it's a couple of years now ok, wonderful, I've actually, really, studied karate for over 40 years then added MMA ( MT, Judo, BJJ etc) on top of that for 20 years. I had adult instructors as I remember you said you were being corrected by  _"It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt." Posted Nov 12 2016. You went on to say that it basically a McDojo.  "my former instructor, he was elderly, and he really wanted to motivate the kids he was teaching. Additionally, the kid's parents really pressed him to promote their kid"_

This is the reply from Chris Parker which I agreed with then and now.
_"When you were in your 20's? Well, firstly, labelling a 12 year old kid who is doing what he thinks is correct a "twerp" might not be the most charitable thing you could do but, more realistically, I'd question what real education you would receive from someone that young sure, they might have had some idea of how it was supposed to be done (the kata), but I'd question the level of their understanding as to "why" as a result, I'm not overtly shocked that such a training experience was not optimal for you but again, that's not the fault of kata training, but of the lack of any real depth or understanding in the way it was presented to you (in that instance)."_

so you were in a dojo that gave black belts to 14 year olds who went on to teach, you cannot claim to have a decent understanding of kata, kata applications. We know you don't like them, you've spent years telling us. You don't do them, fine, I don't do brain surgery but in the right hands it's very efficacious as is kata.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Video lol, your default answer to everything, actually I have hundreds of hours and if you think I'm going to go through them point by point you are very much mistaken, as usual.



You continue to disappoint me Tez.



> Ah so now it's a couple of years now ok, wonderful, I've actually, really, studied karate for over 40 years then added MMA ( MT, Judo, BJJ etc) on top of that for 20 years. I had adult instructors as I remember you said you were being corrected by  _"It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt." Posted Nov 12 2016. You went on to say that it basically a McDojo.  "my former instructor, he was elderly, and he really wanted to motivate the kids he was teaching. Additionally, the kid's parents really pressed him to promote their kid"_
> 
> This is the reply from Chris Parker which I agreed with then and now.
> _"When you were in your 20's? Well, firstly, labelling a 12 year old kid who is doing what he thinks is correct a "twerp" might not be the most charitable thing you could do but, more realistically, I'd question what real education you would receive from someone that young sure, they might have had some idea of how it was supposed to be done (the kata), but I'd question the level of their understanding as to "why" as a result, I'm not overtly shocked that such a training experience was not optimal for you but again, that's not the fault of kata training, but of the lack of any real depth or understanding in the way it was presented to you (in that instance)."_
> 
> so you were in a dojo that gave black belts to 14 year olds who went on to teach, you cannot claim to have a decent understanding of kata, kata applications. We know you don't like them, you've spent years telling us. You don't do them, fine, I don't do brain surgery but in the right hands it's very efficacious as is kata.



Frankly, I think Ian Abernethy himself could teach me kata, and I'd view it exactly the same.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> so you were in a dojo that gave black belts to 14 year olds who went on to teach, you cannot claim to have a decent understanding of kata, kata applications. We know you don't like them, you've spent years telling us. You don't do them, fine, I don't do brain surgery but in the right hands it's very efficacious as is kata





Hanzou said:


> Frankly, I think Ian Abernethy himself could teach me kata, and I'd view it exactly the same.



Anyone can teach a pattern/kata (insert terminology here) as a sequence of moves. It's not hard. It's not even hard to tell you where you have your position wrong for the sequence.

What nobody can do is _make_ you understand what you're doing and why.

If you have a preconceived (or postconceived come to think of it) notion that it's nothing more than a dance and keep your mind closed to that, then all it'll give you is a dance.

Horse. Water. Drink.

I guess Hanzou isn't a thirsty horse.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I guess Hanzou isn't a thirsty horse.



I'm always thirsty, I just dont drink poo water.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> You continue to disappoint me Tez.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I think Ian Abernethy himself could teach me kata, and I'd view it exactly the same.




No, I don't disappoint you in the least, you don't care what I or anyone thinks so it's irrelevant.

Iain doesn't actually teach kata, anyone can go to his seminars and learn whether they know kata or not. They can but many won't because they were taught by an old man who was easily swayed and a 14 year old boy. Still, his loss, not ours.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I'm always thirsty, I just dont drink poo water.




No you are a person that only accepts things you want to ......which is your right btw.........the point is that yu sir do have very narrow ideas on things , jump on band wagons and are totally unwilling to answer things ...well you do but only bits you want to. 

In  the MA world there are many opinions and rightly so however to say as you do does show somewhat a lack of understanding in certain areas


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> You continue to disappoint me Tez.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I think Ian Abernethy himself could teach me kata, and I'd view it exactly the same.



Iran abernethy works off some strange distinctions though.

He tries to work off a consensual/non consensual distinction that kind of ties his ideas in knots a bit.

For me kata sits about the same as animal walks. Or Zuu training.






So there is still a place for it.

Of course this kind of also changes the focus of kata. 

So for example when people poo poo at acrobatics and then also complain they can't match a mma fighter due to physicality.

Well mabye if they jumped around during kata they might have a little more gas in the tank.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Of course this kind of also changes the focus of kata.
> 
> So for example when people poo poo at acrobatics and then also complain they can't match a mma fighter due to physicality.
> 
> Well mabye if they jumped around during kata they might have a little more gas in the tank.



What is the focus of it currently then?

Who complained about the physicality?

Do people really turn up to a class, gently run through a kata or two then call it day and go home - then conclude that they're extreme fighters?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> No you are a person that only accepts things you want to ......which is your right btw.........the point is that yu sir do have very narrow ideas on things , jump on band wagons and are totally unwilling to answer things ...well you do but only bits you want to.
> 
> In  the MA world there are many opinions and rightly so however to say as you do does show somewhat a lack of understanding in certain areas



As in all things, there are opinions and there are facts. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but the simple fact of the matter is that there's a reason that certain styles simply don't appear in MMA. Silly excuses like MMA favors grappling, or your go-to deadly technique is against the rules simply doesn't cut it.

I would be very pleased to see a Bagua exponent "walk the circle" in the Octagon, but we all know that's NEVER going to happen.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> What is the focus of it currently then?
> 
> Who complained about the physicality?
> 
> Do people really turn up to a class, gently run through a kata or two then call it day and go home - then conclude that they're extreme fighters?



The focus is to try and relate kata to fighting as closely as you can. And so just screw fighting up. Kata is nothing like fighting.

Now if you relate kata to movement then honking out a ridiculous 360 jump or being a preying mantis where there is no reason to be makes more sense.

People treat conditioning like it is foreign magic. That the one part of your ability that can be most influenced by training. Is the one part they assume just happens to other people.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> but the simple fact of the matter is that there's a reason that certain styles simply don't appear in MMA.



No single style appears in MMA, that's why it's called 'Mixed'. Different techniques from different styles all mixed up flowing from each other, of course if you are stuck in the 'mixed = BJJ and MT' model then you won't understand. You don't have a BJJ person coming into the cage just doing that and nothing else, nor do you have a Muay Thai fighter just doing that so the argument picking just some styles and saying it doesn't work is invalid. 



drop bear said:


> The focus is to try and relate kata to fighting as closely as you can. And so just screw fighting up. Kata is nothing like fighting.



Actually no that's not the focus of kata, it's not for 'fighting' it's for defending oneself when attacked or about to be attacked. It's not designed for fighting in competitions or outside though in modern times it has been adapted for kumite competitions.  Kata isn't like fighting, that's not the point of it.
Iain ( not Iran) Abernethy doesn't teach fighting ( though he's a damn good fighter) he teaches the practical application of karate which is a system of unarmed self defence, sometimes practised as a sport. If you don't understand Bunkai then you won't 'get' what he is doing.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> As in all things, there are opinions and there are facts. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but the simple fact of the matter is that there's a reason that certain styles simply don't appear in MMA. Silly excuses like MMA favors grappling, or your go-to deadly technique is against the rules simply doesn't cut it.
> 
> I would be very pleased to see a Bagua exponent "walk the circle" in the Octagon, but we all know that's NEVER going to happen.




Sir, fact is you only pick certain things you wanna pick and even then you cherry pick bits from that, That does show a lack of understanding and at times total disrespect.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Actually no that's not the focus of kata, it's not for 'fighting' it's for defending oneself when attacked or about to be attacked. It's not designed for fighting in competitions or outside though in modern times it has been adapted for kumite competitions. Kata isn't like fighting, that's not the point of it.
> Iain ( not Iran) Abernethy doesn't teach fighting ( though he's a damn good fighter) he teaches the practical application of karate which is a system of unarmed self defence, sometimes practised as a sport. If you don't understand Bunkai then you won't 'get' what he is doing.



Which is where Abernathy ties himself up conceptually.

He tries to create a separation between fighting and self defense and basically can't.

And so will go from fighting isn't self defence and here is my multiple attacker sparring drill.

Of he won't use a  boxing cover because that's fighting but will instead use lomenchenko style grasping because somehow that is self defence.

And bunkai is a really good example of how people mess up kata application

And so will look at say the chamber of a karate punch to find the secret application rather than it just being a structural concept.

And then because the karate punch leaves your head open and so will get you unfairly panel beaten by any decent striker in sparring 

Instead of taking that feedback and fixing the trading model.  They go and make this fighting self defense distinction so that the model still works. It just never works where people can experience it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Which is where Abernathy tries himself up conceptually.
> 
> He tries to create a separation between fighting and self defense and basically can't.
> 
> And so will go from fighting isn't self defence and here is my multiple attacker sparring drill.
> 
> Of he won't use a  boxing cover because that's fighting but will instead use lomenchenko style grasping because somehow that is self defence.
> 
> And bunkai is a really good example of how people mess up kata application
> 
> And so will look at say the chamber of a karate punch to find the secret application rather than it just being a structural concept.
> 
> And then because the karate punch leaves your head open and so will get you unfairly panel beaten by any decent striker in sparring
> 
> Instead of taking that feedback and fixing the trading model.  They go and make this fighting self defense distinction so that the model still works. It just never works where people can experience it.




I love that, having never met him, trained with him etc you think you are analysing his concepts accurately. Ah well, I wouldn't have expected anything different to be honest, people see the word 'kata' and go into a frenzy of ignorance, frothing at the mouth at the thought of anything other than BJJ and MMA 'working'.

If you have more than 30 years kata ad Bunkai training behind your words I'd even consider what you said, but you don't. It's like me telling you all about Australia and it's culture having never been there and only watching Neighbours to base my ideas on.


----------



## drop bear

So here we go. This is not just learning mobility and balance by turning on one foot.

It's a self defense move.






Yes a wizzer is a real thing. But it is an ugly way to try to apply a wizzer.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I love that, having never met him, trained with him etc you think you are analysing his concepts accurately. Ah well, I wouldn't have expected anything different to be honest, people see the word 'kata' and go into a frenzy of ignorance, frothing at the mouth at the thought of anything other than BJJ and MMA 'working'.
> 
> If you have more than 30 years kata ad Bunkai training behind your words I'd even consider what you said, but you don't. It's like me telling you all about Australia and it's culture having never been there and only watching Neighbours to base my ideas on.



I am notorious for not just accepting the voice of authority.

Ironically when I had this conversation with ian although he didn't agree with me. He was really good about it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I am notorious for not just accepting the voice of authority.
> 
> Ironically when I had this conversation with ian although he didn't agree with me. He was really good about it.




LOL, of course he was, he's a gentleman. He has also spent a lot longer than you working on this so can be a considered an expert on his own theories.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> LOL, of course he was, he's a gentleman. He has also spent a lot longer than you working on this so can be a considered an expert on his own theories.



But so am I.

I am an expert on fighting vs self defense. I just don't have the following.

But I still have to apply that in a way that plugs the holes in my logic.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> No single style appears in MMA, that's why it's called 'Mixed'. Different techniques from different styles all mixed up flowing from each other, of course if you are stuck in the 'mixed = BJJ and MT' model then you won't understand. You don't have a BJJ person coming into the cage just doing that and nothing else, nor do you have a Muay Thai fighter just doing that so the argument picking just some styles and saying it doesn't work is invalid.



Ryan Hall, McKenzie Dern, and Kron Gracie show otherwise. They're essentially just adding punches and kicks to Bjj and having their way with people.


----------



## Buka

Having only been practicing Kata for a couple years on a limited part time basis, I can’t wait for the parts relating to defending myself when attacked or about to be attacked.

That should be cool.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Ryan Hall, McKenzie Dern, and Kron Gracie show otherwise. They're essentially just adding punches and kicks to Bjj and *having their way with people*.



I'm really sure they aren't! Unless they are sexual predators! Urban Dictionary: have your way with ( American definitions not British)

'Just adding punches and kicks' so adding a whole new style then not just going into the cage with BJJ!


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I'm really sure they aren't! Unless they are sexual predators! Urban Dictionary: have your way with ( American definitions not British)
> 
> 'Just adding punches and kicks' so adding a whole new style then not just going into the cage with BJJ!



You never saw the old Gracie challenge tapes? They used punches and kicks too. Royce Gracie also used kicks and punches in the original UFCs.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Well, depending on who you believe that's either a minimum of two generations separate or entirely unrelated.
> 
> Still doesn't mean you were any good at it, nor that you understood it.


Errr... It's possible that between the two of you, he is the only one who understands it.   That is how these things tend to go. 

At this point, your position is devolving into mild attacks on hanzou's credibility.  Just skip to the end, call him a Nazi and we can wrap this one up.  

Regarding the rule set favoring grapples, it's a wash at best.  I have shared in past threads how grappling is significantly nerfed by the rules to favor striking.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Regarding the rule set favoring grapples, it's a wash at best. I have shared in past threads how grappling is significantly nerfed by the rules to favor striking.




We may need to qualify *what* set of rules here, as I've said before in the UK we can have whatever rules we want which is something that happens in other countries around the world (or across if you are a flat earther) as well. Promoters have been known to change the rules to suit whichever fighter they prefer to win ( of the fighter's manager/coach has negotiated for), some sets will favour grapplers other will favour strikers. There is no one rule set.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> When you learn a little respect and intelligence, let me know and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.


Someone's being disrespectful.  Kindly knock it off.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> We may need to qualify *what* set of rules here, as I've said before in the UK we can have whatever rules we want which is something that happens in other countries around the world (or across if you are a flat earther) as well. Promoters have been known to change the rules to suit whichever fighter they prefer to win ( of the fighter's manager/coach has negotiated for), some sets will favour grapplers other will favour strikers. There is no one rule set.


There are modifed rules here, too.  I'm referring to the unified ruleset that is most often used.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> There are modifed rules here, too.  I'm referring to the unified ruleset that is most often used.




'Most often used' in the USA, not necessarily the world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> What is the focus of it currently then?
> 
> Who complained about the physicality?
> 
> Do people really turn up to a class, gently run through a kata or two then call it day and go home - then conclude that they're extreme fighters?


While that's an oversimplification, a bit of that does occur. People go to class, and work as hard as the class works (most people working near the average of the class). In most classes, that won't be as much exertion as someone preparing for an MMA fight. In many, it won't be as much exertion as someone training _with_ someone training for an MMA fight (like @drop bear). But they often still think they're developing the same ability. Why? Because some instructors think that, or at least say they do.

Folks who are realistic about their training will know they aren't training as hard, so won't be as capable. Most of us have played some sports in our lifetime, and have seen the reality that physical skill in almost anything is enhanced by fitness. In fighting, it's also enhanced by the kind of toughness that's developed by being disciplined about pushing yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which is where Abernathy ties himself up conceptually.
> 
> He tries to create a separation between fighting and self defense and basically can't.
> 
> And so will go from fighting isn't self defence and here is my multiple attacker sparring drill.
> 
> Of he won't use a  boxing cover because that's fighting but will instead use lomenchenko style grasping because somehow that is self defence.
> 
> And bunkai is a really good example of how people mess up kata application
> 
> And so will look at say the chamber of a karate punch to find the secret application rather than it just being a structural concept.
> 
> And then because the karate punch leaves your head open and so will get you unfairly panel beaten by any decent striker in sparring
> 
> Instead of taking that feedback and fixing the trading model.  They go and make this fighting self defense distinction so that the model still works. It just never works where people can experience it.


I'm not terribly familiar with Abernethy's work, but from what I've seen, he doesn't seem to talk about secret, hidden stuff. He uses movement in a kata to help describe the technique he teaches. He shows where the movement is, as practiced in kata, that comes closest to a given technique. I think - and may be wrong - that the point of tying it to kata is twofold: firstly it gives folks a movement they already know to get them closer to doing it right the first time, and secondly it gives a new intention to focus on when practicing that part of the kata.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So here we go. This is not just learning mobility and balance by turning on one foot.
> 
> It's a self defense move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes a wizzer is a real thing. But it is an ugly way to try to apply a wizzer.


I'm not sure I'd even consider that a wizzer. My understanding of a wizzer (pretty much third-hand, and relating it back to what I know that's similar) is that it's a takedown from the shoulder/upper arm. He's using the wizzer (sort of) to restrain the shoulder forward, but the takedown is a leg sweep, with little input from the shoulder.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Errr... It's possible that between the two of you, he is the only one who understands it.   That is how these things tend to go.
> 
> At this point, your position is devolving into mild attacks on hanzou's credibility.  Just skip to the end, call him a Nazi and we can wrap this one up.





Steve said:


> Someone's being disrespectful.  Kindly knock it off.



Let's be fair here, I'm not the one claiming an "instructor grade" in a system that I can't make work for me.

I'm not the one claiming an "instructor grade" in a system that uses kata as part of training, yet believe that kata are pointless and do or mean nothing.

I'm not the one who spent an alleged 8 years training in a system only to do a couple of judo classes and, based on the outcome of that, write off every striking system (because I can't make it work).

I'm not the one berating other people's chosen system with thinly veiled insults like "whatever it's called in you Korean karate".

I'm not the one claiming anything other than what I do is useless.

Still, I suppose I must be the unreasonable one with no understanding...


----------



## now disabled

Buka said:


> Having only been practicing Kata for a couple years on a limited part time basis, I can’t wait for the parts relating to defending myself when attacked or about to be attacked.
> 
> That should be cool.



Hey you'll be fine thought you were gonna get armour .....lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You never saw the old Gracie challenge tapes? They used punches and kicks too. Royce Gracie also used kicks and punches in the original UFCs.




Again you quote but don't fully answer ....in the military we had a name for you MUSHROOM


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Again you quote but don't fully answer ....in the military we had a name for you MUSHROOM



What didn't I fully answer? I was merely pointing out that kicking and punching isn't alien to Bjj. In fact, there's plenty of Bjj schools that offer striking classes.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> What didn't I fully answer? I was merely pointing out that kicking and punching isn't alien to Bjj. In fact, there's plenty of Bjj schools that offer striking classes.




Oh twist things as you like you always do.

Have you ever actually fought ? and I mean either comp or in the street (oh apart from the disabled hammer wielding kid)


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Let's be fair here, I'm not the one claiming an "instructor grade" in a system that I can't make work for me.
> 
> I'm not the one claiming an "instructor grade" in a system that uses kata as part of training, yet believe that kata are pointless and do or mean nothing.
> 
> I'm not the one who spent an alleged 8 years training in a system only to do a couple of judo classes and, based on the outcome of that, write off every striking system (because I can't make it work).
> 
> I'm not the one berating other people's chosen system with thinly veiled insults like "whatever it's called in you Korean karate".
> 
> I'm not the one claiming anything other than what I do is useless.
> 
> Still, I suppose I must be the unreasonable one with no understanding...


Okay.  Hold on.  There are a couple of problems with your position.

First, you really seem to be suggesting that @Hanzou is wrong because he disagrees with you. 
Second, yes, you are being unreasonable (not sure about 'no understanding').
Third, you are making this very personal, which isn't a great way to get your point across.  Not only are you personally attacking a poster, you are also taking this very personally, which isn't a good idea. 

Finally, the standard for who is allowed to hold an opinion around here is hard to nail down.  I think the details are fluid, but it boils down to agreement.  If you agree with the poster, his/her opinion is valid.  Otherwise, it is not.  I can think of examples where a poster's opinion is dismissed because he never trained in that particular art, and times when it's been just fine.  Now, even training in the art isn't enough.  You must have "made it work" (whatever that means) in order to be credible.  I don't buy it.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Oh twist things as you like you always do.
> 
> Have you ever actually fought ? and I mean either comp or in the street (oh apart from the disabled hammer wielding kid)



Yes. I competed at White belt and Blue belt level in Bjj competiton.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Okay.  Hold on.  There are a couple of problems with your position.
> 
> First, you really seem to be suggesting that @Hanzou is wrong because he disagrees with you.
> Second, yes, you are being unreasonable (not sure about 'no understanding').
> Third, you are making this very personal, which isn't a great way to get your point across.  Not only are you personally attacking a poster, you are also taking this very personally, which isn't a good idea.
> 
> Finally, the standard for who is allowed to hold an opinion around here is hard to nail down.  I think the details are fluid, but it boils down to agreement.  If you agree with the poster, his/her opinion is valid.  Otherwise, it is not.  I can think of examples where a poster's opinion is dismissed because he never trained in that particular art, and times when it's been just fine.  Now, even training in the art isn't enough.  You must have "made it work" (whatever that means) in order to be credible.  I don't buy it.



Bro it is hard not to get pissed off with Hanzou as well he is somewhat of a person that picks things he wants and ignores other things and even when presented with things that are recorded and verifiable it still not good enough as it does not fit what he wants. Sorry but I will side with Pdg on his view


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yes. I competed at White belt and Blue belt level in Bjj competiton.




As you would now say produce the vid evidence


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Okay.  Hold on.  There are a couple of problems with your position.
> 
> First, you really seem to be suggesting that @Hanzou is wrong because he disagrees with you.
> Second, yes, you are being unreasonable (not sure about 'no understanding').
> Third, you are making this very personal, which isn't a great way to get your point across.  Not only are you personally attacking a poster, you are also taking this very personally, which isn't a good idea.
> 
> Finally, the standard for who is allowed to hold an opinion around here is hard to nail down.  I think the details are fluid, but it boils down to agreement.  If you agree with the poster, his/her opinion is valid.  Otherwise, it is not.  I can think of examples where a poster's opinion is dismissed because he never trained in that particular art, and times when it's been just fine.  Now, even training in the art isn't enough.  You must have "made it work" (whatever that means) in order to be credible.  I don't buy it.



I did write a longer reply, but it's just not worth it.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> As you would now say produce the vid evidence



LoL! Okie dokie.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> * he is somewhat of a person that picks things he wants and ignores other things and even when presented with things that are recorded and verifiable it still not good enough as it does not fit what he wants*



When did that ever happen??


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> When did that ever happen??




repeatedly and always that answer you question


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> LoL! Okie dokie.




Lets see your fighting style, that you have learned and are so quick to push on others, as if it so superior than all the rest then  by dint of said so you should be to so let us see ...


----------



## Tez3

now disabled said:


> Bro it is hard not to get pissed off with Hanzou as well he is somewhat of a person that picks things he wants and ignores other things and even when presented with things that are recorded and verifiable it still not good enough as it does not fit what he wants. Sorry but I will side with Pdg on his view




I'm with you two. I know you won't realise this unless you look back on much earlier posts but this is standard Hanzou fare, we've had the same arguments for a few years now. The basic argument is that having trained karate he deems it pointless and kata useless, the proof of this is his karate training which as I have already quoted was at a McDojo ( not my words, his). BJJ is always the best, nothing else works. To be fair I've seen many martial artists of all ilks state their style is the best, it's nothing new. The 'video' proof is always demanded, like the joke, if it's not on video it didn't happen. The flaw of course is that the video is only proof of the individual's ability not proof of the style. I can post up videos of BJJ being practised in such a way you'd think it truly appalling.
I could post that CMA styles don't work because they don't work for me, I find them hard on my knees and after a lifetime of karate I find it very difficult to transition to their way of doing things, however I will not say they don't work because I know several very good practitioners who make it work a dream.

What is never accepted is that a style may suit and work very well for many people, it may well not work for you, that's fine, practice your style and not worry about other people's. 'Ah then' says Hanzou and his kind, 'We have to point out the inadequacies of other's styles otherwise you are being defrauded.... *because we know best'. *And that's the problem, if someone's work like Iain Abernethy's actually is effective  ( and no he doesn't do the 'secret' technique stuff but has interesting articles which show how he thinks about things in depth The problems with "street fighting" | Iain Abernethy ) for those who study with him and others like him, why does it offend those who don't do kata? You don't like it, don't do it. It makes no difference to you whether others  do it and find it useful in it's many incarnations.

Still, arguing that ones' style is best is akin to arguing that one's religion is best or that having no faith is best ( one reason for not having religious arguments as well as political ones on here), we've seen where they lead. I like BJJ, I enjoy it, is it the best ever , no, what is? I have no idea but I do know that blowing other people's candles out doesn't make yours shine brighter. BJJ doesn't shine brighter because you think other styles are all pants.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I'd even consider that a wizzer. My understanding of a wizzer (pretty much third-hand, and relating it back to what I know that's similar) is that it's a takedown from the shoulder/upper arm. He's using the wizzer (sort of) to restrain the shoulder forward, but the takedown is a leg sweep, with little input from the shoulder.



I don't think there is an arm bar either. But the movement is hard and requires good footwork and balance.

So the trade off is are you training for good footwork or bad technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't think there is an arm bar either. But the movement is hard and requires good footwork and balance.
> 
> So the trade off is are you training for good footwork or bad technique.


Can't we be doing both?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I'm with you two. I know you won't realise this unless you look back on much earlier posts but this is standard Hanzou fare, we've had the same arguments for a few years now. The basic argument is that having trained karate he deems it pointless and kata useless, the proof of this is his karate training which as I have already quoted was at a McDojo ( not my words, his). BJJ is always the best, nothing else works. To be fair I've seen many martial artists of all ilks state their style is the best, it's nothing new. The 'video' proof is always demanded, like the joke, if it's not on video it didn't happen. The flaw of course is that the video is only proof of the individual's ability not proof of the style. I can post up videos of BJJ being practised in such a way you'd think it truly appalling.
> I could post that CMA styles don't work because they don't work for me, I find them hard on my knees and after a lifetime of karate I find it very difficult to transition to their way of doing things, however I will not say they don't work because I know several very good practitioners who make it work a dream.
> 
> What is never accepted is that a style may suit and work very well for many people, it may well not work for you, that's fine, practice your style and not worry about other people's. 'Ah then' says Hanzou and his kind, 'We have to point out the inadequacies of other's styles otherwise you are being defrauded.... *because we know best'. *And that's the problem, if someone's work like Iain Abernethy's actually is effective  ( and no he doesn't do the 'secret' technique stuff but has interesting articles which show how he thinks about things in depth The problems with "street fighting" | Iain Abernethy ) for those who study with him and others like him, why does it offend those who don't do kata? You don't like it, don't do it. It makes no difference to you whether others  do it and find it useful in it's many incarnations.
> 
> Still, arguing that ones' style is best is akin to arguing that one's religion is best or that having no faith is best ( one reason for not having religious arguments as well as political ones on here), we've seen where they lead. I like BJJ, I enjoy it, is it the best ever , no, what is? I have no idea but I do know that blowing other people's candles out doesn't make yours shine brighter. BJJ doesn't shine brighter because you think other styles are all pants.



Yeah but that is because when it comes to self defense results don't matter.

Which is also why we don't recommend reiki when someone is having a heart attack. Even though I could make all the same arguments to why we should.

I could even suggest an EMT who isn't trained in reiki shouldn't be discouraging it. But then I would be silly.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Can't we be doing both?



Not really. Because when you are training structure you are not looking for efficiency. You are looking to make it harder than it needs to be.

I would train with a weight vest. But I wouldn't run a race with one


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Lets see your fighting style, that you have learned and are so quick to push on others, as if it so superior than all the rest then  by dint of said so you should be to so let us see ...



What does my personal fighting style have to do with BJJ stylists doing exceptionally well in multiple major MMA promotions?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

So this is from a few pages back, but decided to read the thread fully. A couple of the posters were suggesting that if they met with Hanzou they would have no issues beating him in a fight. I don't understand that point of view, because 
A: unless we face each other in person, we have no way of knowing if that's true or not. I can assume all day long that steve can kick my ***, and also assume that I could beat gerry easily, but until I fight them or train with them in some capacity, I have nothing to back up either of those beliefs (not saying either are my assumptions, just chose two random people). 
B: Let's say I'm arguing with Steve, and I'm convinced that Kata are helpful, and he's convinced they're not. Now I meet up with him, fight him, and win. Does that mean I can now say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? I beat you because of kata?" If he wins, does that mean he can say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? You lost because you spent too much time doing kata?"
C: To continue with me and Steve...let's say we fight multiple times. Now let's say *Gasp* he wins sometimes, and I win sometimes!!! What does that mean? Does kata change between meaningful and meaningless?? Should I have done more kata in my fight prep when I lost? Did I not understand my kata well enough? Did me winning the next time mean I magically understood it in that 3 months time? 
A post on a forum isn't an indicator of fighting ability, fighting ability can change, and fighting ability doesn't mean everything you say is wrong/right.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> So this is from a few pages back, but decided to read the thread fully. A couple of the posters were suggesting that if they met with Hanzou they would have no issues beating him in a fight. I don't understand that point of view, because
> A: unless we face each other in person, we have no way of knowing if that's true or not. I can assume all day long that steve can kick my ***, and also assume that I could beat gerry easily, but until I fight them or train with them in some capacity, I have nothing to back up either of those beliefs (not saying either are my assumptions, just chose two random people).
> B: Let's say I'm arguing with Steve, and I'm convinced that Kata are helpful, and he's convinced they're not. Now I meet up with him, fight him, and win. Does that mean I can now say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? I beat you because of kata?" If he wins, does that mean he can say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? You lost because you spent too much time doing kata?"
> C: To continue with me and Steve...let's say we fight multiple times. Now let's say *Gasp* he wins sometimes, and I win sometimes!!! What does that mean? Does kata change between meaningful and meaningless?? Should I have done more kata in my fight prep when I lost? Did I not understand my kata well enough? Did me winning the next time mean I magically understood it in that 3 months time?
> A post on a forum isn't an indicator of fighting ability, fighting ability can change, and fighting ability doesn't mean everything you say is wrong/right.


hey man . Great post except why are you calling me out?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> hey man . Great post except why are you calling me out?


Who knows. Fight me and ill apologize


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I'm with you two. I know you won't realise this unless you look back on much earlier posts but this is standard Hanzou fare, we've had the same arguments for a few years now. The basic argument is that having trained karate he deems it pointless and kata useless, the proof of this is his karate training which as I have already quoted was at a McDojo ( not my words, his). BJJ is always the best, nothing else works. To be fair I've seen many martial artists of all ilks state their style is the best, it's nothing new. The 'video' proof is always demanded, like the joke, if it's not on video it didn't happen. The flaw of course is that the video is only proof of the individual's ability not proof of the style. I can post up videos of BJJ being practised in such a way you'd think it truly appalling.
> I could post that CMA styles don't work because they don't work for me, I find them hard on my knees and after a lifetime of karate I find it very difficult to transition to their way of doing things, however I will not say they don't work because I know several very good practitioners who make it work a dream.
> 
> What is never accepted is that a style may suit and work very well for many people, it may well not work for you, that's fine, practice your style and not worry about other people's. 'Ah then' says Hanzou and his kind, 'We have to point out the inadequacies of other's styles otherwise you are being defrauded.... *because we know best'. *And that's the problem, if someone's work like Iain Abernethy's actually is effective  ( and no he doesn't do the 'secret' technique stuff but has interesting articles which show how he thinks about things in depth The problems with "street fighting" | Iain Abernethy ) for those who study with him and others like him, why does it offend those who don't do kata? You don't like it, don't do it. It makes no difference to you whether others  do it and find it useful in it's many incarnations.
> 
> Still, arguing that ones' style is best is akin to arguing that one's religion is best or that having no faith is best ( one reason for not having religious arguments as well as political ones on here), we've seen where they lead. I like BJJ, I enjoy it, is it the best ever , no, what is? I have no idea but I do know that blowing other people's candles out doesn't make yours shine brighter. BJJ doesn't shine brighter because you think other styles are all pants.


I think he is biased against the British.  I heard his ancestor was killed by Benedict Arnold's wife, and his family never got over it.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I think he is biased against the British.  I heard his ancestor was killed by Benedict Arnold's wife, and his family never got over it.




Lol nice one lol................I'm sure that he should be made aware that us from over here will stand and form the thin red line ....won't we @Tez3 lol and fighting the proper thin red line is never a good idea.


----------



## now disabled

Oh and that that is not the movie thin red line lol but the original one lol as in long before that movie (when the 93rd foot stood in the Crimea) before Hanzou tries to subvert that and or tries to ummm say that didn't happen and the records are biased or one sided lol


----------



## pdg

kempodisciple said:


> A couple of the posters were suggesting that if they met with Hanzou they would have no issues beating him in a fight



Who suggested that?


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Who suggested that?




I think one was me saying next time I was stateside if he arranged mat time I'd be happy to well see if he could back up what he said lol .... no challenge just see if he could do as he says lol....and he said thought I was disabled (which I am lol) and I said still think I could handle things lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> What does my personal fighting style have to do with BJJ stylists doing exceptionally well in multiple major MMA promotions?




Eh cause you keep saying basically all other arts do not compare as you trained in so many and know it fact ....so it kinda does have bearing ....???....or are ya gonna side step that too lol


----------



## pdg

kempodisciple said:


> So this is from a few pages back, but decided to read the thread fully. A couple of the posters were suggesting that if they met with Hanzou they would have no issues beating him in a fight. I don't understand that point of view, because
> A: unless we face each other in person, we have no way of knowing if that's true or not. I can assume all day long that steve can kick my ***, and also assume that I could beat gerry easily, but until I fight them or train with them in some capacity, I have nothing to back up either of those beliefs (not saying either are my assumptions, just chose two random people).
> B: Let's say I'm arguing with Steve, and I'm convinced that Kata are helpful, and he's convinced they're not. Now I meet up with him, fight him, and win. Does that mean I can now say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? I beat you because of kata?" If he wins, does that mean he can say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? You lost because you spent too much time doing kata?"
> C: To continue with me and Steve...let's say we fight multiple times. Now let's say *Gasp* he wins sometimes, and I win sometimes!!! What does that mean? Does kata change between meaningful and meaningless?? Should I have done more kata in my fight prep when I lost? Did I not understand my kata well enough? Did me winning the next time mean I magically understood it in that 3 months time?
> A post on a forum isn't an indicator of fighting ability, fighting ability can change, and fighting ability doesn't mean everything you say is wrong/right.



I have to agree with that, it makes sense. Especially the closing sentence.

I never said I could beat anyone easily, because it wouldn't be a sensible statement for me to make - but I can surmise I would stand a good chance against someone of roughly equivalent skill as me.


----------



## pdg

Oh, and @Steve - re: seemingly having a go at me...

Have you actually read the whole thread, and a couple of related ones?

Taken completely out of context my recent posts here could be interpreted as you describe.

But against previous comments, I would hope it's a slightly different situation.

So either you haven't read them and are jumping in half armed, or...

You share the same mindset, that of "grappling beats all easily, if you don't grapple you're wrong and everything else is a waste of time".


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I have to agree with that, it makes sense. Especially the closing sentence.
> 
> I never said I could beat anyone easily, because it wouldn't be a sensible statement for me to make - but I can surmise I would stand a good chance against someone of roughly equivalent skill as me.




Bro it was me I think he was referring to lol .............I have no clue if I could even stand a chance but it be fun exploring the possibility as I never fought in a comp in my life so. I would also gain something I would suspect


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I think he is biased against the British.  I heard his ancestor was killed by Benedict Arnold's wife, and his family never got over it.



Actually I'm rather fond of the British Isles. Love the accents, the food, and the women. I have a Scottish last name to boot. I need to make a point to head back there when I have a chance.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Yeah but that is because when it comes to self defense results don't matter.




It matters to the person defending themselves, it matters far more than any competition. The desired result for them is that they get to live.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I think one was me saying next time I was stateside if he arranged mat time I'd be happy to well see if he could back up what he said lol .... no challenge just see if he could do as he says lol....and he said thought I was disabled (which I am lol) and I said still think I could handle things lol



Yes, because choking out a disabled man on video would do so much to further my reputation....



now disabled said:


> Eh cause you keep saying basically all other arts do not compare as you trained in so many and know it fact ....so it kinda does have bearing ....???....or are ya gonna side step that too lol



If you actually pay attention to my posts, I tend to only have in depth criticism for Karate, since I trained that particular striking art. The other arts I criticize mainly comes from what I'm observing. Things like no-touch Aikido for example, or Kung Fu principles that are largely based on pseudo-science (like the *hilarious* Wing Chun anti-grappling) are rather easy to criticize without having actually trained in those arts.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Oh, and
> You share the same mindset, that of "grappling beats all easily, if you don't grapple you're wrong and everything else is a waste of time".



You guys have a knack for complaining about arguments that no one is making.

Oversensitive much?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because when you are training structure you are not looking for efficiency. You are looking to make it harder than it needs to be.
> 
> I would train with a weight vest. But I wouldn't run a race with one


I should have included a smiley - that was a facetious comment. I don't like the technique as shown there, either. I'd have to talk to someone who knows more about application of the moves in that kata, but my initial impression is that it'd be better to make some adjustment in the kata to that particular movement if you're going to tie it. So, maybe show the original kata movement, show the technique as kinda close, then show a version of that section of the kata that specifically reinforces that technique. I don't like kata to reinforce bad habits - I actually teach students to adjust the kata depending upon the intent they're working with for a specific section.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> So this is from a few pages back, but decided to read the thread fully. A couple of the posters were suggesting that if they met with Hanzou they would have no issues beating him in a fight. I don't understand that point of view, because
> A: unless we face each other in person, we have no way of knowing if that's true or not. I can assume all day long that steve can kick my ***, and also assume that I could beat gerry easily, but until I fight them or train with them in some capacity, I have nothing to back up either of those beliefs (not saying either are my assumptions, just chose two random people).
> B: Let's say I'm arguing with Steve, and I'm convinced that Kata are helpful, and he's convinced they're not. Now I meet up with him, fight him, and win. Does that mean I can now say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? I beat you because of kata?" If he wins, does that mean he can say "I'm better than you, so obviously I was right? You lost because you spent too much time doing kata?"
> C: To continue with me and Steve...let's say we fight multiple times. Now let's say *Gasp* he wins sometimes, and I win sometimes!!! What does that mean? Does kata change between meaningful and meaningless?? Should I have done more kata in my fight prep when I lost? Did I not understand my kata well enough? Did me winning the next time mean I magically understood it in that 3 months time?
> A post on a forum isn't an indicator of fighting ability, fighting ability can change, and fighting ability doesn't mean everything you say is wrong/right.


Agreed.

For my point of view, I just consider it safest to assume everyone can kick my ***. It keeps me out of trouble. Since I teach kata, but they weren't significantly part of my training in the past, I'm not sure what that says about kata, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> hey man . Great post except why are you calling me out?


Your avatar is less scary than Hanzou's.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes, because choking out a disabled man on video would do so much to further my reputation....
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually pay attention to my posts, I tend to only have in depth criticism for Karate, since I trained that particular striking art. The other arts I criticize mainly comes from what I'm observing. Things like no-touch Aikido for example, or Kung Fu principles that are largely based on pseudo-science (like the *hilarious* Wing Chun anti-grappling) are rather easy to criticize without having actually trained in those arts.


Hey, keep your mitts off the no-touch Aikido.

(See what I did there?? )


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> since I trained that particular striking art.



The thing is...you didn't. You said yourself, you were taught by a young teenage boy and an elderly instructor who was pressured to give said boy a black belt. This is in no way indicative of karate as a whole. I went to a lousy BJJ class once, I believe they had videos on their website should I know slag off BJJ because of this? No, of course not. You went to a McDojo and think your time spent there is what we've all done. Of course we haven't. 




Hanzou said:


> The other arts I criticize mainly comes from what I'm observing.



 You aren't criticising the arts though, you are criticising individual's videos who purport to be doing those arts. Those who do these arts well don't care what people think, they don't make videos to show off their skills so you don't actually get to see them, you just watch videos of the narcissists who can't actually practice what they say they can. Big difference. I went on a seminar where different instructors were teaching what they do, I watched a 'no touch KO', absolute rubbish but their separate self defence techniques were very good, practical and easy to learn yet all you are ever going to see is their stupid 'no touch KOs' on videos. You cannot judge life and training by You Tube.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> The thing is...you didn't. You said yourself, you were taught by a young teenage boy and an elderly instructor who was pressured to give said boy a black belt. This is in no way indicative of karate as a whole. I went to a lousy BJJ class once, I believe they had videos on their website should I know slag off BJJ because of this? No, of course not. You went to a McDojo and think your time spent there is what we've all done. Of course we haven't.



You assume that I haven't been to any Karate schools since. I've visited quite a few karate schools since I left Shotokan (I've been invited to teach Bjj in a few schools and programs), and many karate and TKD schools are actually WORSE than what I personally experienced. Obviously there are some exceptions, but they were exactly that.

Now I have no qualms about someone wishing to participate in such a "dojo" but I would never put my kids or loved ones in such a program and pretend that they are learning anything beyond East Asian dancing.



> You aren't criticising the arts though, you are criticising individual's videos who purport to be doing those arts. Those who do these arts well don't care what people think, they don't make videos to show off their skills so you don't actually get to see them, you just watch videos of the narcissists who can't actually practice what they say they can. Big difference. I went on a seminar where different instructors were teaching what they do, I watched a 'no touch KO', absolute rubbish but their separate self defence techniques were very good, practical and easy to learn yet all you are ever going to see is their stupid 'no touch KOs' on videos. You cannot judge life and training by You Tube.



The very fact that they're doing no-touch KO BS (and they're willing to show it off as if its something to be proud of) invalidates everything else that they're doing. It's no different than that clown Dillman who believed he could launch chi-balls at people. Yeah, he may have been a solid teacher at one point, but once he started believing he could use the force he lost all credibility.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> You assume that I haven't been to any Karate schools since. I've visited quite a few karate schools since I left Shotokan (I've been invited to teach Bjj in a few schools and programs), and many karate and TKD schools are actually WORSE than what I personally experienced. Obviously there are some exceptions, but they were exactly that.
> 
> Now I have no qualms about someone wishing to participate in such a "dojo" but I would never put my kids or loved ones in such a program and pretend that they are learning anything beyond East Asian dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> The very fact that they're doing no-touch KO BS (and they're willing to show it off as if its something to be proud of) invalidates everything else that they're doing.




and there we have it, the evidence speaks plainly that all karate, all around the world, taught by anyone is complete rubbish. A technique taught by a BJJ instructor works wonderfully well but when exactly the same technique is taught by someone who also does the silly stuff it automatically doesn't work and should be discounted, interesting.

You dismiss people who teach karate some of whom are the best fighters I've ever seen, Ticky Donovan, Steve Arneil, Dave Hazard and many, many more. They are just from the UK, I'm sure others can fill you in with the names of very good karateka from their areas. if you are just going to McDojos in line with the one you attended then no wonder you don't know any better and have to be so insulting. It's interesting too that you don't mention these dojos by name or call them out individually but just lump all karate as being rubbish, nonsense of course.

You are insulting and the way you talk about karate and other styles is most definitely against the rules here or perhaps you think you are above them unlike the rest of us? You have the fervour of a convert determined to root out the evil you think you see, but your eyes are clouded with the hate you have for something you don't actually understand. Like all converts you think you know better than those with a deep knowledge and love of their subject and like all converts you will become disillusioned or a tyrant.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> and there we have it, the evidence speaks plainly that all karate, all around the world, taught by anyone is complete rubbish.



Yeah, I never said that, and isn't even close to what I was discussing in the post you quoted. You certainly have a penchant for straw-manning everything that I write, but I suppose it's par the course at this point.



> You dismiss people who teach karate some of whom are the best fighters I've ever seen, Ticky Donovan, Steve Arneil, Dave Hazard and many, many more. They are just from the UK, I'm sure others can fill you in with the names of very good karateka from their areas. if you are just going to McDojos in line with the one you attended then no wonder you don't know any better and have to be so insulting. It's interesting too that you don't mention these dojos by name or call them out individually but just lump all karate as being rubbish, nonsense of course.



Yes, it is nonsense because I never said that ALL karate is "rubbish".



> You are insulting and the way you talk about karate and other styles is most definitely against the rules here or perhaps you think you are above them unlike the rest of us? You have the fervour of a convert determined to root out the evil you think you see, but your eyes are clouded with the hate you have for something you don't actually understand. Like all converts you think you know better than those with a deep knowledge and love of their subject and like all converts you will become disillusioned or a tyrant.



Hello Pot, meet Kettle....


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I never said that, and isn't even close to what I was discussing in the post you quoted. You certainly have a penchant for straw-manning everything that I write, but I suppose it's par the course at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is nonsense because I never said that ALL karate is "rubbish".
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Pot, meet Kettle....




Dude I have lost count of the arts you say are no good ....seriously if you want to pick an art apart then fine but do it from a logical point of view not a biased one and jeez the no touch knock downs lol there are very simple explanations for some of them but will you listen nope ...you just wanna slam the person that doing it


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You guys have a knack for complaining about arguments that no one is making.
> 
> Oversensitive much?



No one is making jeez that is a good one lol..... bro how many times have you stated this or that or the next about an Art then when you are called on it you either don't answer or cherry pick bits to answer? 

And when you are presented with facts and recorded events your get out is they biased ....


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> You certainly have a penchant for straw-manning everything that I write, but I suppose it's par the course at this point.


 
Making up words 'straw-manning' doesn't help you, you have always said and I can go back over all your posts to prove this, said only BJJ works and everything is rubbish. You resort to this puffery of being 'offended' when you know we are right. Sad but true.

I think you come here to get your biases confirmed but when they aren't you go all maiden aunt on us. Quite funny really.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Actually I'm rather fond of the British Isles. Love the accents, the food, and the women. I have a Scottish last name to boot. I need to make a point to head back there when I have a chance.




Oh no please don't start on the claiming of ancestors lol.....if I had a penny for everytime I heard that I'd be a billionaire lol .... And I'd watch the women as they may just be liking ya to try and get a green card lol ....


----------



## now disabled

Tez3 said:


> Making up words 'straw-manning' doesn't help you, you have always said and I can go back over all your posts to prove this, said only BJJ works and everything is rubbish. You resort to this puffery of being 'offended' when you know we are right. Sad but true.
> 
> I think you come here to get your biases confirmed but when they aren't you go all maiden aunt on us. Quite funny really.




I'm telling ya MUSHROOM lol................lives in the dark grows in the dark and is in the dark lol


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Dude I have lost count of the arts you say are no good ....seriously if you want to pick an art apart then fine but do it from a logical point of view not a biased one and jeez the no touch knock downs lol there are very simple explanations for some of them but will you listen nope ...you just wanna slam the person that doing it



I hate to break it to you, but no-touch is 100% fantasy. You can go cry in the corner now.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Making up words 'straw-manning' doesn't help you, you have always said and I can go back over all your posts to prove this, said only BJJ works and everything is rubbish. You resort to this puffery of being 'offended' when you know we are right. Sad but true.



By all means, find a post where I ever said that "Only Bjj works, everything else doesn't/is crap/is rubbish/trash/whatever."



> I think you come here to get your biases confirmed but when they aren't you go all maiden aunt on us. Quite funny really.



What's funny is how you jump from "the majority of karate schools I've visited have severe issues" to "All karate schools are trash".The fact that you're defending your silly argument is especially sad.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I hate to break it to you, but no-touch is 100% fantasy. You can go cry in the corner now.




And your point is ? and where did I ever say it was a legit thing? 

Oh sorry I forgot you posted vids of Ueshiba Morihei when he was in his latter years ............did it never occur to you that there may be reasons for that happening ? or are you just not gonna listen AGAIN lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> By all means, find a post where I ever said that "Only Bjj works, everything else doesn't/is crap/is rubbish/trash/whatever."
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is how you jump from "the majority of karate schools I've visited have severe issues" to "All karate schools are trash".The fact that you're defending your silly argument is especially sad.




You break dancing again trying to do a body pop to get outta this lol ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> And your point is ? and where did I ever say it was a legit thing?
> 
> Oh sorry I forgot you posted vids of Ueshiba Morihei when he was in his latter years ............did it never occur to you that there may be reasons for that happening ? or are you just not gonna listen AGAIN lol



Yes, his students wanted to make him feel like he was still relevant, despite being incredibly old and ill, and probably unable to throw a paper airplane, much less a person. Helio Gracie's students did the exact same thing for him when he got old. However, the latter situation never devolved into no-touch silliness. Even more importantly, Gracie's students never began doing no-touch silliness themselves like Ueshiba's did.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yes, his students wanted to make him feel like he was still relevant, despite being incredibly old and ill, and probably unable to throw a paper airplane, much less a person. Helio Gracie's students did the exact same thing for him when he got old. However, the latter situation never devolved into no-touch silliness. Even more importantly, Gracie's students never began doing no-touch silliness themselves like Ueshiba's did.




You seriously miss and lack the understanding as to why and why some went that route ...........oh and the ones that did ummm I think you might find they set up on their own and were not affiliated to Ueshiba Morihei or did ya miss that bit ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You seriously miss and lack the understanding as to why and why some went that route ...........oh and the ones that did ummm I think you might find they set up on their own and were not affiliated to Ueshiba Morihei or did ya miss that bit ?



Yeah yeah, the typical "you don't understand how we throw people without touching them" excuse. Thing is, I've been in a grappling art for a very long time, so I understand what it takes to throw someone. You're not going to be taking down or throwing anyone by barely touching them. Trying to rationalize this garbage is simply sad and shows what happens when martial artists develop a cult-like devotion to a long-dead figurehead.

Let me know when one of these Aikidoka can pull that off against someone who doesn't want to be thrown. Until then, it gets tossed in the pile of everything wrong with modern martial arts.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yeah yeah, the typical "you don't understand how we throw people without touching them" excuse. Thing is, I've been in a grappling art for a very long time, so I understand what it takes to throw someone. You're not going to be taking down or throwing anyone by barely touching them. Trying to rationalize this garbage is simply sad and shows what happens when martial artists develop a cult-like devotion to a long-dead figurehead.
> 
> Let me know when one of these Aikidoka can pull that off against someone who doesn't want to be thrown. Until then, it gets tossed in the pile of everything wrong with modern martial arts.




Firstly that is not a modern thing 

Secondly what cult are you on about lol? 

Third do you actually have any idea of how that happens or why it happened ? your partly there but there is a gaping whole lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yeah yeah, the typical "you don't understand how we throw people without touching them" excuse. Thing is, I've been in a grappling art for a very long time, so I understand what it takes to throw someone. You're not going to be taking down or throwing anyone by barely touching them. Trying to rationalize this garbage is simply sad and shows what happens when martial artists develop a cult-like devotion to a long-dead figurehead.
> 
> Let me know when one of these Aikidoka can pull that off against someone who doesn't want to be thrown. Until then, it gets tossed in the pile of everything wrong with modern martial arts.




Oh are we back to have a go at Ueshiba Morihei again ? 

just like recently, you said that all the things that were recorded were basically rubbish and biased about him ...oh and that Kano had a vested interest in preserving Ueshiba Morihei .................and you avoided answering that one when you were asked ....but hey that not unusual now is it


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Firstly that is not a modern thing
> 
> Secondly what cult are you on about lol?
> 
> Third do you actually have any idea of how that happens or why it happened ? your partly there but there is a gaping whole lol



Uh, we had an Aikikai affiliated instructor doing it less than 10 years ago at a demonstration at the Aikido Hombu in Japan. Last I checked that counts as modern.

I don't care what you think happens or why you think it happens.It's fantasy on multiple levels.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Uh, we had an Aikikai affiliated instructor doing it less than 10 years ago at a demonstration at the Aikido Hombu in Japan. Last I checked that counts as modern.
> 
> I don't care what you think happens or why you think it happens.It's fantasy on multiple levels.




Are you talking about the vid you posted of that Shihan? ...........and if so first that was not taken at the Aikikai Honbu and second I did point out to you at the time that that Shihan had seriously fallen from grace cause he was following that "way" or are you talking about Tohei as if you are that is going back a bit lol and ummm that to caused a major rift or did you miss that ?

You might also want to factor in that the schools that do push the Ki side are some of the cleanest guys at tech that there is in the classical sense


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> I hate to break it to you, but no-touch is 100% fantasy. You can go cry in the corner now.




ah you see, you haven't understood the question I posed which is ….  techniques which work very well in BJJ are considered by you to be useless when someone who also does 'no touch KO's' does exactly the same technique, so in fact only techniques done by BJJer's are valid not when they are done by other's, even people who believe in the 'no touch' fallacy yet who can be quite decent at techniques which are also used in BJJ.



Hanzou said:


> hat's funny is how you jump from "the majority of karate schools I've visited have severe issues" to "All karate schools are trash".The fact that you're defending your silly argument is especially sad.



Ah but it's not your only post on the subject is it? You've said many times that 'karate is rubbish'.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Are you talking about the vid you posted of that Shihan? ...........and if so first that was not taken at the Aikikai Honbu and second I did point out to you at the time that that Shihan had seriously fallen from grace cause he was following that "way" or are you talking about Tohei as if you are that is going back a bit lol and ummm that to caused a major rift or did you miss that ?



I was talking about Watanabe, who is still considered a respected instructor in the Aikido community. I have yet to see anyone openly criticize anything he's been doing.

This is him at the Aikido Hombu:






He's been doing this for a very long time.



> You might also want to factor in that the schools that do push the Ki side are some of the cleanest guys at tech that there is in the classical sense



Which means nothing if you're deluding your students into thinking you can throw someone without touching them.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> ah you see, you haven't understood the question I posed which is ….  techniques which work very well in BJJ are considered by you to be useless when someone who also does 'no touch KO's' does exactly the same technique, so in fact only techniques done by BJJer's are valid not when they are done by other's, even people who believe in the 'no touch' fallacy yet who can be quite decent at techniques which are also used in BJJ.



I understood your question just fine. I'll say again what I said before: If you engage in No-touch garbage anything else you do training-wise is irrelevant, because you're no longer based in reality or any logical principles, martial arts or otherwise. You've gotten to the point where you believe your own BS to the point of lunacy, and your students/disciples will suffer for it.

Prime example:






If your instructor is doing this, you need to leave, because there is nothing of value to be found there.

The vast majority of MA schools don't engage in this nonsense, so I have no issue with them in that regard.



> Ah but it's not your only post on the subject is it? You've said many times that 'karate is rubbish'.



Uh huh.


----------



## now disabled

Expanding on what @Tez3 is saying and asking ...... I will ask more do you as the BJJ guy use wrist locks or elbow locks/manipulation? ...just asking as a while back a vid was posted of another art doing what I would call nikkyo (ok it wasn't done as I would and imo wasn't a good example) but because it was done in an Art you have not had a go at does that make it ok ? and yet in Aikido it not ? (and no guys that lock is not only in Aikido lol I know that lol just asking and expanding to try and get an answer) also kote-gaeshi yes it in many other arts and has been around well before Aikido but cause it most often seen on vids as a throw (in Aikido) is it ok if other Arts use it as what it mostlly is when applied to a person who either cannot do or isn't able to do the breakfall ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Expanding on what @Tez3 is saying and asking ...... I will ask more do you as the BJJ guy use wrist locks or elbow locks/manipulation? ...just asking as a while back a vid was posted of another art doing what I would call nikkyo (ok it wasn't done as I would and imo wasn't a good example) but because it was done in an Art you have not had a go at does that make it ok ? and yet in Aikido it not ? (and no guys that lock is not only in Aikido lol I know that lol just asking and expanding to try and get an answer) also kote-gaeshi yes it in many other arts and has been around well before Aikido but cause it most often seen on vids as a throw (in Aikido) is it ok if other Arts use it as what it mostlly is when applied to a person who either cannot do or isn't able to do the breakfall ?


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> I understood your question just fine. I'll say again what I said before: If you engage in No-touch garbage anything else you do training-wise is irrelevant, because you're no longer based in reality or any logical principles, martial arts or otherwise. You've gotten to the point where you believe your own BS to the point of lunacy, and your students/disciples will suffer for it.
> 
> Prime example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your instructor is doing this, you need to leave, because there is nothing of value to be found there.
> 
> The vast majority of MA schools don't engage in this nonsense, so I have no issue with them in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.




We are discussing techniques not the people as such. if a technique works, it works even if the user is a flat earther, the technique doesn't become redundant and useless because of the beliefs of the user.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> We are discussing techniques not the people as such. if a technique works, it works even if the user is a flat earther, the technique doesn't become redundant and useless because of the beliefs of the user.



Except no touch doesn't work, and is a useless technique regardless of what the user believes.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> ah you see, you haven't understood the question I posed which is ….  techniques which work very well in BJJ are considered by you to be useless when someone who also does 'no touch KO's' does exactly the same technique, so in fact only techniques done by BJJer's are valid not when they are done by other's, even people who believe in the 'no touch' fallacy yet who can be quite decent at techniques which are also used in BJJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but it's not your only post on the subject is it? You've said many times that 'karate is rubbish'.


The same techniques may be rubbish.  Depends on the training model which is precisely the point of discussion in this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Except no touch doesn't work, and is a useless technique regardless of what the user believes.


I think her point is about dismissing everything else someone does because of no-touch. I've learned a few interesting tweaks from folks whose overall technique was pretty much crap. I found what I could to learn from. I even know one group that teaches a no-touch disruption (it's a mind trick, playing on the desire to avoid running into things) that actually works in the dojo (I experienced it without knowing what was coming). I wouldn't trust it in the street, though it was intellectually interesting to muck with. But that didn't affect - positively or negatively - the reliability of their other techniques. It was a hint to me to be a bit more skeptical than usual, so it's not as if I ignored the issue.

I hold the same view when I talk to a young-Earther about business. I have some extra skepticism because they seem to have a problem with following evidence, but I don't automatically discard everything they think they've learned.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The same techniques may be rubbish.  Depends on the training model which is precisely the point of discussion in this thread.


I'd say it differently, but it's a good point.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I think her point is about dismissing everything else someone does because of no-touch. I've learned a few interesting tweaks from folks whose overall technique was pretty much crap. I found what I could to learn from. I even know one group that teaches a no-touch disruption (it's a mind trick, playing on the desire to avoid running into things) that actually works in the dojo (I experienced it without knowing what was coming). I wouldn't trust it in the street, though it was intellectually interesting to muck with. But that didn't affect - positively or negatively - the reliability of their other techniques. It was a hint to me to be a bit more skeptical than usual, so it's not as if I ignored the issue.
> 
> I hold the same view when I talk to a young-Earther about business. I have some extra skepticism because they seem to have a problem with following evidence, but I don't automatically discard everything they think they've learned.



A creationist may be a great businessman, but he'd be an idiotic scientist. In the realm of martial arts, a no touch exponent teaching martial arts is the equivalent of a flat earther teaching astrophysics.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> A creationist may be a great businessman, but he'd be an idiotic scientist. In the realm of martial arts, a no touch exponent teaching martial arts is the equivalent of a flat earther teaching astrophysics.




That is total bollocks lol....the no touchers as you put it umm that is not what they teach in everything sondon't be going there ....even that vid you posted umm it was not all no touch 

and I will tell you again that Shihan has fallen from grace due to his Ki ideas (that be no touch to you btw) and that is not the same vid you posted the last time as that vid was not taken at the Aikikai hombu    (the one you just posted is and it was taken in the large hall just for your info ...but I'm sure like all else that will be biased or wrong to lol) Oh and yes Watanbe is sill an Aikikai Shihan but if you look at the schedules he ain't teaching there but again I'm sure you will say that wrong to


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> That is total bollocks lol....the no touchers as you put it umm that is not what they teach in everything sondon't be going there ....even that vid you posted umm it was not all no touch



Yet its in there, which means that he views the no-touch stuff as viable as standard technique.



> and I will tell you again that Shihan has fallen from grace due to his Ki ideas (that be no touch to you btw) and that is not the same vid you posted the last time as that vid was not taken at the Aikikai hombu    (the one you just posted is and it was taken in the large hall just for your info ...but I'm sure like all else that will be biased or wrong to lol) Oh and yes Watanbe is sill an Aikikai Shihan but if you look at the schedules he ain't teaching there but again I'm sure you will say that wrong to



Please provide a source specifying where he fell from grace. From all accounts he was still doing demonstrations up until recently. He probably isn't teaching now because he's pushing 90.

Also here's a poll from a Aikido forum about who believes in no-touch throws:

AikiWeb Aikido Information: Polls: Current Poll Results

The results (sadly) aren't surprising.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> A creationist may be a great businessman, but he'd be an idiotic scientist. In the realm of martial arts, a no touch exponent teaching martial arts is the equivalent of a flat earther teaching astrophysics.


Could be. Or they might have one area where they play with stuff that's less practical, like that group I was talking about. It really depends how they approach it.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yet its in there, which means that he views the no-touch stuff as viable as standard technique.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a source specifying where he fell from grace. From all accounts he was still doing demonstrations up until recently. He probably isn't teaching now because he's pushing 90.




Google him and I never said he was not teaching I SAID HE WAS NOT TEACHING AT THE AIKIKAI HOMBU. That is an old vid btw and not the same one you posted before (yes he is listed as a Aikikai Shihan and why would he not be as his Aikido used to be very strong and hard ,   do you cherry pick everything just to suit what you say or think ? and all you did when I asked about wrist locks etc was post vids ....you didn't answer the question ....but that not unusual is it !!!!! 

Look Bro you basically were saying that anyone one that teaches the KI stuff should not teach MA or are you gonna twist outta that too


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Google him and I never said he was not teaching I SAID HE WAS NOT TEACHING AT THE AIKIKAI HOMBU. That is an old vid btw and not the same one you posted before (yes he is listed as a Aikikai Shihan and why would he not be as his Aikido used to be very strong and hard ,



Here's a demo from him in 1987:






Where's the "strong and hard" Aikido?



> do you cherry pick everything just to suit what you say or think ? and all you did when I asked about wrist locks etc was post vids ....you didn't answer the question ....but that not unusual is it !!!!!
> 
> Look Bro you basically were saying that anyone one that teaches the KI stuff should not teach MA or are you gonna twist outta that too



You asked if Bjj had wrist locks. I linked you to a vid showing wrist locks in Bjj. What's the problem?

And yes, IMO if you're teaching no-touch silliness you shouldn't be teaching MA. Again, what's the problem? Clearly you have no problem learning nonsense, but that doesn't mean that other people do.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Here's a demo from him in 1987:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the "strong and hard" Aikido?
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if Bjj had wrist locks. I linked you to a vid showing wrist locks in Bjj. What's the problem?
> 
> And yes, IMO if you're teaching no-touch silliness you shouldn't be teaching MA. Again, what's the problem? Clearly you have no problem learning nonsense, but that doesn't mean that other people do.




First where in that vid was there pure ki Aikido ? second it was strong and clean 

Third if you are going to say that I am a KI Aikido follower you are seriously way of the mark and I mean way off the mark 


Oh boy when I next get stateside you and I are going to have some mat time lol and I will promise you that lol


No that is not what I asked at all but like all else it pointless asking you anything as you never answer.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> First where in that vid was there pure ki Aikido ? second it was strong and clean
> 
> Third if you are going to say that I am a KI Aikido follower you are seriously way of the mark and I mean way off the mark



There was nothing strong about any of that. I will agree that it was "clean", but so is performance dance.

I never said that YOU were an Ki Aikido follower, I'm saying that clearly you believe that nonsense is possible.




> Oh boy when I next get stateside you and I are going to have some mat time lol and I will promise you that lol
> 
> 
> No that is not what I asked at all but like all else it pointless asking you anything as you never answer.



Uh huh (on both counts).


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> There was nothing strong about any of that. I will agree that it was "clean", but so is performance dance.
> 
> I never said that YOU were an Ki Aikido follower, I'm saying that clearly you believe that nonsense is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh (on both counts).




Where did I say it was possible ? where did I say it was impossible? what I said was you are lacking in understanding as to why how etc .....

and what do you term as being strong ? .......Btw demos are not the best advert for much but hey again you will jump on that ,,,,,,,,,,and you stated that no person that teaches KI side should teach MA ......now you are saying a vid you posted was clean etc and it had no pure KI takedowns or knock downs so are you not contradicting yourself? 

Are you sure your not a secret politician as boy do you duck weave and spout lines like one lol


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Where did I say it was possible ? where did I say it was impossible? what I said was you are lacking in understanding as to why how etc .....



So which is it? Impossible or possible? 



> and what do you term as being strong ? .......Btw demos are not the best advert for much but hey again you will jump on that ,,,,,,,,,,and you stated that no person that teaches KI side should teach MA ......now you are saying a vid you posted was clean etc and it had no pure KI takedowns or knock downs so are you not contradicting yourself?



A Judo throw is strong because its actually real. Flipping someone while barely touching them isn't.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> So which is it? Impossible or possible?
> 
> 
> 
> A Judo throw is strong because its actually real. Flipping someone while barely touching them isn't.




It is whatever the person or people that do it think ....


And where did Judo come into this? or are you again leading to another crock of crap like you said about Kano Jigoro had a vested interest in Ueshiba Morihei carrying on and teaching?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> It is whatever the person or people that do it think ....



Thanks for proving my point.



> And where did Judo come into this? or are you again leading to another crock of crap like you said about Kano Jigoro had a vested interest in Ueshiba Morihei carrying on and teaching?



I could have sworn you asked me what I would consider strong. Did you forget already?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> I could have sworn you asked me what I would consider strong. Did you forget already?




I have not proved your point at all ...........


And I will rephrase and say as we were taking about Watanabe Shihan so I think it would have been clear that it was Aikido ...but is that yourway of saying you have no real clue what hard or soft ...actually do you honestly have a clue regarding Aikido .... is ? or is it just the case you like having a go at Ueshiba Morihei ?


----------



## Tez3

The 'no touch' KO I saw was being demo'd by a BJJ guy. Odd isn't it. runs a gym in the Midlands.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I have not proved your point at all ...........



You dont even realize it.....

How sad. 




> And I will rephrase and say as we were taking about Watanabe Shihan so I think it would have been clear that it was Aikido ...but is that yourway of saying you have no real clue what hard or soft ...actually do you honestly have a clue regarding Aikido .... is ? or is it just the case you like having a go at Ueshiba Morihei ?


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> The 'no touch' KO I saw was being demo'd by a BJJ guy. Odd isn't it. runs a gym in the Midlands.



Sorry Tez, but that can't be right, because:



Hanzou said:


> The very fact that they're doing no-touch KO BS (and they're willing to show it off as if its something to be proud of) invalidates everything else that they're doing.



It must be a PBJJ (pseudo bjj) gym or something, because all his "bjj" is invalidated.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> The 'no touch' KO I saw was being demo'd by a BJJ guy. Odd isn't it. runs a gym in the Midlands.



If what you're saying is true (somehow I doubt it), then everything I said applies to him as well.


----------



## now disabled

Hey hanzou you be ok now as the other Aikido hater is in tha house lol


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> If what you're saying is true (somehow I doubt it), then everything I said applies to him as well.




Are you calling me a liar?

It's actually true which is why I brought the subject up it in the first place, I just thought I'd let you rant on before I told you. So his BJJ is also useless and rubbish...… interesting as it was very good.

Ah well, he had his foible of the 'no touch' KO and you have yours of hating karate. C'est la vie.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Are you calling me a liar?



Maybe.



> It's actually true which is why I brought the subject up it in the first place, I just thought I'd let you rant on before I told you. So his BJJ is also useless and rubbish...… interesting as it was very good.
> 
> Ah well, he had his foible of the 'no touch' KO and you have yours of hating karate. C'est la vie.



Yeah, if he's teaching that nonsense, god knows what else he's teaching to his students.


----------



## now disabled

so Martial D what insights into things are you going to deliver tonight I wonder ? and are you going to call me what was it attention disabled or the like lol or get all upset that I may have the audacity to have a go back at you


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if he's teaching that nonsense, god knows what else he's teaching to his students.





If you are calling a person a liar then have the guts to actually say that don't do the body swerving around it 


An you say it nonsense so the whole world has to agree with you


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think her point is about dismissing everything else someone does because of no-touch. I've learned a few interesting tweaks from folks whose overall technique was pretty much crap. I found what I could to learn from. I even know one group that teaches a no-touch disruption (it's a mind trick, playing on the desire to avoid running into things) that actually works in the dojo (I experienced it without knowing what was coming). I wouldn't trust it in the street, though it was intellectually interesting to muck with. But that didn't affect - positively or negatively - the reliability of their other techniques. It was a hint to me to be a bit more skeptical than usual, so it's not as if I ignored the issue.
> 
> I hold the same view when I talk to a young-Earther about business. I have some extra skepticism because they seem to have a problem with following evidence, but I don't automatically discard everything they think they've learned.



Yeah but the extra scepticism is kind of the key. If they are also relying on all this diversionary logic as well. Then they have credibility issues.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> If you are calling a person a liar then have the guts to actually say that don't do the body swerving around it



What do you have to do with any of this?



> An you say it nonsense so the whole world has to agree with you



No-touch IS nonsense. The fact that you can't accept that is your business.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> Yeah but the extra scepticism is kind of the key. If they are also relying on all this diversionary logic as well. Then they have credibility issues.




I'd agree there DB but not all they do or can do has to be dismissed just cause there one thing ya don't like


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> It matters to the person defending themselves, it matters far more than any competition. The desired result for them is that they get to live.



It doesn't matter to the people making money out of self defense courses. Who then infect that attitude to the students and general culture.

If it mattered it would be results driven. And this argument wouldn't exist.



Tez3 said:


> Still, arguing that ones' style is best is akin to arguing that one's religion is best or that having no faith is best ( one reason for not having religious arguments as well as political ones on here), we've seen where they lead. I like BJJ, I enjoy it, is it the best ever , no, what is? I have no idea but I do know that blowing other people's candles out doesn't make yours shine brighter. BJJ doesn't shine brighter because you think other styles are all pants.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> What do you have to do with any of this?
> 
> 
> 
> No-touch IS nonsense. The fact that you can't accept that is your business.




What the matter you feeling ganged up on lol ...........but your the guy with all the right answers and the rest so what the matter ....you jump in all over the place ....just hang on ya buddy Martial D come and back ya up lol


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> What the matter you feeling ganged up on lol ..........



No, I'm wondering why you're defending someone who doesn't need defending.



> but your the guy with all the right answers....



Most of the time.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> so Martial D what insights into things are you going to deliver tonight I wonder ? and are you going to call me what was it attention disabled or the like lol or get all upset that I may have the audacity to have a go back at you



I am enjoying you have another melt down without actually participating. It's funny watching your grammar and punctuation devolve post by post as you get more and more emotionally invested.

I'm flattered I am important enough to you to call me out in a thread I'm not even participating in though *blush*

I have to say, the whole tough guy routine you are trying for with Hanzou(three times now you've mentioned flying out to grapple/fight him) doesn't suit you so well. I mean, even if you were trained in a combat art(highly debatable), you aren't exactly in tip top fighting form are you? Lol


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I'd agree there DB but not all they do or can do has to be dismissed just cause there one thing ya don't like



At which point I would ask to see something sensible. Like performed on a resisting oponant.

Now the only person I have seen go from nuts to normal is Alan Orr. Who uses force flow magic but also has guys that win fights


----------



## Martial D

As a general aside, MT should have a hard rule about intentionally lying/misrepresenting what another user has said here. There's a lot of it going on in this thread.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm wondering why you're defending someone who doesn't need defending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time.




I'm not defending at all 


Most of the time lol oh that is rich lol


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> As a general aside, MT should have a hard rule about intentionally lying/misrepresenting what another user has said here. There's a lot of it going on in this thread.




No there is not any mis quoting at all you tried that one on me lol no there no mis quoting at all Your buddy Hanzou just says things and then cherry picks what he answers and then ignores the rest see what he wants to see


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> I am enjoying you have another melt down without actually participating. It's funny watching your grammar and punctuation devolve post by post as you get more and more emotionally invested.
> 
> I'm flattered I am important enough to you to call me out in a thread I'm not even participating in though *blush*
> 
> I have to say, the whole tough guy routine you are trying for with Hanzou(three times now you've mentioned flying out to grapple/fight him) doesn't suit you so well. I mean, even if you were trained in a combat art(highly debatable), you aren't exactly in tip top fighting form are you? Lol




Oh so now it my grammar is it ok so now you are suggesting that I am not well educated ..... 


Tough guy act ...oh go to bed little boy  we have already established that you ain't one of those and more than likely have never met one either so don't start that if you really want an argument then lets go private 

And melt down yeah ok look little boy if you call a person attention disabled have s go then tr to make out that you are vastly superior then yes I will have a go back 

Oh I would love to have had you in a basic training squad as lol  guys like you are usually the first to go running crying to their mummy .


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Oh so now it my grammar is it ok so now you are suggesting that I am not well educated .....
> 
> 
> Tough guy act ...oh go to bed little boy  we have already established that you ain't one of those and more than likely have never met one either so don't start that if you really want an argument then lets go private
> 
> And melt down yeah ok look little boy if you call a person attention disabled have s go then tr to make out that you are vastly superior then yes I will have a go back
> 
> Oh I would love to have had you in a basic training squad as lol  guys like you are usually the first to go running crying to their mummy .


You should really stop to breath dude, that kind of stress and anger can't be good for you.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> No there is not any mis quoting at all you tried that one on me lol no there no mis quoting at all Your buddy Hanzou just says things and then cherry picks what he answers and then ignores the rest see what he wants to see


K, let's see direct quotes where @Hanzou says 

-all karate is garbage(or some variation)

-if it's not bjj it's garbage.(or some variation)

Those are two examples off the top of my head from this thread.


----------



## now disabled

For you info Martial D i joined on the 21rst Nov 1986 and served 15 years when I was medically discharged I wa the rank of colour/staff sgt depending if I was serving with infantry or with a corp (yes there is a difference) after discharge I went on to teach at the RMAS for two years and there after went back over seas so no I was never combat trained and am uneducated etc etc etc etc . The one thing I can say is that I severed and that is fact, I lost my wife when I was in one place and she was in another. My final units Tat has five crosses under the Trojans head and I will be the only one with the full set of six. If you wish to test me on Knowledge etc then please come right ahead. I'm sure I can translate it into simple language that you will understand, being that your are no more than an arm chair warrior as we established (oh and saying that your armed services are treated badly ...that you really have no clue about at all just what you will read on the internet or oops you tube forgot you need vids ) so bring on what you wish to ask about anything combat related. 

Oh and for the record I don't act tough and I merely offered your buddy Hanzou the chance of mat time, No more than that no challenges at all and I never said more than I'd love to and that even beat up I think I could cope with him.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> Oh so now it my grammar is it ok so now you are suggesting that I am not well educated .....
> 
> 
> Tough guy act ...oh go to bed little boy  we have already established that you ain't one of those and more than likely have never met one either so don't start that if you really want an argument then lets go private
> 
> And melt down yeah ok look little boy if you call a person attention disabled have s go then tr to make out that you are vastly superior then yes I will have a go back
> 
> Oh I would love to have had you in a basic training squad as lol  guys like you are usually the first to go running crying to their mummy .


I've been mostly staying out of this, but you're not seriously suggesting that you have good grammar are you? I have to read your posts multiple times just to understand it. I never brought it up because it's not an issue, but I assumed you knew you made grammatical errors a bunch...

Regarding the tough guy debate, you realize that by saying "go to bed little boy" and "guys like you are usually the first to go running crying to their mummy", is basically you saying that you are a tough guy compared to Martial D?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> K, let's see direct quotes where @Hanzou says
> 
> -all karate is garbage(or some variation)
> 
> -if it's not bjj it's garbage.(or some variation)
> 
> Those are two examples off the top of my head from this thread.




Eh your buddy was saying that not me


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> I've been mostly staying out of this, but you're not seriously suggesting that you have good grammar are you? I have to read your posts multiple times just to understand it. I never brought it up because it's not an issue, but I assumed you knew you made grammatical errors a bunch...
> 
> Regarding the tough guy debate, you realize that by saying "go to bed little boy" and "guys like you are usually the first to go running crying to their mummy", is basically you saying that you are a tough guy compared to Martial D?




I don't use the keyboard well as I only got two fingers on each hand that work. I am sorry that you have to re read so many times due to that 

And those saying may mean that over where you are from, Here they mean some thing different, it not a togh guy speech at all believe me I seen many tougher guys than me. In fact 5 small crosses on my arm are guys that are way way tougher than I am. 3 of whom lie in St Martins church yard, one was cremated and the other we could not find enough left of him so his grave in his home village is sadly empty less a few bits. 

So no I am no tough guy at all but yes as to Martial D lol he is a silly little boy that needs to resort to calling names but unfortunately like not to be "got" "at"  or he gets upset. Then wonders why will open up back ........sorry but if you give you take, Resorting to slandering a person then that will make me go hard back, esp at a person who thinks he so combat orientated etc and has never seen that, sorry if you are offended


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> K, let's see direct quotes where @Hanzou says
> 
> -all karate is garbage(or some variation)
> 
> -if it's not bjj it's garbage.(or some variation)
> 
> Those are two examples off the top of my head from this thread.



If you have a look around (not just in this thread) you'll find a few references to this - if not word for word then very much directly implied.

Unless you're saying that nobody should read context into anybody's posts and should instead take them purely as written and in isolation?


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> If you have a look around (not just in this thread) you'll find a few references to this - if not word for word then very much directly implied.
> 
> Unless you're saying that nobody should read context into anybody's posts and should instead take them purely as written and in isolation?




Bro ignore it he has issues with me alone so let him have a go here and we shall see what other things he calls me lol..... little boys who are bullies do tend to do that. Just ignore it he has issues with me alone


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> For you info Martial D i joined on the 21rst Nov 1986 and served 15 years when I was medically discharged I wa the rank of colour/staff sgt depending if I was serving with infantry or with a corp (yes there is a difference) after discharge I went on to teach at the RMAS for two years and there after went back over seas so no I was never combat trained and am uneducated etc etc etc etc . The one thing I can say is that I severed and that is fact, I lost my wife when I was in one place and she was in another. My final units Tat has five crosses under the Trojans head and I will be the only one with the full set of six. If you wish to test me on Knowledge etc then please come right ahead. I'm sure I can translate it into simple language that you will understand, being that your are no more than an arm chair warrior as we established (oh and saying that your armed services are treated badly ...that you really have no clue about at all just what you will read on the internet or oops you tube forgot you need vids ) so bring on what you wish to ask about anything combat related.
> 
> Oh and for the record I don't act tough and I merely offered your buddy Hanzou the chance of mat time, No more than that no challenges at all and I never said more than I'd love to and that even beat up I think I could cope with him.


I care about litterally 0 of those things.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Martial D lol he is a silly little boy that needs to resort to calling names



The irony...she is thick.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Bro ignore it he has issues with me alone so let him have a go here and we shall see what other things he calls me lol..... little boys who are bullies do tend to do that. Just ignore it he has issues with me alone


Really though this is a prime example. I have never once, on this board, called anyone a "name", yet here you are talking as if I do it every post. This kind of conduct is disingenuous and childish(not to mention hipocritical considering you have done just that on this page of this thread)

There should be a rule against intentionally lying about what other users have said. This sort of crap has killed a lot of perfectly good threads.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> If you have a look around (not just in this thread) you'll find a few references to this - if not word for word then very much directly implied.
> 
> Unless you're saying that nobody should read context into anybody's posts and should instead take them purely as written and in isolation?


I feel you may be reading your own context into what was written. If not, since there are so many examples, producing one should be easy. Otherwise it seems like sour grapes.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> I feel you may be reading your own context into what was written. If not, since there are so many examples, producing one should be easy. Otherwise it seems like sour grapes.



I should think you're capable of looking yourself, because a quote out of context will only get a "that's not what he meant" response.

And if you say you think I'm putting my own context into it, then I fear you may very well be misrepresenting my words.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> I should think you're capable of looking yourself, because a quote out of context will only get a "that's not what he meant" response.
> 
> And if you say you think I'm putting my own context into it, then I fear you may very well be misrepresenting my words.


Well, no. I don't need to be hunting down proof of claims you made. That's totally backwards.

People, if you insist on going the he said, she said route, use the quote function. It's not hard. I know it's a lot more limiting to work with what people actually say than what you'd have them say, but it's also a lot more honest and a lot less childish.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Really though this is a prime example. I have never once, on this board, called anyone a "name", yet here you are talking as if I do it every post. This kind of conduct is disingenuous and childish(not to mention hipocritical considering you have done just that on this page of this thread)
> 
> There should be a rule against intentionally lying about what other users have said. This sort of crap has killed a lot of perfectly good threads.




Umm so calling a person attention disabled  is ok .....................


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> I care about litterally 0 of those things.




yet you said words to the effect you think it was highly unlikely  I was combat trained .....I merely answered if your not interested then why pray tel say that in the first place? 

Oh and that is not how you point out my lack of grammar (which I admit to but you kinda stole that from another member ) yet it seems you are unable to spell literally ....is that not something lol

Are is it ok for you to make remarks but not have them responded to ?


----------



## Hanzou

The biggest take away from this thread is that there's people who actually think that no touch martial arts are real.

There's literally nothing more hilarious than that.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The biggest take away from this thread is that there's people who actually think that no touch martial arts are real.
> 
> There's literally nothing more hilarious than that.




I do not think anyone thinks they are real are all ................where was that said or is that another one of your made up things ....AGAIN


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I do not think anyone thinks they are real are all ................where was that said or is that another one of your made up things ....AGAIN



Oh really?



Hanzou said:


> So which is it? Impossible or possible?





now disabled said:


> It is whatever the person or people that do it think ....


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Umm so calling a person attention disabled  is ok .....................


Lol THATS your one example?

What I ACTUALLY said was that based on your conduct, I was beginning to wonder if your disabilities extend to your attention span. That is purely a critique of your posting, not of you personally. This is something I still wonder about, as the evidence continues to mount.

What it isn't is 'name calling'. Name calling would be if I say, called you a ''little boy" in the middle of an e-tough guy rant.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> I don't use the keyboard well as I only got two fingers on each hand that work. I am sorry that you have to re read so many times due to that


Just to clarify, my post wasn't meant as a complaint. Just observing that objectively your posts do need rereading. Not commenting on whether or not that matters, or if Martial D was polite in how he brought it up, but that what he stated is true in that regard.



> And those saying may mean that over where you are from, Here they mean some thing different, it not a togh guy speech at all believe me I seen many tougher guys than me. In fact 5 small crosses on my arm are guys that are way way tougher than I am. 3 of whom lie in St Martins church yard, one was cremated and the other we could not find enough left of him so his grave in his home village is sadly empty less a few bits.


It may be a difference in where we live, or a generational difference, or a difference in experience, but to me it comes off as you saying you are tougher than him.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Oh really?




so where is that saying I I believe it real ? ...............you have the opinion it is not and loudly shout that to any one and everyone. Adding that any person that teaches that should not teach MA ........but that opinion is ok, because it your opinion ?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

At this point I'm just getting a bag of popcorn to enjoy until the mods lock this thing up.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> so where is that saying I I believe it real ?



The part where you refuse to say that it is fake.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> Just to clarify, my post wasn't meant as a complaint. Just observing that objectively your posts do need rereading. Not commenting on whether or not that matters, or if Martial D was polite in how he brought it up, but that what he stated is true in that regard.
> 
> 
> It may be a difference in where we live, or a generational difference, or a difference in experience, but to me it comes off as you saying you are tougher than him.




I take your point fully. 

As for toughness ok again if tat how you read same, I only know is  what I have done and been through. Yes he does make me mad as hell as he thinks it ok to make and resort to telling people they are attention disabled and make reference to basically not been educated and that is fine....but if he cannot take the hits then do not give them it as easy as that.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The part where you refuse to say that it is fake.




No I will not say it fake as that is not mine or your place to say ........but you will say anyway .....all I have said is you show lack of understanding as to why and how ....also you said it was modern when it is not in any way ............and you have a great love of trying to have a go at Ueshiba Morihei


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Lol THATS your one example?
> 
> What I ACTUALLY said was that based on your conduct, I was beginning to wonder if your disabilities extend to your attention span. That is purely a critique of your posting, not of you personally. This is something I still wonder about, as the evidence continues to mount.
> 
> What it isn't is 'name calling'. Name calling would be if I say, called you a ''little boy" in the middle of an e-tough guy rant.




Where is the tough guy rant ? 


And make all the assumptions that you like it a free world to do so .......................................

Oh you are now trying to wiggle out of saying things yet again ....Are you trying to show superior intellect, that because I was a mere soldier that you are in some way of higher standing ? 

Sir I would have loved to have had you in military service as many many like you I have seen and all have been as you seem to be like dishing but do not like taking. They found out the hard way


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Where is the tough guy rant ?
> 
> 
> And make all the assumptions that you like it a free world to do so .......................................
> 
> Oh you are now trying to wiggle out of saying things yet again ....Are you trying to show superior intellect, that because I was a mere soldier that you are in some way of higher standing ?
> 
> Sir I would have loved to have had you in military service as many many like you I have seen and all have been as you seem to be like dishing but do not like taking. They found out the hard way


I think intellect, and the lack there of, can be easily identified in a medium such as this not only be presentation, but also by content.

Read that how you will.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> The 'no touch' KO I saw was being demo'd by a BJJ guy. Odd isn't it. runs a gym in the Midlands.


A legit BJJ guy?  Who?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> I think intellect, and the lack there of, can be easily identified in a medium such as this not only be presentation, but also by content.
> 
> Read that how you will.




Use all the fancy words that you desire and  yes show the great grasp you have with the english language. Make the innuendos you wish but sir you are no more than a little boy to me and an arm chair warrior, You ask and make assumptions that I was not trained yet when I answer you are not interested. Fair enough so don't ask simple. Ask and then you will get a reply 

Also as you are able to sit and have the freedoms you have and take for granted, Had it not been for people I served with and worked along side then you would not have what you have today and be able to sit as an arm chair warrior. 

Make all the double entendre you wish but expect that I will rebutt and call you out 

Yes I was a soldier as was my late wife and if you wish to bad mouth or show disrespect then it only goes to prove how little of what really goes on daily you understand and why people give and serve so you can have what you want. 

I am no tough guy I had the pleasure is serving with men of that ilk and what they gave you come no where even close to the bottom of their boot straps


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> The irony...she is thick.


Americans don't get irony.  I think you just have a little indigestion.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> At this point I'm just getting a bag of popcorn to enjoy until the mods lock this thing up.


I thought the thread was actually quite interesting, and for a while enjoyed the off topic banter, as well.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> No I will not say it fake as that is not mine or your place to say ........but you will say anyway .....all I have said is you show lack of understanding as to why and how ....also you said it was modern when it is not in any way ............and you have a great love of trying to have a go at Ueshiba Morihei



Dude, if its within the last 50 years its modern.

Also Ueshiba himself was doing no-touch mumbo jumbo, and he's worshipped as the second coming in Aikido circles. When is O' Sensei going to fall from grace?


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> A legit BJJ guy?  Who?




what does 'legit' mean to you? We have no authorities in charge of martial arts here, no regulation not enforcement of rules etc. He teaches, BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai and follows Bowman's no touch KOs, perhaps he thinks it looks good, who knows.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Americans don't get irony.  I think you just have a little indigestion.




I think he also has a problem with calling men 'she'.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Dude, if its within the last 50 years its modern.
> 
> Also Ueshiba himself was doing no-touch mumbo jumbo, and he's worshipped as the second coming in Aikido circles. When is O' Sensei going to fall from grace?




The Ki thing or no touch as you put it is not new or modern in any way at all 

I do not think your entirely accurate there regarding the second coming and it is not just in Aikido circles he is held in high regard. 

So you are saying that basically on your research and on your logical thoughts Ueshiba Morihei should never have taught MA ?


----------



## now disabled

Tez3 said:


> I think he also has a problem with calling men 'she'.




No he only has a problem with me I think lol.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> what does 'legit' mean to you? We have no authorities in charge of martial arts here, no regulation not enforcement of rules etc. He teaches, BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai and follows Bowman's no touch KOs, perhaps he thinks it looks good, who knows.



Fraud Alert!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> No I will not say it fake as that is not mine or your place to say ........but you will say anyway .....all I have said is you show lack of understanding as to why and how ....also you said it was modern when it is not in any way ............and you have a great love of trying to have a go at Ueshiba Morihei


I haven't seen him be particularly energetic about Ueshiba. He did refer to the video that shows Ueshiba apparently doing no-touch in his later years. We don't know the context of that video, but taken on its own it does raise good questions about what Ueshiba was teaching near the end of his time. And those are fair questions to ask.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Where is the tough guy rant ?
> 
> 
> And make all the assumptions that you like it a free world to do so .......................................
> 
> Oh you are now trying to wiggle out of saying things yet again ....Are you trying to show superior intellect, that because I was a mere soldier that you are in some way of higher standing ?
> 
> Sir I would have loved to have had you in military service as many many like you I have seen and all have been as you seem to be like dishing but do not like taking. They found out the hard way


Where in that did he refer to you being a "mere soldier"?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> The Ki thing or no touch as you put it is not new or modern in any way at all
> 
> I do not think your entirely accurate there regarding the second coming and it is not just in Aikido circles he is held in high regard.
> 
> So you are saying that basically on your research and on your logical thoughts Ueshiba Morihei should never have taught MA ?



Once he reached the point where he started teaching no-touch, he should have hung up the kimono.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Where in that did he refer to you being a "mere soldier"?




Let the person himself respond as he alludes to intellect etc so let him respond.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Once he reached the point where he started teaching no-touch, he should have hung up the kimono.




Oh ok 

Are you aware as to why he pursued that "way" 

That is a bit of a change from you making out that any person that teaches the Ki approach should not teach MA is it not ? Or is that just another subtle change in direction ?


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I haven't seen him be particularly energetic about Ueshiba. He did refer to the video that shows Ueshiba apparently doing no-touch in his later years. We don't know the context of that video, but taken on its own it does raise good questions about what Ueshiba was teaching near the end of his time. And those are fair questions to ask.




Oh he has been fairly energetic about Ueshiba Morihei ...... however that is as it is.

Also in saying that the Ki approach is "modern" is some what at the very least misguided


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Let the person himself respond as he alludes to intellect etc so let him respond.


That's not how that works. I asked you a question, because your post - the one I quoted - seemed to be saying he made a comment about you being a mere soldier. I didn't see him make any such reference, so was asking you to point me to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Oh he has been fairly energetic about Ueshiba Morihei ...... however that is as it is.
> 
> Also in saying that the Ki approach is "modern" is some what at the very least misguided


I think his reference to "modern" was to either Aikido (which is a modern art) or to the videos (which are all modern) showing it being taught, rather than to the concept itself.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That's not how that works. I asked you a question, because your post - the one I quoted - seemed to be saying he made a comment about you being a mere soldier. I didn't see him make any such reference, so was asking you to point me to it.




I made that reference sir, 

My intellect and lack there of was behind that.

His reference to it being in his view highly unlikely I was trained in any combat and by that alluding to I have not gone through what I have gave rise to that 

As I said I have met many of that ilk, and if not for the likes of my friends, others I served with and my late wife he would not have the luxury of taking for granted the freedoms he has this day. 

I am not sorry for exploding at him in any way at all as I have seen many of that ilk


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I think his reference to "modern" was to either Aikido (which is a modern art) or to the videos (which are all modern) showing it being taught, rather than to the concept itself.




Maybe so and that I take on board,.

If that is what he means then as he likes being specific then let him be so ..... I will and argue and counter his points, If he chooses to wiggle out of answering and cherry picking, then that is his choice but I will call him on that


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Fraud Alert!




Who cares? I really don't. There's people in every style who are incompetent such as your karate instructor who gives black belts to kids. Is it fraud, it depends on the intentions. If they believe what they are doing is correct and are teaching it with the belief that it's correct then it's not fraud. if they are knowingly teaching something that doesn't work with the intention of gaining monetarily or by some other means by it, it's fraud.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Who cares? I really don't. There's people in every style who are incompetent such as your karate instructor who gives black belts to kids. Is it fraud, it depends on the intentions. If they believe what they are doing is correct and are teaching it with the belief that it's correct then it's not fraud. if they are knowingly teaching something that doesn't work with the intention of gaining monetarily or by some other means by it, it's fraud.



Clearly if you're teaching no touch KOs you KNOW its utter nonsense because it is impossible to knock someone out without touching them.

Thus your BJJ "instructor" is purposely misleading people in order to make money. Hence, the very definition of a fraud.



now disabled said:


> Are you aware as to why he pursued that "way"



I could care less.


----------



## Steve

Who is this guy again?   As in, what is his name?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I could care less.




I am assuming that is a typo lol?

Either way there is a lack of understanding somewhere.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Clearly if you're teaching no touch KOs you KNOW its utter nonsense because it is impossible to knock someone out without touching them.
> 
> Thus your BJJ "instructor" is purposely misleading people in order to make money. Hence, the very definition of a fraud.




So dare I ask what do you think is valid (we all know very well all that you think is invalid) and who do you think should be teaching ? 

Do you think it is good practice to go around picking faults and basically saying almost all, except what you think works in MA should never be taught? Do you or have you ever actually been in any dojo or the like where a person does follow the KI approach or are all your validations made via vids and articles? 

You stated you had taken a few classes in Aikido ...yes? well was it of the Ki style or not ? if not then do you have or do you actually know what is taught within those dojo ? are you of the impression that everything is no touch as you put it?  or are you just making that assumption?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I'd even consider that a wizzer. My understanding of a wizzer (pretty much third-hand, and relating it back to what I know that's similar) is that it's a takedown from the shoulder/upper arm. He's using the wizzer (sort of) to restrain the shoulder forward, but the takedown is a leg sweep, with little input from the shoulder.


You don’t have the terminology quite right there. A whizzer is an overhook applied with pressure on the shoulder. Most often it is used in attempt to negate the advantage of the opponent’s undertook. It can be used as a component of multiple takedowns if applied while standing, but the takedown is not the whizzer.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> So dare I ask what do you think is valid (we all know very well all that you think is invalid) and who do you think should be teaching ?



Too much to name in this thread.



> Do you think it is good practice to go around picking faults and basically saying almost all, except what you think works in MA should never be taught?



I wouldn't do it if I didnt think it was good practice.



> Do you or have you ever actually been in any dojo or the like where a person does follow the KI approach or are all your validations made via vids and articles?



If I'm looking for martial art instruction why would I attend a magic show? 



> You stated you had taken a few classes in Aikido ...yes? well was it of the Ki style or not ? if not then do you have or do you actually know what is taught within those dojo ? are you of the impression that everything is no touch as you put it?  or are you just making that assumption?



Yes. No. Yes. No. No.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yes. No. Yes. No. No.




So no you have never attended a Ki style class ? So pray do tell how you know what and how things are taught? so the last two No's are assumptions are they not ? or is your validation from vids  or somewhere else ?


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> So no you have never attended a Ki style class ? So pray do tell how you know what and how things are taught? so the last two No's are assumptions are they not ? or is your validation from vids  or somewhere else ?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


>




yes that does show the little boy in you lol....off you pop and play with your bucket and spade lol


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> A legit BJJ guy?  Who?





Tez3 said:


> what does 'legit' mean to you? We have no authorities in charge of martial arts here, no regulation not enforcement of rules etc. He teaches, BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai and follows Bowman's no touch KOs, perhaps he thinks it looks good, who knows.



For me a “legit” BJJ guy would be someone at least holding actual rank in BJJ. If he’s instructing, I’d expect a minimum of purple belt, preferably brown or black. 

I’m interested in who this is as well. The BJJ community tries to police itself and call out teachers who damage the reputation of the art. A BJJ instructor who teaches no-touch knockouts is going to face a lot of questions from the BJJ world once word gets out.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> yes that does show the little boy in you lol....off you pop and play with your bucket and spade lol


Just so you know, I've reported every post in this thread where you resort to "name calling" (this one included) that's 9 posts just in this thread. (Plus your unsolicited rage fueled PM)You are more than welcome to do the same if you can find any posts of mine where I resort to such behaviour.

(Hint, they don't exist)

If you want to be taken seriously, a good start would be to comport yourself like an adult. Just a tip.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Martial D said:


> K, let's see direct quotes where @Hanzou says
> 
> -all karate is garbage(or some variation)
> 
> -if it's not bjj it's garbage.(or some variation)
> 
> Those are two examples off the top of my head from this thread.





pdg said:


> If you have a look around (not just in this thread) you'll find a few references to this - if not word for word then very much directly implied.
> 
> Unless you're saying that nobody should read context into anybody's posts and should instead take them purely as written and in isolation?


For the record, Hanzou’s clearly stated position for as long as I’ve seen him on this forum has been that in addition to his love of BJJ he also strongly respects boxing, Muay Thai, Judo, Sambo, wrestling, Kyokushin karate, and any other art that is typically trained with hard contact sparring. I’d say that’s very different from “all karate is garbage” or “if it’s not BJJ it’s garbage.”

There are plenty of Hanzou’s positions that you could disagree with, but I recommend arguing with the things he’s actually saying.


----------



## Martial D

Tony Dismukes said:


> For me a “legit” BJJ guy would be someone at least holding actual rank in BJJ. If he’s instructing, I’d expect a minimum of purple belt, preferably brown or black.
> 
> I’m interested in who this is as well. The BJJ community tries to police itself and call out teachers who damage the reputation of the art. A BJJ instructor who teaches no-touch knockouts is going to face a lot of questions from the BJJ world once word gets out.


It's highly unlikely this is a true story.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Martial D said:


> It's highly unlikely this is a true story.


I’m not inclined to suspect Tez of making it up.

I do think it’s quite possible that the person in question isn’t a legitimate BJJ instructor.

On then the other hand, there are BJJ instructors who are flaky in one way or another. (Eddie Bravo is a flat earther for crying out loud.) Usually they confine their nuttiness to non-martial matters. If there is a ranked instructor out there who is bringing no-touch nonsense onto the mats, then there is an excellent probability that it is poisoning the rest of their teaching and training as well. In that case, the greater BJJ community would probably want to steer students away from that school.


----------



## now disabled

oh for those that wish to know the pm said 

Listen you silly little boy Yes I was trained in the military served 15 years so don't start that **** .......

Ans as far as education .........well if a first class joint honours degree counts as nothing then ok I am not and if you want the serial number of said to check then I will give it no probs


before you start alluding 


I stand by all I have said to you and responded solely to you retorts and what you have alluded to etc .........I am sure that you will get me banned and so be it if that is your desire then let it happen 


You sir are an arm chair warrior who has ero respect and makes the assumption that you are superior there by you get the dumb squaddie replies ...of little boy etc etc etc .......


----------



## Martial D

Tony Dismukes said:


> I’m not inclined to suspect Tez of making it up.
> 
> I do think it’s quite possible that the person in question isn’t a legitimate BJJ instructor.
> 
> On then the other hand, there are BJJ instructors who are flaky in one way or another. (Eddie Bravo is a flat earther for crying out loud.) Usually they confine their nuttiness to non-martial matters. If there is a ranked instructor out there who is bringing no-touch nonsense onto the mats, then there is an excellent probability that it is poisoning the rest of their teaching and training as well. In that case, the greater BJJ community would probably want to steer students away from that school.


I'm inclined.  The only way that could be true is if they did it in secret(then how'd she know?).

The bjj community is small and tight knit, you just couldn't get away with doing that the same way you could in a "performance" art. Not for very long, anyway.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Clearly if you're teaching no touch KOs you KNOW its utter nonsense because it is impossible to knock someone out without touching them.




Well you and I know it's nonsense but there's a fair few people out there who don't think it is. There's a lot of people who believe the world is flat, that dinosaurs are the work of the devil and that the world is only 5000 years old, there's no accounting for what people believe in. You can't say that someone who teaches something that we know is nonsense is a fraud. 



Hanzou said:


> Thus your BJJ "instructor" is purposely misleading people in order to make money. Hence, the very definition of a fraud.



Very few instructors in this country make money from teaching martial arts, you would also have to prove that he doesn't believe what he teaches is true, as above I know a great many people who believe quite weird things. They believe sincerely but erroneously. It's not fraud unless you can prove it's a fraud. A great many people pray to a deity, a great many others think that's just the same as a 'no touch' KO ie a nonsense but it's still not fraud.



Hanzou said:


> I could care less.


so you actually care a lot then. "I couldn’t care less." CORRECT!

I'm not going to decide who is 'legitimate' and who isn't, if people want to teach 'no touch' KOS then let them, we aren't a nanny state, we let people decide things for themselves whether it's worth knowing.  No one in the UK is going to go knocking on others doors, we don't even had a huge BJJ community here, I'm sure they know and don't actually care _what else he teaches _ away from the BJJ classes. His BJJ classes etc aren't invalidated because his SD classes are pants as a great many people's are, a subject we've all covered before.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> The only way that could be true is if they did it in secret(then how'd she know?).
> 
> The bjj community is small and tight knit, you just couldn't get away with doing that the same way you could in a "performance" art. Not for very long, anyway.




It's not in secret, I already said it was at a martial arts seminar. As I've also just said we don't have much of a BJJ 'community' here. If it's taught in a separate self defence class, not a BJJ class, why would anyone in BJJ care? Many self defence classes are absolute rubbish, many instructors have very little knowledge and absolutely none of women's self defence. Many of this instructor's self defence techniques were good, practical and workable which I also said. Many techniques are common to many styles so they work whether or not the instructor believes and teaches weird stuff or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Clearly if you're teaching no touch KOs you KNOW its utter nonsense because it is impossible to knock someone out without touching them.
> 
> Thus your BJJ "instructor" is purposely misleading people in order to make money. Hence, the very definition of a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less.


You'd think so, but there is that one old guy who accepted the challenge from the MMA dude, and apparently thought his ki technique would protect him. There's also the guy who did the ki-based deflections (yellow something or other) who let a challenger kneel in front of him and try to punch, expecting his ki defense to protect him. Both got punched and seemed surprised by it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> You don’t have the terminology quite right there. A whizzer is an overhook applied with pressure on the shoulder. Most often it is used in attempt to negate the advantage of the opponent’s undertook. It can be used as a component of multiple takedowns if applied while standing, but the takedown is not the whizzer.


Thanks for the correction, Tony!


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> I'm sure they know and don't actually care _what else he teaches _ away from the BJJ classes. His BJJ classes etc aren't invalidated because his SD classes are pants as a great many people's are, a subject we've all covered before.



That's a lot different than no-touch bjj though.

If I was the world's best chi sau guy but I also gave online courses in nietschean philosophy on the side, that doesn't mean I teach ubermench chi sau.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> That's a lot different than no-touch bjj though.



I don't believe anyone even hinted at no touch bjj...


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> You'd think so, but there is that one old guy who accepted the challenge from the MMA dude, and apparently thought his ki technique would protect him. There's also the guy who did the ki-based deflections (yellow something or other) who let a challenger kneel in front of him and try to punch, expecting his ki defense to protect him. Both got punched and seemed surprised by it.



Belief is a very powerful thing my friend. If your internal mechanism for sorting reality from fiction isn't evidence based, you can end up believing in literally any crazy thing, with your whole heart.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> I don't believe anyone even hinted at no touch bjj...


The way Tez initially worded it it seemed to me(and evidently others) that that was what she meant.

It seems to be clarified now.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> That's a lot different than no-touch bjj though.




You've missed the point*. I didn't say no touch BJJ. No, you were the only one to misunderstand.*
In fact you've misunderstood the whole conversation and I really cannot be bothered to explain it all to you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I'm inclined.  The only way that could be true is if they did it in secret(then how'd she know?).
> 
> The bjj community is small and tight knit, you just couldn't get away with doing that the same way you could in a "performance" art. Not for very long, anyway.


The BJJ community's close-knittedness is outside my experience in my training. It's interesting to me, because if I hadn't experienced otherwise, I'd have expected similar community among most arts. But even within NGA, if someone were teaching something we all thought was crap, only someone directly above them in the hierarchy of their organization (assuming they were in one) would be likely to say much to them about it. And if someone started claiming to teach NGA without any training in it, I'm not sure anyone but a nearby dojo would have anything to say about it. But then, we also don't have a brand reputation - and recognition - worth protecting.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> The way Tez initially worded it it seemed to me(and evidently others) that that was what she meant.



You weren't (shock horror) arguing against a statement that wasn't made were you?


----------



## now disabled

@gpseymour 

Sir, I respect your views and comments totally but please let the guy that has the issues with me fight his own battles ......he should need no support at all 

I stand by all I have said to him and I always will ...if you feel aggrieved by that then sorry but let him fight his own battles he decided to draw the line in the sand so let it be ...if he wishes to dish it he should learn to take it and also learn that people this side of the pond will take so much and then we will stand and fight and not back down. We may share a common base but our ways are very different


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> You weren't (shock horror) arguing against a statement that wasn't made were you?


Yes, we can all misunderstand things. The key is to be open to clarification.

Lacking that, you have things like this thread.


Edit
For instance, when you made your earlier claims about Hanzou, and continued to double down after being called out on it, while producing no examples.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Yes, we can all misunderstand things. The key is to be open to clarification.
> 
> Lacking that, you have things like this thread.




Eh no lacking that you get folks getting all upset and then running for cover claiming the high ground ............there are only two people here that have issues and that is me and you with each other so don't go dragging others in stand your own ground


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Eh no lacking that you get folks getting all upset and then running for cover claiming the high ground ............there are only two people here that have issues and that is me and you with each other so don't go dragging others in stand your own ground


Dude. I could not care less about you or what you think if there was a paycheck in it. To be honest I skip most of your posts as they are written in pidgeon English and there is never any juice to the squeeze of trying to decipher them. 

I do not share your blinding rage. So sorry.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> For instance, when you made your earlier claims about Hanzou, and continued to double down after being called out on it, while producing no examples.



Because to provide examples they need to be taken in context with the preceding posts, sometimes many of them.

I'd be quoting a fair proportion of the thread to get the whole thing, so it's far easier to say "read the thread"...


----------



## pdg

Utterly unrelated side question alert...



Hanzou said:


> I could care less.





Martial D said:


> I could not care less



Which version is correct in your locale?

Here, it's "could not care less", but I've heard "could care less" meaning the same thing in a fair few imported TV progs/films.

Just a curiosity.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Dude. I could not care less about you or what you think if there was a paycheck in it. To be honest I skip most of your posts as they are written in pidgeon English and there is never any juice to the squeeze of trying to decipher them.
> 
> I do not share your blinding rage. So sorry.




I do not write in pigeon English (I may not punctuate properly but that has to do with my use of a keyboard) so do not start alluding to that. 

If you do not read then how all the replies and how all the reports your making and why are you pray tell trying to gather support ?

Sir where is the paycheck ? what are you alluding to there ? 

There is nothing that I have said to you on here that I would not stand in front of you and say. You should realize and know (being you are Canadian and a subject of the crown) that push us and we will stand, alone if necessary but stand we will. 

It does get to us eventually over here that we are treated like little kids and spoken to as such. Yet we we open up broadside back you people such as yourself either get all upset and wonder why or you go running for cover shouting and screaming. 

If you dish it out ten take it back and never expect that people from this side will not say what they mean and leave no ambiguity in such.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Utterly unrelated side question alert...
> 
> LOL good one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which version is correct in your locale?
> 
> Here, it's "could not care less", but I've heard "could care less" meaning the same thing in a fair few imported TV progs/films.
> 
> Just a curiosity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> @gpseymour
> 
> Sir, I respect your views and comments totally but please let the guy that has the issues with me fight his own battles ......he should need no support at all
> 
> I stand by all I have said to him and I always will ...if you feel aggrieved by that then sorry but let him fight his own battles he decided to draw the line in the sand so let it be ...if he wishes to dish it he should learn to take it and also learn that people this side of the pond will take so much and then we will stand and fight and not back down. We may share a common base but our ways are very different


I'm not here to support anyone. As I would with any discussion, when I'm confused, I ask questions. When I think someone else is confused, I try to supply clarity. It's a public forum, and discussions aren't meant to be 1-1.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Utterly unrelated side question alert...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which version is correct in your locale?
> 
> Here, it's "could not care less", but I've heard "could care less" meaning the same thing in a fair few imported TV progs/films.
> 
> Just a curiosity.


"I could care less" used to be used only with sarcasm, but has begun to become widely used in the US. Technically, "I could not care less" is the more correct, for now.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Martial D said:


> That's a lot different than no-touch bjj though.
> 
> If I was the world's best chi sau guy but I also gave online courses in nietschean philosophy on the side, that doesn't mean I teach ubermench chi sau.





pdg said:


> I don't believe anyone even hinted at no touch bjj...





Tez3 said:


> You've missed the point*. I didn't say no touch BJJ. No, you were the only one to misunderstand.*
> In fact you've misunderstood the whole conversation and I really cannot be bothered to explain it all to you.


I can’t even imagine what no-touch BJJ would look like, so I didn’t think Tez was referring to such a thing.

She said “no-touch KO”. That’s a purported martial application that is based, so far as I’ve been able to tell, on psychologically conditioning students to take a dive without realizing they are doing so. (Frequently the instructor buys into the delusion as well. )An instructor who will do that to such an extent in one area of their training will do it in another.

The very foundation of BJJ lies in continually testing what is taught. If my students start to unconsciously let me get away with stuff in sparring because they believe I have mystical powers, then I’m going to start getting sloppy, missing key details, having too much faith in low-percentage moves, thinking I understand the techniques better than I actually do. In turn, I’ll pass that degraded understanding on to my students. Even if I’m still teaching “real” techniques, the underpinnings of those techniques have been weakened. That’s why I correct my students when they let me get away with stuff I shouldn’t so that they can give me a harder time next time around.

An instructor who teaches “no-touch KOs” is going the opposite direction. Their BJJ (or other martial art) will suffer as a result.


----------



## pdg

Tony Dismukes said:


> An instructor who teaches “no-touch KOs” is going the opposite direction. Their BJJ (or other martial art) will suffer as a result.



I sort of see your point with this - not that I believe in ntko any more than the celestial teapot mind...

Yet oddly, no-touch techniques are taught and used at all levels in some arts - only they refer to them as "feints" or similar.


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Their BJJ (or other martial art) will suffer as a result.




Does it though, when in other classes their instruction is spot on? no touch KO's are a belief thing as is religion, are Xtian instructors techniques impinged because they sit and pray before the class for the techniques to work and they credit their wins to G-d being on their side when they fight in competitions?
if no touch KO's are taught in a self defence class how is a BJJ class where they just teach BJJ suffer, how does it impact on their other classes when this thing is only taught in one? As I've said many instructors teach BJJ, TKD, MT, Judo etc perfectly well but their Sd classes are utter rubbish especially for women.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'm not here to support anyone. As I would with any discussion, when I'm confused, I ask questions. When I think someone else is confused, I try to supply clarity. It's a public forum, and discussions aren't meant to be 1-1.




Ok fair point I have no issues answering anything you wish to ask


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> if no touch KO's are taught in a self defence class how is a BJJ class where they just teach BJJ suffer, how does it impact on their other classes when this thing is only taught in one?


Re-read the rest of my reply. Even if they teach the no-touch KO in a different class, the underlying self-delusion mindset can very easily carry over into their BJJ (just in a less obvious fashion).


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Does it though, when in other classes their instruction is spot on? no touch KO's are a belief thing as is religion, are Xtian instructors techniques impinged because they sit and pray before the class for the techniques to work and they credit their wins to G-d being on their side when they fight in competitions?
> if no touch KO's are taught in a self defence class how is a BJJ class where they just teach BJJ suffer, how does it impact on their other classes when this thing is only taught in one? As I've said many instructors teach BJJ, TKD, MT, Judo etc perfectly well but their Sd classes are utter rubbish especially for women.



I think it depends on how deep that belief runs myself (even though you didn't ask me )

If someone gives credit to prayer for a technique working that's pretty much up to them.

If they try to impress the importance of prayer on their students and tell them they need to pray or their art will fail - well that's a different matter...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

pdg said:


> I sort of see your point with this - not that I believe in ntko any more than the celestial teapot mind...
> 
> Yet oddly, no-touch techniques are taught and used at all levels in some arts - only they refer to them as "feints" or similar.


Feints are psychological tricks that can work on skilled, tough, non-cooperative opponents that you've never met before.

No-touch KOs are psychological tricks that only work on certain individuals that you've spent a long time mentally conditioning to cooperate with you. I'd say that's an important distinction.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I think it depends on how deep that belief runs myself (even though you didn't ask me )
> 
> If someone gives credit to prayer for a technique working that's pretty much up to them.
> 
> If they try to impress the importance of prayer on their students and tell them they need to pray or their art will fail - well that's a different matter...




I agree there 

If people wish to believe in something then that is there own choice and if it works for them and gives them whatever they seek


----------



## now disabled

Tony Dismukes said:


> Feints are psychological tricks that can work on skilled, tough, non-cooperative opponents that you've never met before.
> 
> No-touch KOs are psychological tricks that only work on certain individuals that you've spent a long time mentally conditioning to cooperate with you. I'd say that's an important distinction.




Well done and well explained 

Yes the stuff that Ueshiba (just one example) did latterly was mostly done with the uke or Uke's he had used for years and there by they knew what was coming and reacted that way ...........ok staged somewhat maybe ...yes some would have been to keep their old master in the lime light. But fraud no, yes Ueshiba was and had gone to a more spiritual path and that is well recorded and documented.


----------



## pdg

Tony Dismukes said:


> Feints are psychological tricks that can work on skilled, tough, non-cooperative opponents that you've never met before.
> 
> No-touch KOs are psychological tricks that only work on certain individuals that you've spent a long time mentally conditioning to cooperate with you. I'd say that's an important distinction.



Yes, it's an important distinction - but I've not seen it made before.

It's more usually referred to as "no-touch techniques", which by definition really includes the stuff that actually works, as well as the knock outs...



That said, I came within a mile of knocking someone out without touching them the other day - during step sparring my opponent attempted an upward elbow, managed to punch herself in the ear really quite hard and had to have a little break


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Re-read the rest of my reply. Even if they teach the no-touch KO in a different class, the underlying self-delusion mindset can very easily carry over into their BJJ (just in a less obvious fashion).




Ah well we have all seen even BJJ people with the self delusion that it is the only style that can work so no change there then!



pdg said:


> If they try to impress the importance of prayer on their students and tell them they need to pray or their art will fail - well that's a different matter...




I've come across people like that too, I tend to be a bit of a magnet to that type, they want me to convert and find the only right way there is …. theirs of course.

If people are going to spend their lives ranting about other styles being frauds, ineffective or whatever they are going to find they have nothing else in their lives. I prefer to think it's not my business and get on with life, I have a grandbaby to knit for!!!


----------



## now disabled

Tez3 said:


> I've come across people like that too, I tend to be a bit of a magnet to that type, they want me to convert and find the only right way there is …. theirs of course.




Yes those people are imo dangerous and wars have been started that way lol


----------



## Tony Dismukes

pdg said:


> That said, I came within a mile of knocking someone out without touching them the other day - during step sparring my opponent attempted an upward elbow, managed to punch herself in the ear really quite hard and had to have a little break


I actually pulled off a "no touch throw" years ago when I was very much a beginning martial artist.

I was sparring a friend and had been nailing him repeatedly with long range side kicks. He lost his temper and charged at me with a flurry of punches. I (by luck more than skill) sidestepped with perfect timing and he tripped over his own feet and flew head first into a wall.

The difference between this occurrence and what's been demonstrated by certain instructors is that I recognized the "throw" had much more to do with my sparring partner being a klutz than with my slick evasive timing. Any time you see someone demonstrating the ability to pull off such a stunt consistently, it means that their uke has been encouraged to throw themselves off balance in training rather than the opposite.


----------



## Steve

I found A picture of the no-touch BJJ instructor.  





gpseymour said:


> "I could care less" used to be used only with sarcasm, but has begun to become widely used in the US. Technically, "I could not care less" is the more correct, for now.


Sometimes, when I walk, I could carless.


----------



## pdg

Tony Dismukes said:


> I actually pulled off a "no touch throw" years ago when I was very much a beginning martial artist.
> 
> I was sparring a friend and had been nailing him repeatedly with long range side kicks. He lost his temper and charged at me with a flurry of punches. I (by luck more than skill) sidestepped with perfect timing and he tripped over his own feet and flew head first into a wall.



I've been on both sides of similar occurrences.

It didn't cross my mind that either was planned, or indeed a repeatable technique. Well, not without consistent not being very good anyway


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I found A picture of the no-touch BJJ instructor.
> 
> View attachment 21793
> 
> Sometimes, when I walk, I could carless.




A Bulldog lol .............that funny lol 


stop texting or looking at your phone then and use your spectacles (plus cord ) then no careless lol ...oh and lamp post be safer too


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> A Bulldog lol .............that funny lol
> 
> 
> stop texting or looking at your phone then and use your spectacles (plus cord ) then no careless lol ...oh and lamp post be safer too


I'm going to start saying, "I could care more."


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I'm going to start saying, "I could care more."




really oh no don't do that 

I bet you were the one that put the cinder block in my Bergen ........


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I'm going to start saying, "I could care more."



Where does apathy sit on the "could (/not) care less" scale?


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Where does apathy sit on the "could (/not) care less" scale?




He the translator


----------



## Tony Dismukes

pdg said:


> Where does apathy sit on the "could (/not) care less" scale?


Try saying “l _could_ care ...” and then sort of trail off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I sort of see your point with this - not that I believe in ntko any more than the celestial teapot mind...
> 
> Yet oddly, no-touch techniques are taught and used at all levels in some arts - only they refer to them as "feints" or similar.


A no-touch fake isn't the same as expecting it to have a dramatic effect. And those feints are usually supported by the fact that they'll work on someone who doesn't know what effect they're supposed to have - usually work better on them, in fact.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Where does apathy sit on the "could (/not) care less" scale?


Morrissey, "I could care...."


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Try saying “l _could_ care ...” and then sort of trail off.


i was too slow....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Re-read the rest of my reply. Even if they teach the no-touch KO in a different class, the underlying self-delusion mindset can very easily carry over into their BJJ (just in a less obvious fashion).


I'd be more concerned about what it says of their students' relationship to the material. One of the things I depend upon to keep me honest is that students don't fall down when I haven't yet thrown them, etc. - like you mentioned in a prior post. If his students are falling down for the no-touch, I'd have to be concerned whether his BJJ students are doing the same thing with his arm bar and such.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Yes, it's an important distinction - but I've not seen it made before.
> 
> It's more usually referred to as "no-touch techniques", which by definition really includes the stuff that actually works, as well as the knock outs...
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I came within a mile of knocking someone out without touching them the other day - during step sparring my opponent attempted an upward elbow, managed to punch herself in the ear really quite hard and had to have a little break


Now, if you could only manage to make that predictable. That'd be an excellent self-defense technique. Heck, you could use it without provocation, and never get in trouble, so long as there were cameras or witnesses to show that they hit themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Where does apathy sit on the "could (/not) care less" scale?


Meh, who cares?


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Morrissey, "I could care...."




Oh now we are getting into a person that can get and does get extremely deep in his thoughts lol.......................................................Obviously you get him others may well not


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Similar to Tony, I've used no touch in fencing before. I'd let the person advance on me, assuming for a counter attack, when i see i won't get it but they overextend. I avoid (sometimes parry) their blade and launch into some combination of balestra (a little jump thing) advance (moving forwards) and a fleche (kind of sideways run). Sometimes it would disorient them and theyd stall, letting me get the point, but sometimes they would actually fall backwards. I found it hilarious. Have yet to do the same thing empty handed though


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> Similar to Tony, I've used no touch in fencing before. I'd let the person advance on me, assuming for a counter attack, when i see i won't get it but they overextend. I avoid (sometimes parry) their blade and launch into some combination of balestra (a little jump thing) advance (moving forwards) and a fleche (kind of sideways run). Sometimes it would disorient them and theyd stall, letting me get the point, but sometimes they would actually fall backwards. I found it hilarious. Have yet to do the same thing empty handed though




Is that really no touch or could it be more you blended with your opponent and used what they were doing to facilitate the outcome ?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> Is that really no touch or could it be more you blended with your opponent and used what they were doing to facilitate the outcome ?


Well, during the times that they fell, i got them to stumble and fall over without touching them. To me that sounds exactly like a no touch throw.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> Well, during the times that they fell, i got them to stumble and fall over without touching them. To me that sounds exactly like a no touch throw.



Ok .....To me it more you used the skill you had, to use what they gave you ...........but I accept your view on it


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I'd have to be concerned whether his BJJ students are doing the same thing with his arm bar and such.




I've no idea whether they would or wouldn't, my point though is that if he is teaching honestly then it's not fraud. He can certainly be teaching incompetently, badly, wrongly and a lot of other 'lys' but if he believes he's teaching it because it works ( and he had to have been taught by someone to do it) then we cannot accuse him of defrauding anyone.

Now a lot of others are also teaching badly including some in BJJ, I won't accuse them of fraud either. I've seen BJJ people who really do think that that all other styles are inferior, something they often accuse others in martial arts of doing. 

What is annoying however is some people's assumption that only they 'test' their style, only they can say their style works because of that.  The assumption that all karate schools teach the same thing and that it doesn't work is ridiculous, as most know there are many styles of karate including mine, Wado Ryu which includes take downs, grappling moves etc. It did since it's inception. There is a certain kind of arrogance in thinking that one knows it all because of just a few things one has seen.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I'd be more concerned about what it says of their students' relationship to the material. One of the things I depend upon to keep me honest is that students don't fall down when I haven't yet thrown them, etc. - like you mentioned in a prior post. If his students are falling down for the no-touch, I'd have to be concerned whether his BJJ students are doing the same thing with his arm bar and such.



That'd only be a problem though if he couldn't separate the training.

Or if his students couldn't (assuming they do more than one thing, or if he offers more than one thing, or if he even trains others in nt techs over doing entertainment demos).


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Does it though, when in other classes their instruction is spot on? no touch KO's are a belief thing as is religion, are Xtian instructors techniques impinged because they sit and pray before the class for the techniques to work and they credit their wins to G-d being on their side when they fight in competitions?
> if no touch KO's are taught in a self defence class how is a BJJ class where they just teach BJJ suffer, how does it impact on their other classes when this thing is only taught in one? As I've said many instructors teach BJJ, TKD, MT, Judo etc perfectly well but their Sd classes are utter rubbish especially for women.



Easy to find out though. Tell us who the guy is and we can hunt down if his bjj is any good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> That'd only be a problem though if he couldn't separate the training.
> 
> Or if his students couldn't (assuming they do more than one thing, or if he offers more than one thing, or if he even trains others in nt techs over doing entertainment demos).


It's not so much about separating the training, as the mindset of the students. If he manages to engender - on purpose or by accident - the same acceptance of outcome that causes people to react to the no-touch ki/chi techniques, that could show up (again, either on purpose or by accident) in the BJJ stuff. I think that's what Tony was getting at. And that reaction from students can lead to sloppy technique, because he would be able to get away with arm bars and such that similarly skilled people could escape, but which his students cannot/would not.

It's why I said I'd have to be extra-skeptical looking at the rest of what someone does if they incorporate anything like no-touch ki stuff. I've seen easily defeatable techniques taught (and accepted by students) as undefeatable, because of trained mindsets. Once you get to that point, a lot of small, but important stuff often goes out the window.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Well you and I know it's nonsense but there's a fair few people out there who don't think it is. There's a lot of people who believe the world is flat, that dinosaurs are the work of the devil and that the world is only 5000 years old, there's no accounting for what people believe in. You can't say that someone who teaches something that we know is nonsense is a fraud.



So if some guy was scamming your family member out of money, would it be fraud if your family member didn't realize that they were getting scammed and thought the con-man was a nice guy?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> So if some guy was scamming your family member out of money, would it be fraud if your family member didn't realize that they were getting scammed and thought the con-man was a nice guy?


Not if someone didn't know they were committing fraud. The people near the bottom of the pyramid scheme who don't realize it's a pyramid scheme thing to get you to join aren't being criminals, just stupid.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Not if someone didn't know they were committing fraud. The people near the bottom of the pyramid scheme who don't realize it's a pyramid scheme thing to get you to join aren't being criminals, just stupid.



YOU know they're committing fraud against your family. That's my point.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> YOU know they're committing fraud against your family. That's my point.


Oh, absolutely. And I would try to convince my family and the guy that "hey, you're in a pyramid scheme. Stop that now." But, it still wouldn't be considered fraud from them, IMO, in the same way I wouldn't think my family member is committing fraud when he tells some other chump about the scheme.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Oh, absolutely. And I would try to convince my family and the guy that "hey, you're in a pyramid scheme. Stop that now." But, it still wouldn't be considered fraud from them, IMO, in the same way I wouldn't think my family member is committing fraud when he tells some other chump about the scheme.



Well it doesn't matter what they personally believe, its still fraud. I'm sure there's plenty of killers who don't think they're actually committing a crime when they're murdering people, but fortunately saner minds think otherwise.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> Well it doesn't matter what they personally believe, its still fraud. I'm sure there's plenty of killers who don't think they're actually committing a crime when they're murdering people, but fortunately saner minds think otherwise.


Two definitions of fraud from google:
"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." and "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.". If you truly believe something, telling others that thing is not you deceiving them for gain.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> YOU know they're committing fraud against your family. That's my point.




You are using the word 'fraud' in the way that civilians often do, I use it in the proper legal manner. the definition of fraud is that the person 

*made a false representation *
*dishonestly *
*knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading *
*with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.*
The instructor has not demonstrated any point of that definition. The operative word here is 'dishonestly'.  Where the instructor believes he is doing the best job he can and honestly believes, in good faith, that the techniques he teaches are workable he is not committing fraud. If you believe he is wrong then yes tell your family so, explain why you think he's wrong and leave them to decide but don't go chucking around allegations of fraud or of scamming.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Two definitions of fraud from google:
> "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." and "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.". If you truly believe something, telling others that thing is not you deceiving them for gain.



Teaching people BS no-touch KOs is the epitome of deceiving others and unjustifiably claiming accomplishments or qualities. We even have the financial component to boot.


----------



## Tez3

_"A representation is defined as "false" if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue."_

Fraud Act 2006 UK


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> You are using the word 'fraud' in the way that civilians often do, I use it in the proper legal manner. the definition of fraud is that the person
> 
> *made a false representation *
> *dishonestly *
> *knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading *
> *with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.*
> The instructor has not demonstrated any point of that definition. The operative word here is 'dishonestly'.  Where the instructor believes he is doing the best job he can and honestly believes, in good faith, that the techniques he teaches are workable he is not committing fraud. If you believe he is wrong then yes tell your family so, explain why you think he's wrong and leave them to decide but don't go chucking around allegations of fraud or of scamming.



So the instructor is either delusional, stupid, or purposely deceiving his students.

I go for option #3, and frankly, even if he is stupid or delusional (or both), he's still deceiving his students.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Teaching people BS no-touch KOs is the epitome of deceiving others and unjustifiably claiming accomplishments or qualities. We even have the financial component to boot.



Incorrect.



Hanzou said:


> So the instructor is either delusional, stupid, or purposely deceiving his students.
> 
> I go for option #3, and frankly, even if he is stupid or delusional (or both), he's still deceiving his students.



 He may well be delusional, he may well be stupid but neither of those is a criminal offence. 
He could be said to be deceiving his students but then we have many cases of that especially in SD classes. it's a common problem in martial arts that many SD taught is about as useful as a chocolate frog, the instructors deceiving their students into thinking they can defend themselves. His 'no touch KO' is as useful as telling students to gouge eyes out etc etc etc.


----------



## Tez3

so, just before I get off to bed, does this video prove BJJ is bad? No, it just proves my point there's plenty of videos about people not doing things properly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So if some guy was scamming your family member out of money, would it be fraud if your family member didn't realize that they were getting scammed and thought the con-man was a nice guy?


I think she was more talking about what the instructor might believe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> Two definitions of fraud from google:
> "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." and "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.". If you truly believe something, telling others that thing is not you deceiving them for gain.


That is the key difference, if I'm not mistaken, for both legal and lay definitions. If you believe something, it's not lying (or fraud) - it's just being wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> He may well be delusional, he may well be stupid but neither of those is a criminal offence.
> He could be said to be deceiving his students but then we have many cases of that especially in SD classes. it's a common problem in martial arts that many SD taught is about as useful as a chocolate frog, the instructors deceiving their students into thinking they can defend themselves. His 'no touch KO' is as useful as telling students to gouge eyes out etc etc etc.



Just fyi, teaching people BS martial arts isn't a criminal offense either. That still doesn't make it right, nor should we excuse it just because ignorant people happily participate in the BS.



Tez3 said:


> so, just before I get off to bed, does this video prove BJJ is bad? No, it just proves my point there's plenty of videos about people not doing things properly.



Frankly, if that's the worst they can find from Bjj, then the MA is in a very good place.

Also that video is great reminder why slams are illegal in competition. Yikes!


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I've no idea whether they would or wouldn't, my point though is that if he is teaching honestly then it's not fraud. He can certainly be teaching incompetently, badly, wrongly and a lot of other 'lys' but if he believes he's teaching it because it works ( and he had to have been taught by someone to do it) then we cannot accuse him of defrauding anyone.
> 
> Now a lot of others are also teaching badly including some in BJJ, I won't accuse them of fraud either. I've seen BJJ people who really do think that that all other styles are inferior, something they often accuse others in martial arts of doing.
> 
> What is annoying however is some people's assumption that only they 'test' their style, only they can say their style works because of that.  The assumption that all karate schools teach the same thing and that it doesn't work is ridiculous, as most know there are many styles of karate including mine, Wado Ryu which includes take downs, grappling moves etc. It did since it's inception. There is a certain kind of arrogance in thinking that one knows it all because of just a few things one has seen.


Is a cult leader a fraud?  What if he really believes he's the 2nd coming?


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> He may well be delusional, he may well be stupid but neither of those is a criminal offence.



Sometimes, that fact is a real shame


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Is a cult leader a fraud?  What if he really believes he's the 2nd coming?


How do you know he's not the second coming?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Frankly, if that's the worst they can find from Bjj, then the MA is in a very good place.



I think we all know it's far from the worst out there.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Sometimes, that fact is a real shame



That "BJJ instructor" should feel fortunate that he isnt operating in the states....


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Is a cult leader a fraud?  What if he really believes he's the 2nd coming?



He's probably a "fraud" in the colloquial sense of the word, but not in the legal sense (at least not if he really believes it).

That's why cults run for as long as they do - until or unless it reaches a point where there is actual criminal activity (amassing of illegal weapons, tax issues, assaults, etc.) then no crime has been committed.

There's another group that do the same sort of thing perfectly legally and with almost total social acceptance. They can't prove what they perpetuate, they often ask for money, they expect unquestioning belief and loyalty and they ask their followers to recruit others... They're called something like "clergy" I believe.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> How do you know he's not the second coming?


the same way I know that you can't be an expert without experience.   But really, I could care more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Is a cult leader a fraud?  What if he really believes he's the 2nd coming?


Not if he believes it. Silly and misinformed, deluded, but not a fraud.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well it doesn't matter what they personally believe, its still fraud. I'm sure there's plenty of killers who don't think they're actually committing a crime when they're murdering people, but fortunately saner minds think otherwise.



Mens rea.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Is a cult leader a fraud?  What if he really believes he's the 2nd coming?



My analogy is David Wolfe. Who does natural therapies.

David Avocado Wolfe is the biggest ******* in the multiverse


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> That "BJJ instructor" should feel fortunate that he isnt operating in the states....



Oh because you would shoot him of course just for being something you can't stand. 

That's an ill disguised swipe at the UK by the way, we are more tolerant of people who are believe differently from us, even if we think they are bonkers but then we don't tolerate Nazis marching on our streets. You get rid of nutty martial artists, we get rid of Nazis, sounds right.


At the moment we all feel fortunate we aren't operating in the 'States', especially females.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> . You get rid of nutty martial artists, we get rid of Nazis, sounds right.
> 
> 
> At the moment we all feel fortunate we aren't operating in the 'States', especially females.



That's an interesting interpretation of things. As I recall the Nazis kicked the crap out of you guys before Russia/USA(mostly russia ) saved your bacon.

Now you are becoming another Islamic state, which isn't exactly 'safer for women', by any stretch. 

You're so cute. *Cheekpinch*


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Oh because you would shoot him of course just for being something you can't stand.



LoL! No one would be shooting anyone (with a gun at least). He'd just get taught a lesson, and be humiliated.



> That's an ill disguised swipe at the UK by the way, we are more tolerant of people who are believe differently from us, even if we think they are bonkers but then we don't tolerate Nazis marching on our streets. You get rid of nutty martial artists, we get rid of Nazis, sounds right.



The vast majority of Americans don't tolerate Nazis in their streets either. Myself included. Please don't lump all Americans with the views of a tiny idiotic minority.



> At the moment we all feel fortunate we aren't operating in the 'States', especially females.



I agree.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Not if he believes it. Silly and misinformed, deluded, but not a fraud.





Tez3 said:


> Oh because you would shoot him of course just for being something you can't stand.
> 
> That's an ill disguised swipe at the UK by the way, we are more tolerant of people who are believe differently from us, even if we think they are bonkers but then we don't tolerate Nazis marching on our streets. You get rid of nutty martial artists, we get rid of Nazis, sounds right.
> 
> 
> At the moment we all feel fortunate we aren't operating in the 'States', especially females.


holy crap... I don't think he's suggesting the guy should be shot.  Dang...


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Is a cult leader a fraud?  What if he really believes he's the 2nd coming?



Isn't that when jesus is coming back to kill everyone.

Either way that can't be good


----------



## Steve

Can we all agree that there are some very concerning things going on everywhere, and discuss politics elsewhere?


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Can we all agree that there are some very concerning things going on everywhere, and discuss politics elsewhere?



Agreed. We should also all agree that no touch/ki stuff is BS and should be considered as such.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> That's an interesting interpretation of things. As I recall the Nazis kicked the crap out of you guys before Russia/USA(mostly russia ) saved your bacon.
> 
> Now you are becoming another Islamic state, which isn't exactly 'safer for women', by any stretch.
> 
> You're so cute. *Cheekpinch*




Silly boy, you really shouldn't believe everything you see on your television.  However you are becoming a right  piece of work with your comments and complaining others are being nasty to you. 

Love from this 'cute' daughter of a concentration camp survivor ( the rest of the family didn't survive) who is going high when you go low.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Agreed. We should also all agree that no touch/ki stuff is BS and should be considered as such.


I think almost everyone does.  The point contention is whether no tough bs taints everythjng else, or can the guy also teach some legit stuff.   Imaginary or not, the point tez seems to be making is that the  "BJJ guy" who teaches the no tough BS also teaches legit ma skills.   This is a matter of opinion and i think both sides make good points.  I personally wouldn't want to train there.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> LoL! No one would be shooting anyone (with a gun at least). He'd just get taught a lesson, and be humiliated.



Not if his BJJ is better than yours. I have already said his self defence techniques other than the 'no touch' KO were excellent. When he leaves that out he's a damn fine martial artist. I'm not going to cry because he believes in one idiotic thing.  
 Vigilante so called 'justice' is not our way here, we prefer to sort things out without behaving like spoilt children.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Not if his BJJ is better than yours. I have already said his self defence techniques other than the 'no touch' KO were excellent. When he leaves that out he's a damn fine martial artist. I'm not going to cry because he believes in one idiotic thing.
> Vigilante so called 'justice' is not our way here, we prefer to sort things out without behaving like spoilt children.


Come on, tez.  Stop making this a usa vs UK thing.  You guys have plenty of problems as do we.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I personally wouldn't want to train there.




and that's how it should be, personal choice, threatening to go and bash someone because you disagree with the training methods is a very childish thing to do.

I've seen his self defence techniques which as I said were very good, better than many I'd say, especially the ones that teach women such nonsense. There is a disconnect between the class where he teaches the no touch stuff and his self defence, BJJ and other classes. I don't know why, I wasn't actually interested enough to find out.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Come on, tez.  Stop making this a usa vs UK thing.  You guys have plenty of problems as do we.



However Muslims aren't one of them. Perhaps though you'd care to remember that whenever I say something you didn't like you accused me of being anti American.
The comment I answered was specifically about country.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Isn't that when jesus is coming back to kill everyone.
> 
> Either way that can't be good




According to my 'Xtian' stalker, not everyone will die, his group will be ascending to heaven, the rest of us are going to hell. PARTY!!!


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Not if his BJJ is better than yours. I have already said his self defence techniques other than the 'no touch' KO were excellent. When he leaves that out he's a damn fine martial artist. I'm not going to cry because he believes in one idiotic thing.
> Vigilante so called 'justice' is not our way here, we prefer to sort things out without behaving like spoilt children.



You also said that Abernathy's self defense techniques were "excellent" as well, so that's not saying much.

In the end, it wouldn't be me anyway, since I'm currently injured. It would be the Bjj community as a whole.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> Silly boy, you really shouldn't believe everything you see on your television.  However you are becoming a right  piece of work with your comments and complaining others are being nasty to you.
> 
> Love from this 'cute' daughter of a concentration camp survivor ( the rest of the family didn't survive) who is going high when you go low.



Being nasty is your forte, I wouldn't expect anything less.

That doesn't change the fact that what I said is objectively and factually correct.

- if it wasn't for the USA/Russia you would be typing in German right now. No historian would dispute this.

-the most common name in England right now for males is Mohammed, or some variation of that.

Dislike all you want, facts are facts


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Martial D said:


> Now you are becoming another Islamic state, which isn't exactly 'safer for women', by any stretch.





Martial D said:


> -the most common name in England right now for males is Mohammed, or some variation of that.
> 
> Dislike all you want, facts are facts


The last census showed that about 5% of the English population identifies as Muslim. Not exactly an Islamic State.

How about we discuss martial arts rather than bashing countries and religions?


----------



## Martial D

Tony Dismukes said:


> The last census showed that about 5% of the English population identifies as Muslim. Not exactly an Islamic State.
> 
> How about we discuss martial arts rather than bashing countries and religions?



I agree, this has gone far enough off topic.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> if it wasn't for the USA/Russia you would be typing in German right now. No historian would dispute this.



Ha, it's only been about 70 years.

No way would we have 'picked it up' in such a short space of time.



Edit: forgot the sarcasm smiley, um...



That one will do for now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think almost everyone does.  The point contention is whether no tough bs taints everythjng else, or can the guy also teach some legit stuff.   Imaginary or not, the point tez seems to be making is that the  "BJJ guy" who teaches the no tough BS also teaches legit ma skills.   This is a matter of opinion and i think both sides make good points.  I personally wouldn't want to train there.


Well said, Steve.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> You also said that Abernathy's self defense techniques were "excellent" as well, so that's not saying much.
> 
> In the end, it wouldn't be me anyway, since I'm currently injured. It would be the Bjj community as a whole.



Who is 'Abernathy'? So the whole of the BJJ community, apart from those that train with him and all those that don't actually care are going to come and get him. Mmm, mature.




Martial D said:


> Being nasty is your forte, I wouldn't expect anything less.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> However Muslims aren't one of them. Perhaps though you'd care to remember that whenever I say something you didn't like you accused me of being anti American.
> The comment I answered was specifically about country.


I'm trying to avoid anything of the sort.  No good comes from stuff like this.  Just gets everyone worked up


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I'm trying to avoid anything of the sort.  No good comes from stuff like this.  Just gets everyone worked up




I'm not in the least worked up, I have a gin and tonic by my side, a grey cat purring on my lap and am blissfully aware that life is good. 

Anytime people bring up the 'Muslim' issue as regards to the UK I then know their political views, their lack of grasp on history and their television watching habits and I laugh. We have had Muslims here since at least the 14th century, they are mentioned in Chaucer's writings, they have been in Good Queen Bess' court as well as Victoria's, there are about a million and a half people who say they are Muslim here about of a total population of 65million. 27% of Brits have university degrees and we have over 240,000 Jedi Knights according to census figures. 

According to a survey the people who train BJJ in the UK is a minimum of 2,048 to a maximum of 3,206 practitioners.
The average was 2,571 and the median value (one closest to the middle of the range) was 2,627.
Grappling and BJJ tips by Liam The Part-Time Grappler Wandi: How many people train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) in the UK? Final Part


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Who is 'Abernathy'? So the whole of the BJJ community, apart from those that train with him and all those that don't actually care are going to come and get him.



If what he's teaching is deemed to be bogus and he's sullying the art, then he's likely to get dojo stormed by a few "concerned" black belts.



> Mmm, mature.



This isn't exactly a new thing. The Chinese and Japanese would do this all the time if a fraud tried to open up a school, or if the new instructor on the block was teaching questionable stuff.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I'm not in the least worked up, I have a gin and tonic by my side, a grey cat purring on my lap and am blissfully aware that life is good.
> 
> Anytime people bring up the 'Muslim' issue as regards to the UK I then know their political views, their lack of grasp on history and their television watching habits and I laugh. We have had Muslims here since at least the 14th century, they are mentioned in Chaucer's writings, they have been in Good Queen Bess' court as well as Victoria's, there are about a million and a half people who say they are Muslim here about of a total population of 65million. 27% of Brits have university degrees and we have over 240,000 Jedi Knights according to census figures.
> 
> According to a survey the people who train BJJ in the UK is a minimum of 2,048 to a maximum of 3,206 practitioners.
> The average was 2,571 and the median value (one closest to the middle of the range) was 2,627.
> Grappling and BJJ tips by Liam The Part-Time Grappler Wandi: How many people train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) in the UK? Final Part


Considering the shared history the USA has with the UK prior to colonization of America, couldn't it be said that Chaucer was, in addition to being British, also a proto-American?

And according to your latest figures, the Jedi numbers are dwindling significantly in the UK.    I think you were googling too fast.  According to the Guardian:





> *Census 2011: how many Jedi Knights are there in England & Wales?*
> Over 240,000 people highlighted an 'other religion' on their census form. How many spiritualists, Jedi Knights or wiccans are there? It turns out the number of Jedi has more than halved over the last decade, with 176,632 in the latest figures, down from 390,000 in 2001. Get the full breakdown by scrolling down the page


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> If what he's teaching is deemed to be bogus and he's sullying the art, then he's likely to get dojo stormed by a few "concerned" black belts.




Nope, if it hasn't happened in ten years it isn't going to happen now, we don't play lynch mobs here. We never did that 'dojo' invasion thing, we don't rush in and act like we are the martial arts police nor do we beat people up because we disagree with them.

I find your attitude quite reprehensible, childish even. Threatening people is not what we should be doing. We can disapprove all we like and try to spread the word but going into someone else's property with the intent of committing assault is actually criminal, which is worse than teaching bad martial arts.

This guy is teaching one, note one, technique that we all agree is pure fantasy, this doesn't deserve being beaten up for by a group of so called adults. That you advocate this is disappointing and actually disqualifies you from disapproving of others actions which are far less harmful than your proposed actions. If you think beating people up is the correct way to go about stopping people teaching certain 'techniques' then you are actually worse than someone who teaches 'no touch' KOs, you are a thug.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Considering the shared history the USA has with the UK prior to colonization of America, couldn't it be said that Chaucer was, in addition to being British, also a proto-American?
> 
> And according to your latest figures, the Jedi numbers are dwindling significantly in the UK.    I think you were googling too fast.  According to the Guardian:




LOL figures from the Guardian, yeah right.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Nope, if it hasn't happened in ten years it isn't going to happen now, we don't play lynch mobs here.


Come on, Tez.  I'm sure you don't realize that the term "lynch mob" is very charged language in the States.  Even disregarding that this is the second time you've equated Hanzou's posts to ending someone's life (which is alarming), "lynch mobs' implies violent, racist motivations.   I completely get why you are offended by references to Nazism.  In the same vein, please stop escalating and understand that you are going down a similar path.  





> This guy is teaching one, note one, technique that we all agree is pure fantasy, this doesn't deserve being beaten up for by a group of so called adults. That you advocate this is disappointing and actually disqualifies you from disapproving of others actions which are far less harmful than your proposed actions. If you think beating people up is the correct way to go about stopping people teaching certain 'techniques' then you are actually worse than someone who teaches 'no touch' KOs, you are a thug.


Who is this guy again?  Can you post a link to his website?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> LOL figures from the Guardian, yeah right.


Well, they seem to conflict with the figure you posted.  If you'd care to post a link to the source for your figure....

But I take your lack of response to my comment regarding Chaucer that you are willing to share him (and by extension anyone I happen to like from British history prior to American colonization).  You can keep the creeps, though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> we have over 240,000 Jedi Knights according to census figures.


There's the group you need to worry about. The Jedi have a long history of terrorist attacks on government military bases killing over a million people. You can find documentaries on Netflix with footage of the whole thing.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> If what he's teaching is deemed to be bogus and he's sullying the art, then he's likely to get dojo stormed by a few "concerned" black belts.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a new thing. The Chinese and Japanese would do this all the time if a fraud tried to open up a school, or if the new instructor on the block was teaching questionable stuff.




Are you suggesting Dojo storming ? hmmmmmmm 

Right we better all start a shaking over here and retreat to our castles lol


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Considering the shared history the USA has with the UK prior to colonization of America,




What History did we have with the USA before as you put it colonization? Are you referring to the Northmen or the Templars ?


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Well, they seem to conflict with the figure you posted.  If you'd care to post a link to the source for your figure....
> 
> But I take your lack of response to my comment regarding Chaucer that you are willing to share him (and by extension anyone I happen to like from British history prior to American colonization).  You can keep the creeps, though.




Steve my friend lol..................One maybe needs to have a small word with you regarding who went to colonize the states lol......bot the kinda edited version that is in your history books (as they do tend to be somewhat missing large chunks ...which don't quite fit the "party line", and yes I have seen first hand what kids are taught in school regarding history, my Kids were subject to it and they did get quite a shock when they came back here and got a full account lol ....they still to this day get stick when they say ummmm no not true about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (yes that is the proper title lol)


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Come on, Tez.  I'm sure you don't realize that the term "lynch mob" is very charged language in the States.  Even disregarding that this is the second time you've equated Hanzou's posts to ending someone's life (which is alarming), "lynch mobs' implies violent, racist motivations.   I completely get why you are offended by references to Nazism.  In the same vein, please stop escalating and understand that you are going down a similar path.
> Who is this guy again?  Can you post a link to his website?




No, I'm sorry Steve but you aren't going to make this into something it's not. That you have problems with my wording is your problem not mine, that you are trying to shitstir is not my problem. You consistently try to make my words mean something they don't, you have done it for years and continue to do so. In the guise of being a so called 'peace maker' you actually pour oil on the fire. 

You have actually no idea what I'm talking about, again and seek to turn it into a confrontation. I will not have it. I had you on ignore for a long time because of your comments about my posts, always putting me down and making out I meant something I didn't as you are here. I thought you had stopped doing that, I was wrong obviously so off you pop to ignoreland again. I get that you want to patronise me, that you like to make out that I'm 'unself aware' wasn't that your words on the mentor's site? Oh and all the other comments, none flattering about me. I don't carry a grudge I just don't forget.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> Steve my friend lol..................One maybe needs to have a small word with you regarding who went to colonize the states lol......bot the kinda edited version that is in your history books (as they do tend to be somewhat missing large chunks ...which don't quite fit the "party line", and yes I have seen first hand what kids are taught in school regarding history, my Kids were subject to it and they did get quite a shock when they came back here and got a full account lol ....they still to this day get stick when they say ummmm no not true about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (yes that is the proper title lol)


What parts of that time period are missing from our history books?


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> What parts of that time period are missing from our history books?




I didn't say time periods were missing ...what I said was the version given is at times very far from the way it really was


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> I didn't say time periods were missing ...what I said was the version given is at times very far from the way it really was


I think my question, or my understanding of your post, was unclear. From what your saying, the history books in the USA leave out key aspects of the events surrounding our secession in the late 18th century. In that time period, what events were omitted or twisted to give a false impression of what happened?

Also, since tone is difficult to tell, this is not me being contradictory or trying to play devil's advocate. I am legitimately curious what the 'other side of the sea' says, as I've never read a UK history book to compare the two.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> I think my question, or my understanding of your post, was unclear. From what your saying, the history books in the USA leave out key aspects of the events surrounding our secession in the late 18th century. In that time period, what events were omitted or twisted to give a false impression of what happened?
> 
> Also, since tone is difficult to tell, this is not me being contradictory or trying to play devil's advocate. I am legitimately curious what the 'other side of the sea' says, as I've never read a UK history book to compare the two.




It not period of your Independence I am only referring to the vast majority of folks that made the journey over did not do so really out of first choice they did so either because they were running away ...had to run or were given the options starve or go , and even at times go or face the last drop 

The govt over here was very good at doing that and not only to the Americas either lol


----------



## pdg

kempodisciple said:


> I think my question, or my understanding of your post, was unclear. From what your saying, the history books in the USA leave out key aspects of the events surrounding our secession in the late 18th century. In that time period, what events were omitted or twisted to give a false impression of what happened?
> 
> Also, since tone is difficult to tell, this is not me being contradictory or trying to play devil's advocate. I am legitimately curious what the 'other side of the sea' says, as I've never read a UK history book to compare the two.



I'm quite curious too, as I've not had any exposure to "the version" from over there...


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Nope, if it hasn't happened in ten years it isn't going to happen now, we don't play lynch mobs here. We never did that 'dojo' invasion thing, we don't rush in and act like we are the martial arts police nor do we beat people up because we disagree with them.
> 
> I find your attitude quite reprehensible, childish even. Threatening people is not what we should be doing.



So we should let people teach others BS and have them believe they can do things that are scientifically impossible? What if a woman getting raped tries to do a no-touch KO? Are you still going to feel bad for the charlatan getting a fat lip, or the woman who thought she was actually learning something that was going to protect her but is now a rape victim? 



> If you think beating people up is the correct way to go about stopping people teaching certain 'techniques' then you are actually worse than someone who teaches 'no touch' KOs, you are a thug.



Honestly, I'd rather be a thug than the alternative.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I'm quite curious too, as I've not had any exposure to "the version" from over there...




Oh I am not going to say much about things from an English perspective lol but from this side of the border I can ....and it will be even controversial to and some might take offence south of the border lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> So we should let people teach others BS and have them believe they can do things that are scientifically impossible? What if a woman getting raped tries to do a no-touch KO? Are you still going to feel bad for the charlatan getting a fat lip, or the woman who thought she was actually learning something that was going to protect her but is now a rape victim?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd rather be a thug than the alternative.




Hey do not call a lady a thug 


You wanna start that then pick on someone else ok .... 


Calling a lady a thug now that if I was around you I might well have serious serious issues with and you def would not like that at all so say sorry if that is what you were calling her


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Hey do not call a lady a thug
> 
> 
> You wanna start that then pick on someone else ok ....
> 
> 
> Calling a lady a thug now that if I was around you I might well have serious serious issues with and you def would not like that at all so say sorry if that is what you were calling her



..........

What the heck are you talking about? She called ME a thug.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> It not period of your Independence I am only referring to the vast majority of folks that made the journey over did not do so really out of first choice they did so either because they were running away ...had to run or were given the options starve or go , and even at times go or face the last drop
> 
> The govt over here was very good at doing that and not only to the Americas either lol


That's exactly what we were taught. People that came here were too poor, or had religious issues, or otherwise needed to escape came to America. But it wasn't anyone's first or third choice...there was too much risk coming all the way here and being part of a fledgling settlement or colony unless it was necessary. Every class I took on the subject in elementary, middle, high school and college expressed that.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> ..........
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? She called ME a thug.




ok my mistake ....are you a thug? if so back off a lady ok


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> That's exactly what we were taught. People that came here were too poor, or had religious issues, or otherwise needed to escape came to America. But it wasn't anyone's first or third choice...there was too much risk coming all the way here and being part of a fledgling settlement or colony unless it was necessary. Every class I took on the subject in elementary, middle, high school and college expressed that.




ok 

Now why did you think the govt here allowed that to happen ?


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> So we should let people teach others BS and have them believe they can do things that are scientifically impossible?



How many people do you think actually believe in 'no touch' KOs. I read a new word the other that seems to describe your writings, testeria. 
Stop with the faux concern and outrage, you don't actually care, you just like posting stuff on here.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> How many people do you think actually believe in 'no touch' KOs.
> Stop with the faux concern and outrage, you don't actually care, you just like posting stuff on here.



Clearly the clown you're protecting. Wasn't that your earlier argument as to why he wasn't a "fraud"?

Please don't tell me what I actually care about. Thanks.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> ok
> 
> Now why did you think the govt here allowed that to happen ?


From what I recall, a combination of factors.
!: It's better PR than killing or jailing all those people.
2: It cleans up their streets of the 'unwanted'.
3: Each country was trying to colonize the new world, if there are people who actively want to leave, by giving them a place to go under british rule it just expands their power, and improved their international standing among other european countries.
4: At the time, it supported British trade. The colonists would send raw materials to UK, buy full materials, pay taxes and tariffs (i think), and probably a couple other things that I don't recall that also boost their economy. There was a word for this, and I remember my middle school teacher focusing on this as one of the main issues, but I can't remember the word.

There may very well be more reasons, but those are the ones that I remember being told. That first one may have just been a joke from one of my teachers though.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Clearly the clown you're protecting. Wasn't that your earlier argument as to why he wasn't a "fraud"?
> 
> Please don't tell me what I actually care about. Thanks.




Your posts over the years have shown clearly what your concerns are and they aren't altruistic.
You also need to learn to use legal terms properly.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> From what I recall, a combination of factors.
> !: It's better PR than killing or jailing all those people.
> 2: It cleans up their streets of the 'unwanted'.
> 3: Each country was trying to colonize the new world, if there are people who actively want to leave, by giving them a place to go under british rule it just expands their power, and improved their international standing among other european countries.
> 4: At the time, it supported British trade. The colonists would send raw materials to UK, buy full materials, pay taxes and tariffs (i think), and probably a couple other things that I don't recall that also boost their economy. There was a word for this, and I remember my middle school teacher focusing on this as one of the main issues, but I can't remember the word.
> 
> There may very well be more reasons, but those are the ones that I remember being told. That first one may have just been a joke from one of my teachers though.




No your first point isn't a joke at all ...but there was more than the PR behind it 

the rest of your points esp 3 is spot on ....however it backfired as the people they sent or forced etc well they were from parts of the UK that were ummm not exactly overly supportive of the Crown (and esp at the time of your War of Independence being that not that long before there was the last of a series of rebellions here, and incidentally there was a story circulated over here that there was a Crown offered to Charles Edward Stuart but he declined said ....probably because he was drunk at the time and also his english was almost non existent lol) 

Another thing among many you may know is that your declaration of Independence does infact bear some very significant resemblances to one that was written over here but a heck of a lot earlier over 400 years earlier and I am not being nasty in saying that or trying to be ignorant ) 

The thing that I have encountered and my daughters still do is the word Scots-Irish .....there is really no such thing at all lol you are either one or the other lol not both , The scots-Irish as they are called are nothing more than Protestant scots that left Ireland (mostly the north, ie Ulster and they were only there as they had been forced there by the crown and then after the famines they or alot left ...ok some may have been born there so really they were Irish as such but very few Protestants back then would say that lol but thay another story and really in most ways doesn't concern, well sorta, but lets not go there lol

Even the General that fought for the crown Cornwallis was not of the first division by any means and the troops he had were ummm well how say we say not the best by any manner of means (no I'm not saying that to defend Cornwallis in any way ) the best of the best were somewhat busy elsewhere with other troublesome folks we had to deal with who were closer to home. Couple that with German Geordie thinking he knew better and that as I said a miscalculation had been made in who was sent there to "colonize" (ie Scots would not have faced scots ...regular front line highland regiments in the order of Battle would not have faced other Scots as they would have been their kin and well that would or could have caused mutiny) all mounted up to a disaster waiting to happen. It was also mooted that really the States were really to big to actually govern and India was a better bet and was the focus really and well it did go on to become the Raj, even there when "Britain" withdrew and partition happened that was in many ways orchestrated to cause trouble (controversial yes ) as ......well let them fight it out among themselves and it then means they won't bother us lol ...well until they need something and that kinda bore out lol, sorry that another story lol 

Even your Civil War .....had Mr Davis accepted the offer of British Troops then there would be two "Americas" and he refused our Queen . He thought oh no they want to recolonize and that really was not the reason at all lol ...the real reason was that we wanted to split the continental USA as in two halves it weaker than in one whole, that together with our Queen at the time did not like Mr Lincoln at all ...but I am sure that some or most will disagree with what I have said but believe in this Britain is a master above all others in playing things and putting things into place like no other lol , and we do have the experience of doing so ...oh yes we have made a heck of alot of mistakes ....we learned from them though. 


Even the way things are done now ......send a Carrier battle group to sit of somewhere or even when Japan was opened up by Perry lol......that was a thing that we did long before and it was called Gun boat Diplomacy (Palmerston did that as did many others to lol) 


Not being cheeky but many many many things that the USA does us over here do look at at times and say yup we tried that and nope it didn't work then and won't now either. We even tried being a Republic and found out that nope that didn't work as the power goes to peoples head .....better to have someone above that that can (and genuinely the Monarch can, although I doubt they would, over ride the Govt, and I would suspect that for me any way that if it got that bad and the Monarch did step in then I would follow her banner as opposed to any politician, infact I spent a long time following her Banner lol , as we do not swear allegiance to the flag we swear it to the Monarch and there heirs an successors (yes Tez there ids more to the oath that you I and many others have taken when accepting the Queens shilling but lets not complicate matters lol). 

That is why and this prob will get me banned us over here at time do get kinda pissed off when we are looked on as the little brother as in fact it the other way around really ...we created you guys not vice versa (yes there are other nationalities too ) but in essence when I lived stateside and some said anything I said look I can almost be very certain where you came from ie if you are white (No I'm not being racist in any way) then it pretty certain looking at your features that you are from northern European descent ............I can and I would have a fair bet that Tez could too ....look at city names and say yup that is or comes from us over here or nope that germanic origin or Nordic .........jeez lol even your 1rst president's name ummmm is a town over her lol and I think that is where his ancestry came from 

Anyways I'll prob get banned now lol


----------



## Tez3

now disabled said:


> Anyways I'll prob get banned now lol




Likely so will I, so we are brother and sister in arms again.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> No your first point isn't a joke at all ...but there was more than the PR behind it
> 
> the rest of your points esp 3 is spot on ....however it backfired as the people they sent or forced etc well they were from parts of the UK that were ummm not exactly overly supportive of the Crown (and esp at the time of your War of Independence being that not that long before there was the last of a series of rebellions here, and incidentally there was a story circulated over here that there was a Crown offered to Charles Edward Stuart but he declined said ....probably because he was drunk at the time and also his english was almost non existent lol)
> 
> Another thing among many you may know is that your declaration of Independence does infact bear some very significant resemblances to one that was written over here but a heck of a lot earlier over 400 years earlier and I am not being nasty in saying that or trying to be ignorant )
> 
> The thing that I have encountered and my daughters still do is the word Scots-Irish .....there is really no such thing at all lol you are either one or the other lol not both , The scots-Irish as they are called are nothing more than Protestant scots that left Ireland (mostly the north, ie Ulster and they were only there as they had been forced there by the crown and then after the famines they or alot left ...ok some may have been born there so really they were Irish as such but very few Protestants back then would say that lol but thay another story and really in most ways doesn't concern, well sorta, but lets not go there lol
> 
> Even the General that fought for the crown Cornwallis was not of the first division by any means and the troops he had were ummm well how say we say not the best by any manner of means (no I'm not saying that to defend Cornwallis in any way ) the best of the best were somewhat busy elsewhere with other troublesome folks we had to deal with who were closer to home. Couple that with German Geordie thinking he knew better and that as I said a miscalculation had been made in who was sent there to "colonize" (ie Scots would not have faced scots ...regular front line highland regiments in the order of Battle would not have faced other Scots as they would have been their kin and well that would or could have caused mutiny) all mounted up to a disaster waiting to happen. It was also mooted that really the States were really to big to actually govern and India was a better bet and was the focus really and well it did go on to become the Raj, even there when "Britain" withdrew and partition happened that was in many ways orchestrated to cause trouble (controversial yes ) as ......well let them fight it out among themselves and it then means they won't bother us lol ...well until they need something and that kinda bore out lol, sorry that another story lol
> 
> Even your Civil War .....had Mr Davis accepted the offer of British Troops then there would be two "Americas" and he refused our Queen . He thought oh no they want to recolonize and that really was not the reason at all lol ...the real reason was that we wanted to split the continental USA as in two halves it weaker than in one whole, that together with our Queen at the time did not like Mr Lincoln at all ...but I am sure that some or most will disagree with what I have said but believe in this Britain is a master above all others in playing things and putting things into place like no other lol , and we do have the experience of doing so ...oh yes we have made a heck of alot of mistakes ....we learned from them though.
> 
> 
> Even the way things are done now ......send a Carrier battle group to sit of somewhere or even when Japan was opened up by Perry lol......that was a thing that we did long before and it was called Gun boat Diplomacy (Palmerston did that as did many others to lol)
> 
> 
> Not being cheeky but many many many things that the USA does us over here do look at at times and say yup we tried that and nope it didn't work then and won't now either. We even tried being a Republic and found out that nope that didn't work as the power goes to peoples head .....better to have someone above that that can (and genuinely the Monarch can, although I doubt they would, over ride the Govt, and I would suspect that for me any way that if it got that bad and the Monarch did step in then I would follow her banner as opposed to any politician, infact I spent a long time following her Banner lol , as we do not swear allegiance to the flag we swear it to the Monarch and there heirs an successors (yes Tez there ids more to the oath that you I and many others have taken when accepting the Queens shilling but lets not complicate matters lol).
> 
> That is why and this prob will get me banned us over here at time do get kinda pissed off when we are looked on as the little brother as in fact it the other way around really ...we created you guys not vice versa (yes there are other nationalities too ) but in essence when I lived stateside and some said anything I said look I can almost be very certain where you came from ie if you are white (No I'm not being racist in any way) then it pretty certain looking at your features that you are from northern European descent ............I can and I would have a fair bet that Tez could too ....look at city names and say yup that is or comes from us over here or nope that germanic origin or Nordic .........jeez lol even your 1rst president's name ummmm is a town over her lol and I think that is where his ancestry came from
> 
> Anyways I'll prob get banned now lol


Before the rant of modern USA vs Britain, basically all of that falls in line with what I learned in school, no differences. Even the Jefferson Davis thing and the magna carta. So the education itself is probably pretty similar, although I would bet on both aspects (the american civil war, and the american seccesion from the UK) we go into more depth, but I don't know that for certain. What Americans take from what they learned is another story, most of the people I know understand the history if you ask them directly, but that may just be who I place myself around and where I live.

Regarding the rest, We don't consider you a little brother, but neither are we your little brother. We may have come from you, but we made an active choice to separate, fought a war to do so, and don't need the UK to think of us as a little sibling. Regarding the whole white thing, I'm primarily cuban. When I went to spain, they assumed I was northern-spanish. My last name is germanic (great great grandfather is my only german ancestry), and the people I've met from northern europe think I'm irish (I'm about a third irish). So many people in the US, at least where I live, are a mix of a bunch of different races, that assuming you can know someone's race by their look is a pretty risky think to assume. That's true whether someone looks black, white or any hue in between.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> magna carta




Before I go further it not the magna carta lol ........................wrong time period. the document I referred to was written in 1320 ...the Magna Carta was written 1215 .....that over 500 not 400 hundred lol and written in a diff country


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> Before the rant of modern USA vs Britain, basically all of that falls in line with what I learned in school, no differences. Even the Jefferson Davis thing and the magna carta. So the education itself is probably pretty similar, although I would bet on both aspects (the american civil war, and the american seccesion from the UK) we go into more depth, but I don't know that for certain. What Americans take from what they learned is another story, most of the people I know understand the history if you ask them directly, but that may just be who I place myself around and where I live.
> 
> Regarding the rest, We don't consider you a little brother, but neither are we your little brother. We may have come from you, but we made an active choice to separate, fought a war to do so, and don't need the UK to think of us as a little sibling. Regarding the whole white thing, I'm primarily cuban. When I went to spain, they assumed I was northern-spanish. My last name is germanic (great great grandfather is my only german ancestry), and the people I've met from northern europe think I'm irish (I'm about a third irish). So many people in the US, at least where I live, are a mix of a bunch of different races, that assuming you can know someone's race by their look is a pretty risky think to assume. That's true whether someone looks black, white or any hue in between.



I get you on the race thing as it is the same here just a bit further back lol, Even Scotland is in terms no more than being called after a tribe the "Scoti" who actually came from Ireland lol, Where I live we have more Norse blood than anything really and you can actually be fairly accurate with that, You can actually see it in the features believe it or not lol , but that could be as we are smaller and more remote lol.

Actually when you touched on Spanish, there are parts of these isles that you can see surnames that do in fact allude to the time of the Armada esp up shetland way lol and the Fair Isle, you can or used to see the name Perez yet they were and are born there and thave been for centuries lol and yes the features do stand out and certain things do reoccur, There is a family here that actually you can tell (or locals can lol) who they are by the very way they carry themselves ...you may not believe it but it true lol

I wasn't ranting at all sorry if it came over like that and honestly you are one of the few that seems to actually know history, as many do not


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> Before I go further it not the magna carta lol ........................wrong time period. the document I referred to was written in 1320 ...the Magna Carta was written 1215 .....that over 500 not 400 hundred lol and written in a diff country


500 is over 400. But I get your point. I misread, the constitution took some stuff from the magna carta, if you're scottish then I'm guessing you're referring to the declaration of Arboath? Not the best at dates clearly, but you'd be right that I only learned about that in college history classes, not in k-12. 

But again, at least in the circle of people that I talk to, most of the information about how it works is known. From what I remember from k-12 schooling, I would not be surprised if the people saying "we never learned that" actually just were asleep or playing cards (yes that happened) when the teacher taught it.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> 500 is over 400. But I get your point. I misread, the constitution took some stuff from the magna carta, if you're scottish then I'm guessing you're referring to the declaration of Arboath? Not the best at dates clearly, but you'd be right that I only learned about that in college history classes, not in k-12.
> 
> But again, at least in the circle of people that I talk to, most of the information about how it works is known. From what I remember from k-12 schooling, I would not be surprised if the people saying "we never learned that" actually just were asleep or playing cards (yes that happened) when the teacher taught it.




Now you really have surprised me with the declaration of Arbroath 

Yes I am a Scot, actually if you ask me when I am overseas I will say that, at home I'll say first I'm an Islander and then a Gael, but that only back home. 

You obviously know but there are many who do not that The united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is and are seprate counties, Yes England and Wales and to some extent Northern Ireland share the same Law but Scotland does not we have our own lol and it is very different in places to that of The rest of the UK,GB &NI  and again you will know that there is a difference between UK, GB and UK GB &NI lol.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> What History did we have with the USA before as you put it colonization? Are you referring to the Northmen or the Templars ?


Well, I think we were largely British before we were a British colony.


Tez3 said:


> No, I'm sorry Steve but you aren't going to make this into something it's not. That you have problems with my wording is your problem not mine, that you are trying to shitstir is not my problem. You consistently try to make my words mean something they don't, you have done it for years and continue to do so. In the guise of being a so called 'peace maker' you actually pour oil on the fire.
> 
> You have actually no idea what I'm talking about, again and seek to turn it into a confrontation. I will not have it. I had you on ignore for a long time because of your comments about my posts, always putting me down and making out I meant something I didn't as you are here. I thought you had stopped doing that, I was wrong obviously so off you pop to ignoreland again. I get that you want to patronise me, that you like to make out that I'm 'unself aware' wasn't that your words on the mentor's site? Oh and all the other comments, none flattering about me. I don't carry a grudge I just don't forget.


I'm not trying to turn this into a confrontation.  I'm trying to lighten things up and makes a few jokes.  And when you say things like "lynch mob" I am educating you about cultural/historical connotations you seem unaware of (considering you are not American). 

Regarding the comments I made, I think it's a real shame you are still holding on to those comments and I regret that they were tough for you to read.  That said, you've said some pretty mean things to me and about me to others, and still I like you.  Truly, you're ascribing to me some pretty hurtful things right now. 

Truth is, then as now, I like you well enough to call you on your BS when it comes up.  I do it because I like you, not because I don't like you.  And it bothers me that you had me on ignore because you missed the 9 times I agreed with or complimented you only to focus on the one time I disagree with you.   

Now that that's out of the way... who is this no-touch BJJ guy again?  I'd like to take a look at his website.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Steve my friend lol..................One maybe needs to have a small word with you regarding who went to colonize the states lol......bot the kinda edited version that is in your history books (as they do tend to be somewhat missing large chunks ...which don't quite fit the "party line", and yes I have seen first hand what kids are taught in school regarding history, my Kids were subject to it and they did get quite a shock when they came back here and got a full account lol ....they still to this day get stick when they say ummmm no not true about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (yes that is the proper title lol)


Don't confuse the issue with facts, sir.  They have no place in polite conversation... nor here.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Well, I think we were largely British before we were a British colony.




That I don't think so, maybe parts of the eastern seaboard but the rest, I wouldn't think so, but I am sure you will say I am wrong


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Don't confuse the issue with facts, sir.  They have no place in polite conversation... nor here.




I am not confusing at all,


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> That I don't think so, maybe parts of the eastern seaboard but the rest, I wouldn't think so, but I am sure you will say I am wrong


Well the part that was America.  But you're right.  Here in Washington state we are vigorous and strong in large part due to hybrid vigor and lack of British influence.  That is, in fact, the reason we are better in all ways to our neighbors in British Columbia, Canada.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> Now you really have surprised me with the declaration of Arbroath
> 
> Yes I am a Scot, actually if you ask me when I am overseas I will say that, at home I'll say first I'm an Islander and then a Gael, but that only back home.
> 
> You obviously know but there are many who do not that The united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is and are seprate counties, Yes England and Wales and to some extent Northern Ireland share the same Law but Scotland does not we have our own lol and it is very different in places to that of The rest of the UK,GB &NI  and again you will know that there is a difference between UK, GB and UK GB &NI lol.


Honestly, I only know about it because I took a lot of courses in college on religious history, and focused mainly on the rise of christianity, between the roman empire to the middle ages. That document came up a couple of times when they talked about the fracturing that occurred in northern europe. Otherwise I would have no idea what you were talking about.

In my head for some reason I thought you were from england, not scotland, but I'll remember that going forwards.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> Honestly, I only know about it because I took a lot of courses in college on religious history, and focused mainly on the rise of christianity, between the roman empire to the middle ages. That document came up a couple of times when they talked about the fracturing that occurred in northern europe. Otherwise I would have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> In my head for some reason I thought you were from england, not scotland, but I'll remember that going forwards.


They don't mind. If there is one thing I know with absolute certainty, it's that the citizens of the UK see no meaningful distinction between Brits, Scots, Welsh or the Irish.  What's in a name, after all?


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> They don't mind. If there is one thing I know with absolute certainty, it's that the citizens of the UK see no meaningful distinction between Brits, Scots, Welsh or the Irish.  What's in a name, after all?


Well, aside from the fact that the scots tend to hate the English..and the irish tend to hate the English..and the Welsh hate the..you get the picture.

Long term occupation tends to breed long term bad blood.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> Well, aside from the fact that the scots tend to hate the English..and the irish tend to hate the English..and the Welsh hate the..you get the picture.
> 
> Long term occupation tends to breed long term bad blood.


kind of like how Californians are occupying Seattle ... 

Seriously, though, I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> kind of like how Californians are occupying Seattle ...
> 
> Seriously, though, I was being sarcastic.



No nothing like that. The USA is one nation. The UK isn't. The scots,welsh, Irish and English have a very long and bloody past. That **** doesn't ever go away.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Nowadays in the US, the Northeast hates the midwest, the southeast hates the northeast, the coasts hate the not-coasts, Half the country hates texas and the rest hates california. I jest, but at the same time I dont..some of the hate is real and intense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I am not confusing at all,


I think you entirely miss Steve's humor/humour, ND.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> They don't mind. If there is one thing I know with absolute certainty, it's that the citizens of the UK see no meaningful distinction between Brits, Scots, Welsh or the Irish.  What's in a name, after all?


Okay, that's easily the funniest post you've made in a month or two, Steve. Thankfully, I'm already out of champagne, so didn't risk any when I laughed at that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> No nothing like that. The USA is one nation. The UK isn't. The scots,welsh, Irish and English have a very long and bloody past. That **** doesn't ever go away.


You saying Seat-Tac and LA don't have bad blood??


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> No nothing like that. The USA is one nation. The UK isn't. The scots,welsh, Irish and English have a very long and bloody past. That **** doesn't ever go away.


It's a joke man.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Okay, that's easily the funniest post you've made in a month or two, Steve. Thankfully, I'm already out of champagne, so didn't risk any when I laughed at that.


The train is inspiring.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> Honestly, I only know about it because I took a lot of courses in college on religious history, and focused mainly on the rise of christianity, between the roman empire to the middle ages. That document came up a couple of times when they talked about the fracturing that occurred in northern europe. Otherwise I would have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> In my head for some reason I thought you were from england, not scotland, but I'll remember that going forwards.




Oh now that does get very very complicated. Interesting for sure and it does go a long way to explaining things that are still ongoing to this day. 

Oh I am a Scot, well as I said overseas I am but back home I am first an Islander and a Gael


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> They don't mind. If there is one thing I know with absolute certainty, it's that the citizens of the UK see no meaningful distinction between Brits, Scots, Welsh or the Irish.  What's in a name, after all?



Scots, Welsh and Irish (both types) are all "Brits" by being residents of the British Isles, so there is no distinction to be made anyway.

The English are "Brit" as well.

The British Isles covers the whole thing - the UK is everything excluding the Republic of Ireland (the larger southern part, formerly Eire), then the individual countries of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Personally, I put "British" as nationality, unless it's not an available option - whereupon I revert to English.

Which leads to the fact that I've never once met one single person who would consider "European" a viable answer. Even in continental Europe.


It's like how everyone in Canada, the US, Panama, Chile, Brazil (etc.) are all Americans.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> No nothing like that. The USA is one nation. The UK isn't. The scots,welsh, Irish and English have a very long and bloody past. That **** doesn't ever go away.




Yes there is a long a very bloody past, But one nation well we were and to the outside we are. Our internal things are complicated (yes they always are) but not in the way it may appear. The peoples don't hate one another per se , That has more to do with outside image than internal. England is a Kingdom as is Scotland (the present Monarch to all outside is Elizabeth II but here she isn't she is Elizabeth I ), Wales in not a kingdom it is a principality, Northern Ireland well really it is a province as the high Kings from there ruled of more than what is there now, (that does get very complicated) 

At most sports we play separately, although Northern Ireland does at Football and other things but Rugby no it then unites with Eire for that. 

Be careful if you look at the Commonwealth and say that is the Empire as it is not. Some members of the Commonwealth were not part of the Empire. 

There are still Crown Colonies (although they are not called that now), So in essence there still is an Empire lol. I think there are 14 if memory serves, The first Crown colony was I think Virginia lol although that at times is described as being an English crown colony when it wasn't lol as the union of the Crowns had by that time taken place (the union of the parliaments came later and yes now it isn't and it is and that possibly is where alot of confusion starts.

Yes internally we do have our issues but to the outside world we are one.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Scots, Welsh and Irish (both types) are all "Brits" by being residents of the British Isles, so there is no distinction to be made anyway.
> 
> The English are "Brit" as well.
> 
> The British Isles covers the whole thing - the UK is everything excluding the Republic of Ireland (the larger southern part, formerly Eire), then the individual countries of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
> 
> Personally, I put "British" as nationality, unless it's not an available option - whereupon I revert to English.
> 
> Which leads to the fact that I've never once met one single person who would consider "European" a viable answer. Even in continental Europe.
> 
> 
> It's like how everyone in Canada, the US, Panama, Chile, Brazil (etc.) are all Americans.




Bro The Republic of Ireland is Eire ....that is the Gaelic for that name ...like the Gaelic for Scotland is Alba, the North of Ireland is the province of Ulster one of the four provinces of Ireland


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> England and Wales and to some extent Northern Ireland share the same Law but Scotland does not we have our own lol and it is very different in places to that of The rest of the UK



I can't not say it...

It's funny how the countries of England and Scotland are separate with respect to law until it comes to restricting freedoms.

It was Scottish influence that led to the original restriction on air rifle power.

It was a Scottish incident that led to the huge restrictions on handguns.

It was a Scottish incident that is trying to lead to an almost blanket ban on all air weapons (oh, and any firearm).

It's a group of Scottish politicians who are campaigning to introduce motor vehicle power and speed restrictions.


Admittedly, it does work both ways - in the eyes of the politicos we're separate unless they can see a way to impinge on our respective lives...


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> Bro The Republic of Ireland is Eire ....that is the Gaelic for that name ...like the Gaelic for Scotland is Alba, the North of Ireland is the province of Ulster one of the four provinces of Ireland



Yes, but the official use of the name "Eire" (introduced in 1937) was dropped when the country declared itself a republic in 1949.

It's still the name of the place in the language, but it's no longer it's official title.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Yes, but the official use of the name "Eire" (introduced in 1937) was dropped when the country declared itself a republic in 1949.
> 
> It's still the name of the place in the language, but it's no longer it's official title.




I think you will find that most southern Irish use Eire


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I can't not say it...
> 
> It's funny how the countries of England and Scotland are separate with respect to law until it comes to restricting freedoms.
> 
> It was Scottish influence that led to the original restriction on air rifle power.
> 
> It was a Scottish incident that led to the huge restrictions on handguns.
> 
> It was a Scottish incident that is trying to lead to an almost blanket ban on all air weapons (oh, and any firearm).
> 
> It's a group of Scottish politicians who are campaigning to introduce motor vehicle power and speed restrictions.
> 
> 
> Admittedly, it does work both ways - in the eyes of the politicos we're separate unless they can see a way to impinge on our respective lives...




The air rifle thing are you taking about when that kid got shot in the head in the Glasgow area?

The handgun thing I am assuming you are referring to Dunblane ? 

The Scots politicians that are leading that charge lol are the nationalists and they have their own agenda and alot of that is to disrupt Westminster.

As for speed restrictions lol they are not so applicable up here where I live as the roads are mostly single track 


You forgot to add in that the first Monarch of the United Kingdom etc et al was a Scot (actually he had as much welsh blood in him as Scots lol and our present Monarch has half her ancestry as Scots , but hey as the saying goes who would be like us lol ....that the english translation as the scots I doubt any one would get) 

Actually you are aware that when the ind ref was on there were parts of nothern England that actually wanted to join Scotland lol ....they were politely declined and not because of the English thing at all but because they would all have had to change their legal system lol


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Truth is, then as now, I like you well enough to call you on your BS when it comes up




The thing is...you don't. You read into my words what you think I mean and then go off on one. You ascribe meanings to my sentences that aren't there and you post up how awful what I said was. For example I didn't say 'lynch mob', I didn't mention killing anyone previously, you assumed that by misreading and  not reading the context. You totally screwed up my post and turned into something else, something that was verging on hysteria. 

My view is quite simple, teaching a 'no touch' KO, is pointless, it doesn't work. A lot of techniques taught as self defence techniques don't work including some BJJ ones. We can't fool ourselves that a seven stone girl is going to be able to use BJJ to successfully fight off a 14 stone man intent on sexual assault. Consider it before giving all the ways it will work, it doesn't.
Police: UFC's Andrea Lee allegedly assaulted by husband, a convicted killer with Nazi ties

The education needed in this day and age is teaching boys and men not to assault and rape women. Children need to be taught that boys  sexually assaulting girls is not a way of showing 'they like them'. That touching women without their consent is not right, that 'pussy grabbing' is wrong, that people who do this should not be in positions of trust and power. Compared to all that demonstrating a 'no touch' KO is a miniscule problem. I consider ganging up and going to someone dojo with the intent of beating them up to be a criminal act. It 'teaches' nothing, it's what thugs do. People who resort to violence to make the point that the martial arts they do are better than anyone else's are truly missing the point and are perpetuating the thug culture. 


*I don't want you to like me, I want you to leave me alone.*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Scots, Welsh and Irish (both types) are all "Brits" by being residents of the British Isles, so there is no distinction to be made anyway.
> 
> The English are "Brit" as well.
> 
> The British Isles covers the whole thing - the UK is everything excluding the Republic of Ireland (the larger southern part, formerly Eire), then the individual countries of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
> 
> Personally, I put "British" as nationality, unless it's not an available option - whereupon I revert to English.
> 
> Which leads to the fact that I've never once met one single person who would consider "European" a viable answer. Even in continental Europe.
> 
> 
> It's like how everyone in Canada, the US, Panama, Chile, Brazil (etc.) are all Americans.


While I take your point, the US using “American” throws off the analogy. It’d be like if nobody used “European” except Spain, who blithely used it to refer to all things Spanish. We’re like that.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> While I take your point, the US using “American” throws off the analogy. It’d be like if nobody used “European” except Spain, who blithely used it to refer to all things Spanish. We’re like that.




In Europe and in fact throughout the rest of the world though we see the people in the United States as 'Americans', we don't see the divisions you do ie African American, Irish American. 

How to Distinguish Between United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> The thing is...you don't. You read into my words what you think I mean and then go off on one. You ascribe meanings to my sentences that aren't there and you post up how awful what I said was. For example I didn't say 'lynch mob', I didn't mention killing anyone previously, you assumed that by misreading and  not reading the context.



Actually, you did, Tez:



Tez3 said:


> we don't play lynch mobs here



I’m on my phone, so will read the rest more carefully on a bigger screen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> In Europe and in fact throughout the rest of the world though we see the people in the United States as 'Americans', we don't see the divisions you do ie African American, Irish American.
> 
> How to Distinguish Between United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England


Agreed. I think that’s true of most countries - the internal divisions are far less visible from the outside.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> ..........
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? She called ME a thug.



Although I can’t see it, I imagine the Angry One pontificates.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> The thing is...you don't. You read into my words what you think I mean and then go off on one. You ascribe meanings to my sentences that aren't there and you post up how awful what I said was. For example I didn't say 'lynch mob', I didn't mention killing anyone previously, you assumed that by misreading and  not reading the context. You totally screwed up my post and turned into something else, something that was verging on hysteria.



Uh, what exactly do you think "Lynch Mob" means? Do you even know what lynching means? 



> My view is quite simple, teaching a 'no touch' KO, is pointless, it doesn't work. A lot of techniques taught as self defence techniques don't work including some BJJ ones. We can't fool ourselves that a seven stone girl is going to be able to use BJJ to successfully fight off a 14 stone man intent on sexual assault. Consider it before giving all the ways it will work, it doesn't.
> Police: UFC's Andrea Lee allegedly assaulted by husband, a convicted killer with Nazi ties



Except a much smaller person CAN use Bjj to successfully fight off a larger person. This has been proven over and over again in the past. Your example is flawed because in the case of Andrea Lee you have a woman who is being serially abused by her husband to the point where she doesn't believe that she is being abused, thus she feels no need to defend herself.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Uh, what exactly do you think "Lynch Mob" means? Do you even know what lynching means?




So you think invading someone else's property with the intent to beat someone up is fine? Well, yes of course you do because you said so.




Hanzou said:


> Your example is flawed because in the case of Andrea Lee you have a woman who is being serially abused by her husband to the point where she doesn't believe that she is being abused, thus she feels no need to defend herself.




So her case is disqualified because you feel that as an abuse victim she isn't a good example, just who do you think needs self defence then? >shakes head< just as bad as those comments that I've seen saying she deserved it. the first time he laid hands on her I would say she tried to defend herself, didn't work so he went on and on. 

Honestly, you twist and turn more than a politician trying to win votes and please his master. Nothing you say actually proves anything. Post after post of you telling us your opinion, not one ounce of open mindedness, just the relentless churning of 'I'm right, you are all wrong'. Sad.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> So you think invading someone else's property with the intent to beat someone up is fine? Well, yes of course you do because you said so.



So you clearly DON'T know what lynch mob or lynching means. Thank you for the clarification of your ignorance.



> So her case is disqualified because you feel that as an abuse victim she isn't a good example, just who do you think needs self defence then? >shakes head< just as bad as those comments that I've seen saying she deserved it. the first time he laid hands on her I would say she tried to defend herself, didn't work so he went on and on.



I said it was a flawed example because it's not her technical skill to defend herself that is the problem (which is your argument). The problem is that she's in a depressed mental state that prevents her from believing that she's being abused. She could be on Rickson Gracie's level of technical skill, but if she doesn't feel that she's in danger, she's not going to use those skills to defend herself.



> Honestly, you twist and turn more than a politician trying to win votes and please his master. Nothing you say actually proves anything. Post after post of you telling us your opinion, not one ounce of open mindedness, just the relentless churning of 'I'm right, you are all wrong'. Sad.



Have you looked in the mirror lately?


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> So you clearly DON'T know what lynch mob or lynching means. Thank you for the clarification of your ignorance.




What it means to you, you mean. I speak the Queen's English I know what it means in my language. Stop trying to demean and patronise, it's not working. 



Hanzou said:


> I said it was a flawed example, because it's not her technical skill to defend herself that is the problem (which is your argument), she's in a depressed mental state that prevents her from believing that she's being abused. She could be on Rickson Gracie's level of technical skill, but if she doesn't feel that she's in danger, she's not going to use those skills to defend herself.




Didn't read what I said did you. the first time mate, the first time. 


Yes I do look in the mirror and I like what I see, I am not a would be dominant male dictating to others how things should be, I don't advocate violence to people I don't agree with and if you don't like what I say put me on ignore, no skin off my nose.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> The thing is...you don't. You read into my words what you think I mean and then go off on one. You ascribe meanings to my sentences that aren't there and you post up how awful what I said was. For example I didn't say 'lynch mob', I didn't mention killing anyone previously, you assumed that by misreading and  not reading the context. You totally screwed up my post and turned into something else, something that was verging on hysteria.
> 
> My view is quite simple, teaching a 'no touch' KO, is pointless, it doesn't work. A lot of techniques taught as self defence techniques don't work including some BJJ ones. We can't fool ourselves that a seven stone girl is going to be able to use BJJ to successfully fight off a 14 stone man intent on sexual assault. Consider it before giving all the ways it will work, it doesn't.
> Police: UFC's Andrea Lee allegedly assaulted by husband, a convicted killer with Nazi ties
> 
> The education needed in this day and age is teaching boys and men not to assault and rape women. Children need to be taught that boys  sexually assaulting girls is not a way of showing 'they like them'. That touching women without their consent is not right, that 'pussy grabbing' is wrong, that people who do this should not be in positions of trust and power. Compared to all that demonstrating a 'no touch' KO is a miniscule problem. I consider ganging up and going to someone dojo with the intent of beating them up to be a criminal act. It 'teaches' nothing, it's what thugs do. People who resort to violence to make the point that the martial arts they do are better than anyone else's are truly missing the point and are perpetuating the thug culture.
> 
> 
> *I don't want you to like me, I want you to leave me alone.*


I really don't even know what to do with this.   

You made a reference to guns and then to lynch mobs.  As I said earlier, the term lynch mob carries a lot of emotional weight in America.  I'd like to think you would not use it if you knew that, but now I'm not so sure.   you refuse to acknowledge the correction and instead attack the messenger.   Here's the message, lynch mobs in America refer to a situation where white men hang a black man from a tree... Until he's dead. While Not everyone who has ever been lynched was black, the term connotes rqcism.  And it always means hanging until dead, by a mob of angry vigilantes.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> What it means to you, you mean. I speak the Queen's English I know what it means in my language. Stop trying to demean and patronise, it's not working.



What's wrong? Don't like a taste of your own medicine?



> Didn't read what I said did you. the first time mate, the first time.



Except you're making an assumption that she was trained when the abuse began. She could be the victim of lifelong abuse and is simply drawn to abusive men, and think it's perfectly normal to be abused. Again, the POINT is that you tried to use her as an example of Bjj not being capable of helping smaller people defend themselves against larger people, and she was a BAD example. Instead of simply admitting that you used a bad example, you tried to paint me as someone who blames the victim for their abuse.



> Yes I do look in the mirror and I like what I see, I am not a would be dominant male dictating to others how things should be, I don't advocate violence to people I don't agree with and if you don't like what I say put me on ignore, no skin off my nose.



And here we have some more thinly veiled insults hurled my way. How typical of you.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I really don't even know what to do with this.
> 
> You made a reference to guns and then to lynch mobs.  As I said earlier, the term lynch mob carries a lot of emotional weight in America.  I'd like to think you would not use it if you knew that, but now I'm not so sure.   you refuse to acknowledge the correction and instead attack the messenger.   Here's the message, lynch mobs in America refer to a situation where white men hang a black man from a tree... Until he's dead. While Not everyone who has ever been lynched was black, the term connotes rqcism.  And it always means hanging until dead, by a mob of angry vigilantes.




You have problems in your country with extreme racism, don't bring it to my door. When we use the word 'lynch' which is a non racist, non political word here we mean to punish someone without the benefit of a trial, ie illegally, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't care what it means in your country,* as you've all told me many times when I use a word used regularly in the UK and has no connotations but you don't like. *You have read your own American meaning into this word which doesn't mean the same here, that it has racist connotations is down to the behaviour of Americans not British people so we use the word as we would others. don't get on my back because you have problems, they aren't my or the Brits problems.

You stirred this up by not understanding my posts, it's down to you that the use of a word 'upsets' you and you patronise me and the Brits by insisting I'm in the wrong. Fine. I really don't care. If you take offence at every word we Brits use in our normal way but continue to use words we as Brits don't use  ie spaz ( there's others) and think it's funny when we complain then it's just tough.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> And here we have some more thinly veiled insults hurled my way. How typical of you.




Oh if the hat fits dear boy, if the hat fits.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> You have problems in your country with extreme racism, don't bring it to my door. When we use the word 'lynch' which is a non racist, non political word here we mean to punish someone without the benefit of a trial, ie illegally, nothing more, nothing less.
> I don't care what it means in your country,* as you've all told me many times when I use a word used regularly in the UK and has no connotations but you don't like. *You have read your own American meaning into this word which doesn't mean the same here, that it has racist connotations is down to the behaviour of Americans not British people so we use the word as we would others. don't get on my back because you have problems, they aren't my or the Brits problems.
> 
> You stirred this up by not understanding my posts, it's down to you that the use of a word 'upsets' you and you patronise me and the Brits by insisting I'm in the wrong. Fine. I really don't care. If you take offence at every word we Brits use in our normal way but continue to use words we as Brits don't use  ie spaz ( there's others) and think it's funny when we complain then it's just tough.


Good Lord.  

For what it is worth, I don't use the term spaz either.  I used to, but someone let me know that it's offensive and so I apologized and try to do better.  I also no longer use the terms retarded or short bus for the same reason.    

I'm nit upset that you used the term lynch mob.  I'm disappointed that you defend its use by you without apology or any indication that you give a rip about how you appear to Americans when you use it.  

You have a lot in common with our current president.  He also projects his own faults onto others and cannot apologize when he is clearly in the wrong.   

Regarding african american or asian American, we use these terms because these groups use them and ask others to do so.  I made jokes earlier about calling everyone in the UK a brit.  Truly, if you prefer Welsh to brit, or want to be called a bananite, fine.  If it's important to you, no skin off my nose .  why not call you a bananite?  In the same vein, if you want to be called an African-American, why wouldnt I respect your requesr?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> What it means to you, you mean. I speak the Queen's English I know what it means in my language. Stop trying to demean and patronise, it's not working.


The sources I can find indicate "lynch" has pretty much the same meaning on both sides of the Pond: kill without a trial, usually by a group.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> I consider ganging up and going to someone dojo with the intent of beating them up to be a criminal act. It 'teaches' nothing, it's what thugs do.


For the record, this isn't what I was talking about when I mentioned the BJJ community policing its own. Once upon a time in Brazil perhaps, but not today.

If someone is claiming rank in BJJ that seems questionable and cannot be independently verified, then someone (not necessarily even a black belt) might visit for a class and ask to roll with the instructor. If the instructor refuses or clearly does not have the skills to back up their claimed rank, then they may be verbally shamed and the word may be spread so potential students will know to avoid them.

If the instructor can be verified to have legit credentials but they are doing something which violates BJJ community standards (handing out ranks online or whatever), then their behavior will just be publicized and criticized and they have the choice of ignoring the criticism, defending their practices, or accepting the criticism and making changes.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> The sources I can find indicate "lynch" has pretty much the same meaning on both sides of the Pond: kill without a trial, usually by a group.



Both the Oxford and Collins English dictionaries agree with that more or less.

Put (a person) to death, usually by mob action.

Hanging isn't a requirement.


Colloquially though, it carries a different, less severe meaning, and without the US influenced connotations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Both the Oxford and Collins English dictionaries agree with that more or less.
> 
> Put (a person) to death, usually by mob action.
> 
> Hanging isn't a requirement.
> 
> 
> Colloquially though, it carries a different, less severe meaning, and without the US influenced connotations.


So the term is evolving in opposite directions - the colloquial meanings both different from the common denotation? An interesting example of divergence between the dialects, in process.


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> Oh if the hat fits dear boy, if the hat fits.



All this arguing over language! Is it the _hat_ that fits ...or the _shoe? _Or back when you referred to a _seven-stone_ girl having to defend herself against a fourteen stone guy. Is _seven-stone_ kind of a cliche for frail, weak, or "lightweight"? Because over here the cliche is_ 98 lb weakling. _I have no idea where the precise number 98 came from. But I find it curiously appropriate that, as a "stone" is 14 lbs., _7 stones is precisely 98 lbs_. And yes, I digress. 

My real point is that I am far more interested in all this curious stuff I learn from reading Tez's posts than arguing. Sorry 'bout that folks.

Oh, oh! Another random thought: This one relating to why we Yanks call ourselves "Americans", often to the annoyance of other nations sharing the American continents with us. Firstly arrogance. Yeah, there's a bit of that, for sure, secondly, because although "estadounidense" works in Spanish, in English, "United States-ian" is totally goofy. But more importantly, historically, we were the first European colony here to break away from our parent nation and adopt the name "American" to distinguish ourselves from other colonial regions like Canada, New France, New Spain, and so on. 

So, although not the first colony by a long shot, we were the first (and only English speaking nation) to choose the term "American" as our identity ...and it stuck. 

Well, I've derailed things long enough. Please go back to bickering! I will sit back and try to stay on track ...and maybe learn some more. Carry on...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> All this arguing over language! Is it the _hat_ that fits ...or the _shoe? _Or back when you referred to a _seven-stone_ girl having to defend herself against a fourteen stone guy. Is _seven-stone_ kind of a cliche for frail, weak, or "lightweight"? Because over here the cliche is_ 98 lb weakling. _I have no idea where the precise number 98 came from. But I find it curiously appropriate that, as a "stone" is 14 lbs., _7 stones is precisely 98 lbs_. And yes, I digress.
> 
> My real point is that I am far more interested in all this curious stuff I learn from reading Tez's posts than arguing. Sorry 'bout that folks.
> 
> Oh, oh! Another random thought: This one relating to why we Yanks call ourselves "Americans", often to the annoyance of other nations sharing the American continents with us. Firstly arrogance. Yeah, there's a bit of that, for sure, secondly, because although "estadounidense" works in Spanish, in English, "United States-ian" is totally goofy. But more importantly, historically, we were the first European colony here to break away from our parent nation and adopt the name "American" to distinguish ourselves from other colonial regions like Canada, New France, New Spain, and so on.
> 
> So, although not the first colony by a long shot, we were the first (and only English speaking nation) to choose the term "American" as our identity ...and it stuck.
> 
> Well, I've derailed things long enough. Please go back to bickering! I will sit back and try to stay on track ...and maybe learn some more. Carry on...


IMO, the linguistic side-tracks of this thread are at least as interesting as the main point.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> So the term is evolving in opposite directions - the colloquial meanings both different from the common denotation? An interesting example of divergence between the dialects, in process.



It would appear so, it's a good example of society leading the development and evolution of language.

Because lynching wasn't a popular hobby here (at least, not recently) it doesn't carry the same subtext by a long way.

I mean, what would the likely reaction be to a black gentleman commenting on the way someone has parked their car in this fashion: "look at how that twat's parked, he needs a damn good lynching, that should stop him"...

Over here, if the parking infringement is deemed serious enough (or simply stupid) it's met with general agreement.


----------



## pdg

geezer said:


> All this arguing over language! Is it the _hat_ that fits ...or the _shoe? _Or back when you referred to a _seven-stone_ girl having to defend herself against a fourteen stone guy. Is _seven-stone_ kind of a cliche for frail, weak, or "lightweight"? Because over here the cliche is_ 98 lb weakling. _I have no idea where the precise number 98 came from. But I find it curiously appropriate that, as a "stone" is 14 lbs., _7 stones is precisely 98 lbs_.



Yes, generally the phrase is "7 stone weakling" and has been around for quite some time - so it's entirely likely that the saying was directly translated for those who use the simplified imperial weights and measures.

Oh, and hat Vs shoe as to fitting - both are used, but hat seems more and more common the further north you go.


On about sayings and shoes, my favourite is "before you judge someone you should walk a mile in their shoes".

Now technically that's referring to how you should try to see things from their perspective before making a judgement on their actions.

Personally, I think it's far better to interpret it with the ending "that way, when you judge them you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes"


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> For the record, this isn't what I was talking about when I mentioned the BJJ community policing its own. Once upon a time in Brazil perhaps, but not today.
> 
> If someone is claiming rank in BJJ that seems questionable and cannot be independently verified, then someone (not necessarily even a black belt) might visit for a class and ask to roll with the instructor. If the instructor refuses or clearly does not have the skills to back up their claimed rank, then they may be verbally shamed and the word may be spread so potential students will know to avoid them.
> 
> If the instructor can be verified to have legit credentials but they are doing something which violates BJJ community standards (handing out ranks online or whatever), then their behavior will just be publicized and criticized and they have the choice of ignoring the criticism, defending their practices, or accepting the criticism and making changes.


And who is this guy again?  Did we ever get a name?

Plot twist:  it's Roger Gracie.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I'm always entertained by a thread after it hits 20 pages.  It's always something far from the original topic.


----------



## Tez3

geezer said:


> Is _seven-stone_ kind of a cliche for frail, weak, or "lightweight"?




No, a stone is a measurement of weight. 14 pounds equals a stone, it's the common way of saying what weight someone is, we don't use pounds as much as Americans. We are though using metric more and more. _"Stone (unit) The stone or stone weight (abbreviation: st.) is an English and imperial unit of mass now equal to *14 pounds* (6.35029318 kg)."_


_


gpseymour said:



			Actually, you did, Tez:
		
Click to expand...

_
_No I said 'shoot' not kill._


_


Tony Dismukes said:



			For the record, this isn't what I was talking about when I mentioned the BJJ community policing its own. Once upon a time in Brazil perhaps, but not today.
		
Click to expand...

_

I know you didn't, Hanzou was talking about going around and teaching them a lesson.


Now, we all know that certain words have very different meanings in American English from British English, and usages are different. Americans now consider 'liberal' to be an insult, though not presumably if someone is pouring them a drink. You would think, *knowing I am not an American*, that I don't use American idioms, slang words or phrases people would realise that I use words in the British sense which is my everyday, usual language. We have no history with the words that I use that would cause 'outrage' or even a mild rebuke. To imagine I use words that I use everyday to deliberately cause hysteria is laughable, I have a lot of other words I would use for that! You would have thought too, instead of causing a drama and trying to bully me, calling me ignorant etc someone would have popped me a little note saying that it could be taken the wrong way by Americans. No, much better it seems to harangue me and call me names. ah well I have broad shoulders but it's a nasty thing to try to bully people. if by ignorant they mean as a brit I don't have the history they have then I am very pleased to be 'ignorant', if they think calling me ignorant upsets me, no not in the least, I'm always willing to learn, I am not willing though to be patronised and bullied. I am not willing to have my posts blown up into a drama when people pick words out, ignore others and decide they will try to show me up, not happening guys. 

If you are upset to the point of threatening to use violence on someone over what they teach, however weird, then ask yourself if this is normal.  
If you are upset over a* non American* using a word* only Americans* consider 'triggering' then ask yourself if you are being a bully. ( the answer is yes) the world doesn't revolve around what some Americans think English words should mean. I used the words in the context we mean it in, a mob going into some where and punishing someone for an alleged offence, which is precisely what was threatened. How far would the 'punishment' beating go? Many men against one, well who knows? and they want me to put his website up lol, I think not. I don't know if he has one, it may just be in Urdu, I don't know. I don't know because as we say I have NFI.

Anyway dear friends, it's getting dark here and I'm off to celebrate Shabbat. hanzou and Steve can rant away, won't see it, both back on ignore so anything they say will now be behind my back
 
I


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> No I said 'shoot' not kill.


Look back at what I quoted. It had nothing to do with either “shoot” or “kill”.


----------



## Steve

I pity you, @Tez3 .  I really do.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I pity you, @Tez3 .  I really do.




of course you do , ever since you accused me of saying your children took drugs ( I didn't btw, didn't even know he had kids)  you have done everything you can to undermine, bully and put me down. You've patronised, written nasty things on the mentors site about me behind my back and generally behaved badly towards me. You stirred up this thread with self righteous nonsense and called me ignorant, now you are saying you pity me. Keep it, I need nothing from you other than your silence where I am concerned. Go be that banker somewhere else.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3:
hanzou and Steve can rant away, won't see it, 

Also Tez3:
*I*mediately replies to Steve's next post**

You are quickly turning into a meme.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I know you didn't, Hanzou was talking about going around and teaching them a lesson.



Which perfectly fits within what Tony was talking about. *You're *the one talking about murdering people.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> of course you do , ever since you accused me of saying your children took drugs ( I didn't btw, didn't even know he had kids)  you have done everything you can to undermine, bully and put me down. You've patronised, written nasty things on the mentors site about me behind my back and generally behaved badly towards me. You stirred up this thread with self righteous nonsense and called me ignorant, now you are saying you pity me. Keep it, I need nothing from you other than your silence where I am concerned. Go be that banker somewhere else.


You said my kids took drugs?  While I don't remember this at all, I can imagine it would have irked me quite a bit.  I don't recall it at all.

I do recall the comments made on the mentors forum.  The things on the mentors site were things I would (and have) said to you directly.  You're not self-aware.  You tend to go on the attack whenever you are challenged in any way.  You blow things out of proportion.  And you don't like it when anyone shows you how you appear to others.  It sends you off the rails.  Those are not nasty things.  They are observations of your behavior that any objective person can easily see.   I don't say things in private I wouldn't say to a person directly.  Didn't then, either.  There was nothing posted in that forum you hadn't already heard from me directly.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Tez3:
> hanzou and Steve can rant away, won't see it,
> 
> Also Tez3:
> *I*mediately replies to Steve's next post**
> 
> You are quickly turning into a meme.




Eh pot and kettle for thee, you claim you do not read then you reply so ...........................................................


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Which perfectly fits within what Tony was talking about. *You're *the one talking about murdering people.




Hanzou you should take up break dancing as you can swerve everything .....

Leave Tez alone ok you want to pick on someone then come right ahead ...I do understand your jibes and connotations, so bring them my way I will be more than happy to oblige


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> You said my kids took drugs?  While I don't remember this at all, I can imagine it would have irked me quite a bit.  I don't recall it at all.
> 
> I do recall the comments made on the mentors forum.  The things on the mentors site were things I would (and have) said to you directly.  You're not self-aware.  You tend to go on the attack whenever you are challenged in any way.  You blow things out of proportion.  And you don't like it when anyone shows you how you appear to others.  It sends you off the rails.  Those are not nasty things.  They are observations of your behavior that any objective person can easily see.   I don't say things in private I wouldn't say to a person directly.  Didn't then, either.  There was nothing posted in that forum you hadn't already heard from me directly.




Every person is entitled to the opinion and if yours is a person goes on the attack then so be it, 

There is a heck of a confusion in language and how it is used, you may think you can and know how we use things but in reality you more than likely do not. There are many many many things that are said over here daily that people just say and it is not taken as either insult or anything remotely like said. Yes that could be said vice versa to however we have far more exposure to your language uses than you do to ours. 

If I used things from my own dialect ( I mean english dialect ) then you probably would have to google them as I doubt very much if you would know what they mean and in what context they can be offensive and in what context they are not. 

Yes you do have what I would call the gift of the gab, but do not try to be over smart in thinking that you do know how we think and work and use language as sir, in all honesty you more than likely do not (that is no slur) , regional variations and dialects you may know some but I very very very much doubt you will know many and mine you most definitely will not.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Every person is entitled to the opinion and if yours is a person goes on the attack then so be it,
> 
> There is a heck of a confusion in language and how it is used, you may think you can and know how we use things but in reality you more than likely do not. There are many many many things that are said over here daily that people just say and it is not taken as either insult or anything remotely like said. Yes that could be said vice versa to however we have far more exposure to your language uses than you do to ours.
> 
> If I used things from my own dialect ( I mean english dialect ) then you probably would have to google them as I doubt very much if you would know what they mean and in what context they can be offensive and in what context they are not.
> 
> Yes you do have what I would call the gift of the gab, but do not try to be over smart in thinking that you do know how we think and work and use language as sir, in all honesty you more than likely do not (that is no slur) , regional variations and dialects you may know some but I very very very much doubt you will know many and mine you most definitely will not.


If I say something that is rude to you and don't know it, that's not on me.  However, if you tell me that it's rude and I choose to say it anyway, that's entirely on me. 

I explained the connotation of lynch mob.  She doubled down.  As I said earlier, this is very much like Trump.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> Every person is entitled to the opinion and if yours is a person goes on the attack then so be it,
> 
> There is a heck of a confusion in language and how it is used, you may think you can and know how we use things but in reality you more than likely do not. There are many many many things that are said over here daily that people just say and it is not taken as either insult or anything remotely like said. Yes that could be said vice versa to however we have far more exposure to your language uses than you do to ours.
> 
> If I used things from my own dialect ( I mean english dialect ) then you probably would have to google them as I doubt very much if you would know what they mean and in what context they can be offensive and in what context they are not.
> 
> Yes you do have what I would call the gift of the gab, but do not try to be over smart in thinking that you do know how we think and work and use language as sir, in all honesty you more than likely do not (that is no slur) , regional variations and dialects you may know some but I very very very much doubt you will know many and mine you most definitely will not.


The issue is that the exact opposite has happened on here. People (inclusing me, i forget who else) used the word spaz/spastic how it is meant in the US. she freaked out because it apparently has a very negative connotation in the UK. She explained that, we (collective, someone may have been an *** about it) said okay and stopped using it. She complained for a couple more pages but we all apologized and stopped. Not the only time that has happened, but the one sticking out in my mind. Now she used a term that is very racist and hate-filled here, she was informed that, and is getting confrontational about it rather than accepting, apologizing, and stop using. Apparently avoiding terms others find offensive is a one-way street here


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Eh pot and kettle for thee, you claim you do not read then you reply so ...........................................................


What? Why are so many of your posts nonsense?

And what's with your weird period fetish?

,................... Dot dot dot?


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> And what's with your weird period fetish?



Now _that's_ a euphemism*, well done 



*well, it would be here.

Whatever you do, do not do a google.co.uk image search for "period fetish"...

Seriously, don't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Now _that's_ a euphemism*, well done
> 
> 
> 
> *well, it would be here.
> 
> Whatever you do, do not do a google.co.uk image search for "period fetish"...
> 
> Seriously, don't.


Works here, too.


----------



## Buka

I just went back to page one, couldn’t for the life of me remember what the hell this thread was about.

Steve - Interesting concept, applying a competitive training model to a style, any style, would cause one to learn it faster. I’m not really sure if it would be faster. But I think it would be more practical in real world application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I just went back to page one, couldn’t for the life of me remember what the hell this thread was about.
> 
> Steve - Interesting concept, applying a competitive training model to a style, any style, would cause one to learn it faster. I’m not really sure if it would be faster. But I think it would be more practical in real world application.


Wait, there was a point to this thread??

Oh, right. Yes. I agree it would tend to ensure a better focus on testing both techniques and practitioners.


----------



## pdg

Buka said:


> I just went back to page one, couldn’t for the life of me remember what the hell this thread was about.
> 
> Steve - Interesting concept, applying a competitive training model to a style, any style, would cause one to learn it faster. I’m not really sure if it would be faster. But I think it would be more practical in real world application.





gpseymour said:


> Wait, there was a point to this thread??
> 
> Oh, right. Yes. I agree it would tend to ensure a better focus on testing both techniques and practitioners.



Kind of yes, kind of no, sometimes.

Putting a competitive slant on the training would very likely make development faster.

But, it would also very likely restrict the variation of application.

This is the bit that could be good or bad...

Any competition really requires a ruleset - competition implies trying to win, so you need a framework to judge what constitutes a win.

As an example, people who train toward Olympic style tkd competition get very good at trying to win under those rules - but are those rules necessarily good for developing "street" application?

Someone in a tkd school with that sort of training would probably be better at that faster than me, because that's different to my training - but outside those rules, would they necessarily be able to do anything if I punched toward their head, or clinched them, or swept them?


----------



## Hanzou

The problem is that many traditionalists don't view their training model as an issue. They think their art was handed down by some god who was infallible, and their style from the Ming Dynasty is perfect. Thus when they get clowned by someone from the "MMA" styles they blame the stylist who somehow didn't "get it". 

In reality, their training simply sucks for that purpose (fighting).


----------



## pdg

My point above really is that a competitive model would hasten development of the portions of the style that are valuable within the competition ruleset.

There is much more to kkw tkd than is used within the common competition rules, but because it's disallowed or low value within the structure of the established competition it doesn't get much training time in comparison.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> The problem is that many traditionalists don't view their training model as an issue. They think their art was handed down by some god who was infallible, and their style from the Ming Dynasty is perfect. Thus when they get clowned by someone from the "MMA" styles they blame the stylist who somehow didn't "get it".
> 
> In reality, their training simply sucks for that purpose (fighting).



Depends on the sort of "fighting" you're talking.

Yeah, sure, a few traditionalists get beaten when they step into an mma competition arena (and let's be fair here, exactly half of the mma people who step into the octagon lose too).

But these awesome mma fighting experts - they're no more immune to someone wrapping a 2 by 4 around their head on a petrol station forecourt and being dumped in a coma - as has been proved on video...


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Depends on the sort of "fighting" you're talking.
> 
> Yeah, sure, a few traditionalists get beaten when they step into an mma competition arena (and let's be fair here, exactly half of the mma people who step into the octagon lose too).



It's not a few, and its not just in a MMA competition arena. There's plenty of examples of traditionalists getting rolled over in challenge matches as well.



> But these awesome mma fighting experts - they're no more immune to someone wrapping a 2 by 4 around their head on a petrol station forecourt and being dumped in a coma - as has been proved on video...



Yeah, I'm sure your local Tai Chi sifu or Goju Ryu sensei would do so much better in such a scenario.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I'm sure your local Tai Chi sifu or Goju Ryu sensei would do so much better in such a scenario.



I didn't say they'd do better.

But I've seen no evidence that they'd necessarily do any worse - except they may be slightly less likely to be the initial antagonist.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I didn't say they'd do better.
> 
> But I've seen no evidence that they'd necessarily do any worse - except they may be slightly less likely to be the initial antagonist.



Considering that their general fighting ability is suspect, I would say they would do FAR worse than someone doing one of the MMA based styles.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Considering that their general fighting ability is suspect, I would say they would do FAR worse than someone doing one of the MMA based styles.



You're entitled to your opinion on both counts.

Doesn't mean you're right or wrong - it's only your opinion.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> You're entitled to your opinion on both counts.
> 
> Doesn't mean you're right or wrong - it's only your opinion.



I dont see any tai chi or goju guys stomping MMA OR Bjj guys. Do you?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> I dont see any tai chi or goju guys stomping MMA OR Bjj guys. Do you?



I don't see any getting a plank wrapped around their head as retribution either.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I don't see any getting a plank wrapped around their head as retribution either.



??????

So you're saying that Goju and Tai Chi guys are carrying planks with them when they fight?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> ??????
> 
> So you're saying that Goju and Tai Chi guys are carrying planks with them when they fight?



No.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Kind of yes, kind of no, sometimes.
> 
> Putting a competitive slant on the training would very likely make development faster.
> 
> But, it would also very likely restrict the variation of application.
> 
> This is the bit that could be good or bad...
> 
> Any competition really requires a ruleset - competition implies trying to win, so you need a framework to judge what constitutes a win.
> 
> As an example, people who train toward Olympic style tkd competition get very good at trying to win under those rules - but are those rules necessarily good for developing "street" application?
> 
> Someone in a tkd school with that sort of training would probably be better at that faster than me, because that's different to my training - but outside those rules, would they necessarily be able to do anything if I punched toward their head, or clinched them, or swept them?


Great point, and I agree.   Competition restricts the context.  So, on one hand, you are focusing development through a goal oriented application.  Down side is that itmis specific, and so doesn't account for many things.

This is, however, true for any application.   Cops learn skills, some which are relevant to civilian self defense.  But policing is a very specific skillset, and there are gaps that must Be addressed. Same is true for bouncing, soldiering, or any other application.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> My point above really is that a competitive model would hasten development of the portions of the style that are valuable within the competition ruleset.
> 
> There is much more to kkw tkd than is used within the common competition rules, but because it's disallowed or low value within the structure of the established competition it doesn't get much training time in comparison.


Agreed.  The answer then is to broaden the scope.  In other words, encourage wider and more varied application.   Grappling has many different rulesets.  Gi, nogi, sub only, yiunname it up to and including MMA.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Depends on the sort of "fighting" you're talking.
> 
> Yeah, sure, a few traditionalists get beaten when they step into an mma competition arena (and let's be fair here, exactly half of the mma people who step into the octagon lose too).
> 
> But these awesome mma fighting experts - they're no more immune to someone wrapping a 2 by 4 around their head on a petrol station forecourt and being dumped in a coma - as has been proved on video...


How does one train to defend against the surprise 2x4 to the head at the petrol station? Or said another way, would the situationally aware guy who can fight be worse off in this situation than the situationally aware guy who cannot?


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> How does one train to defend against the surprise 2x4 to the head at the petrol station? Or said another way, would the situationally aware guy who can fight be worse off in this situation than the situationally aware guy who cannot?



You can't train against it, that was kind of my point...

What you can do is not harass somebody else's girlfriend to the point a fight gets started.

Does the aggressive nature of that person's training make that behaviour more likely, less likely, or have no bearing?

Does the reputedly more "holistic" training nature of (some) TMA reduce a person's propensity to adopt the "I can fight better so I can do what I want" mindset?


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Agreed.  The answer then is to broaden the scope.  In other words, encourage wider and more varied application.   Grappling has many different rulesets.  Gi, nogi, sub only, yiunname it up to and including MMA.



I agree with this to a point, but it does raise (to me) an important issue.

Let's say system X trains fast and hard with a competitive structure that has a very open ruleset.

System Y is the same system, but trains softer, without the push to hard and (possibly) risky competition.

A person in X will undoubtedly progress (up to a certain point) faster than in Y.

But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.

So, from that perspective, does the training model actually need fixing?

If it's 'fixed' in the stated manner, it's going to narrow the appeal to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> I agree with this to a point, but it does raise (to me) an important issue.
> 
> Let's say system X trains fast and hard with a competitive structure that has a very open ruleset.
> 
> System Y is the same system, but trains softer, without the push to hard and (possibly) risky competition.
> 
> A person in X will undoubtedly progress (up to a certain point) faster than in Y.
> 
> But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.
> 
> So, from that perspective, does the training model actually need fixing?
> 
> If it's 'fixed' in the stated manner, it's going to narrow the appeal to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.



Not really. Because the assumption is that people can't put in hard work and achieve results.

Plenty of tough guys will never be mma fighters either. For the same reason your timid guy won't.

Fixing the training model is about fixing people's perceptions.

And again BJJ is a great example because it doesn't have the alpha Male stereotype. (Mma really doesn't either but a different discussion.)

They just have a reasonable work ethic.






I mean he is getting thrashed in there. Which is just normal every day training.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Fixing the training model is about fixing people's perceptions



That may be your interpretation, but it's not how I read the op.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.


To defend your family members, friends, strangers, weak against strong, ... you still need to fight. Self-defense is not a subset of fighting. Self-defense is just used by someone who thinks he is a good guy and everybody else are all bad guys.

A: I'm a good guy. I train self-defense.
B: I'm a bad guy. I train fighting.

If you think you are the

- bad guy (train fighting), everybody else are all good guys (train self-defense), the world will be a friendly and peaceful place to live.
- good guy (train self-defense), everybody else are all bad guys (train fighting), you will constantly live in fear.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> That may be your interpretation, but it's not how I read the op.



If the expectation in self defence is to be mediocre. Then people who use that training model will be mediocre.

If I close the door to barry in his quest to be a fighter because he is timid. That is my fault.

If my whole system closes the door to people being fighters or people just doing well. Then my training model needs fixing.

And every time someone says "hey you can't train 6 days a week." "You can't learn more than one style" "you are just not cut out to compete." If they don't let people train realistically they are slamming that door to an opportunity in that person's face.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.


As a teacher, you have to decide why you are teaching and what kind of students that you want to teach.

I may miss the majority of the group (more timid, less physically). I only teach those who will

- compete in tournament.
- teach in the future.

The truth is the "more timid and less physically" won't want their body to be thrown on the ground 200 times daily any way.

I have seen student who's body is built as a football player. The moment that you throw him over your head, his face will turn into green. You know that he is not coming back.

The question is, do you just want to keep students so you will never teach "shoulder throw"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Kind of yes, kind of no, sometimes.
> 
> Putting a competitive slant on the training would very likely make development faster.
> 
> But, it would also very likely restrict the variation of application.
> 
> This is the bit that could be good or bad...
> 
> Any competition really requires a ruleset - competition implies trying to win, so you need a framework to judge what constitutes a win.
> 
> As an example, people who train toward Olympic style tkd competition get very good at trying to win under those rules - but are those rules necessarily good for developing "street" application?
> 
> Someone in a tkd school with that sort of training would probably be better at that faster than me, because that's different to my training - but outside those rules, would they necessarily be able to do anything if I punched toward their head, or clinched them, or swept them?


This is why I prefer the concept of adding some competition to training, rather than training for competition. The people who really want to win will always play the rules better than those who just enjoy the interchange.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because the assumption is that people can't put in hard work and achieve results.
> 
> Plenty of tough guys will never be mma fighters either. For the same reason your timid guy won't.
> 
> Fixing the training model is about fixing people's perceptions.
> 
> And again BJJ is a great example because it doesn't have the alpha Male stereotype. (Mma really doesn't either but a different discussion.)
> 
> They just have a reasonable work ethic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean he is getting thrashed in there. Which is just normal every day training.


I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> I agree with this to a point, but it does raise (to me) an important issue.
> 
> Let's say system X trains fast and hard with a competitive structure that has a very open ruleset.
> 
> System Y is the same system, but trains softer, without the push to hard and (possibly) risky competition.
> 
> A person in X will undoubtedly progress (up to a certain point) faster than in Y.
> 
> But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.
> 
> So, from that perspective, does the training model actually need fixing?
> 
> If it's 'fixed' in the stated manner, it's going to narrow the appeal to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.


If it doesn’t work, then it’s not actually helping the timid.   It’s patronising them at best, and taking advantage of their need and their timidity at worst.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is why I prefer the concept of adding some competition to training, rather than training for competition. The people who really want to win will always play the rules better than those who just enjoy the interchange.


That you don’t appreciate the difference just kills me, man.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.


If an instructor cannot help his students to become more courage from timid and become more physical from less physical, there is something wrong with that teacher's teaching method.

- Timid and less physical are bad.
- Courage and more physical are good.

You want to help your students to convert from bad to good and not the other way around.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> If it doesn’t work, then it’s not actually helping the timid.   It’s patronising them at best, and taking advantage of their need and their timidity at worst.



Working or not working strays quite far from the training model though.

As I alluded to, I think there are competitive systems that are less likely to "work" outside the confines of that particular competition - where the students may very well learn the elements useful for competition faster, but the rest might never happen.

So is it better to teach stuff that "doesn't work" fast, or stuff that "does work" slower?

I think you need a mix of every model really - unless you want to specialise. There's nothing wrong with specialising, there's nothing wrong with restricting your clientele - but what's wrong is claiming anyone who doesn't do similar has a broken training model.




Edit: this isn't accusing you of saying everyone else is wrong because that's not how I read the op...


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Working or not working strays quite far from the training model though.
> 
> As I alluded to, I think there are competitive systems that are less likely to "work" outside the confines of that particular competition - where the students may very well learn the elements useful for competition faster, but the rest might never happen.
> 
> So is it better to teach stuff that "doesn't work" fast, or stuff that "does work" slower?
> 
> I think you need a mix of every model really - unless you want to specialise. There's nothing wrong with specialising, there's nothing wrong with restricting your clientele - but what's wrong is claiming anyone who doesn't do similar has a broken training model.



Just curious, what competitive systems do you think are less likely to work outside the confines of their particular competition?

In general, I think people knew for a long time that the traditional MA systems were largely broken. I remember as a kid being told that "Karate" or "Kung Fu" doesn't work because Lenny down the street did karate and got bodied by Joey the High School wrestler. Or Francis took some Kung fu, and  got beat up by Bobby, the school bully. Nowadays (mainly thanks to the UFC, MMA, Bjj and videos of people getting choked out of GnPd) martial arts now have some level of street credibility.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That you don’t appreciate the difference just kills me, man.


What makes you think I don't appreciate the difference I actually refer to? Perhaps it's that you don't appreciate the difference I see?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If an instructor cannot help his students to become more courage from timid and become more physical from less physical, there is something wrong with that teacher's teaching method.
> 
> - Timid and less physical are bad.
> - Courage and more physical are good.
> 
> You want to help your students to convert from bad to good and not the other way around.


The teacher's skill is irrelevant until the other person becomes a student.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Just curious, what competitive systems do you think are less likely to work outside the confines of their particular competition?
> 
> In general, I think people knew for a long time that the traditional MA systems were largely broken. I remember as a kid being told that "Karate" or "Kung Fu" doesn't work because Lenny down the street did karate and got bodied by Joey the High School wrestler. Or Francis took some Kung fu, and  got beat up by Bobby, the school bully. Nowadays (mainly thanks to the UFC, MMA, Bjj and videos of people getting choked out of GnPd) martial arts now have some level of street credibility.


Some of the light-touch point sparring with no need to protect the head has been referred to multiple times in this thread already. Those would be a good example.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.



I still think you are selling people short.

There is a difference between being welcoming to new students and larping.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I still think you are selling people short.
> 
> There is a difference between being welcoming to new students and larping.


You consistently downplay what I do without really understanding what I do. You seem to think it’s all soft and lovey. Soft or hard isn’t a binary thing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> The teacher's skill is irrelevant until the other person becomes a student.


If someone is

- not your student, you can't help him. 
- your student, to be thrown on the ground 200 times daily will give your student courage. To throw his opponent on the ground 200 times daily will make him more physical.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*What is important in all training* is that there be stress during training that causes growth.  How you get that stress can be done in different ways such as Sparring, Grappling, Scenario Based Training and of course more.  Not everyone is going to be a UFC fighter, A Violence Professional such as Law Enforcement, Corrections, Bouncing, etc or just a plain bad ***.  However, if there is *sufficient stress* in their training then they should advance and improve.  Personally, I have always believed in pressure testing what you do.  That is how I was brought up in the Martial Sciences even though I have trained in systems that do not pressure test in a competitive manner.  Yet, I also have witnessed people who do not do as much pressure testing in their training perform amazingly well in real violent situations through work and also as a civilian.   What I do see is people getting caught up in what I do works and what you do does not. The reality is that there is not a one size fits all methodology of training.  This is very evident in Law Enforcement, Military, etc.  They typically all use a combination of stress induced training that includes typically some competition, Scenario Based Training, Technique Training, etc.  However, some do not.  Our Army has included BJJ as a competitive core for moral but not really for the battlefield.  The Philippines Force Recon Marines has a form of FMA that they utilize as their core of training for hand to hand and bladed weapons which they have actually used in combative situations.  The Korean ROK utilize a hybrid from Korean martial arts with hat we would call a fairly heavy TMA approach to it.  Bottom line is I personally have met people who work in a violence based profession from many different systems some heavily in TMA, some in competitive sport martial arts and frankly they all seem to be functioning well in their profession and swear by their martial system.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You consistently downplay what I do without really understanding what I do. You seem to think it’s all soft and lovey. Soft or hard isn’t a binary thing.



When your commentry is committed to what people can't do and won't do. You downplay what you do.

 Every time people defend a system that has to cater for mediocraty.

This is the impression you give. Sorry.





And the point is nobody can exel in that environment.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You consistently downplay what I do without really understanding what I do. You seem to think it’s all soft and lovey. Soft or hard isn’t a binary thing.





 

This is the other guy from my skydive photo.

What people can't do, won't do?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> When your commentry is committed to what people can't do and won't do. You downplay what you do.
> 
> Every time people defend a system that has to cater for mediocraty.
> 
> This is the impression you give. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the point is nobody can exel in that environment.


The only time I talk about what people can’t do is actual physical limits. I can’t shoot in because of my knees. Some people don’t have (and can’t build within their priorities) my muscular strength. 

Mostly, what you hear from me - and misinterpret - is an acknowledgement that some people won’t put in the time or effort, because they have other priorities. It’s not my job (nor anyone else’s) to change those. I help people accomplish what they can within their priorities and physical limits. If I had someone who could do more, and had the time to commit, I’d suggest they cross-train or join someplace where they can put more time in (I don’t offer enough classes to serve their full need). You just interpret that as me short-changing what they could do. That’s a primary difference between your view and mine. I know some people only want to commit so much to getting better at combat, and I consider that okay so long as they understand the choice they are making. 

If I had a full-time program, I’d offer a track suitable to those folks who want to train at the level I used to (2-3 classes a day, 4-6 days a week plus fitness). For now (and probably forever) I offer a range of intensities in a limited number of classes, to match what people can manage, physically. 

If they prefer to keep it at “Sweating to the Oldies” intensity to keep from making injuries worse, I’m okay with that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> View attachment 21816
> 
> This is the other guy from my skydive photo.
> 
> What people can't do, won't do?


I’m not sure what the point is in this post, DB.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The only time I talk about what people can’t do is actual physical limits. I can’t shoot in because of my knees. Some people don’t have (and can’t build within their priorities) my muscular strength.
> 
> Mostly, what you hear from me - and misinterpret - is an acknowledgement that some people won’t put in the time or effort, because they have other priorities. It’s not my job (nor anyone else’s) to change those. I help people accomplish what they can within their priorities and physical limits. If I had someone who could do more, and had the time to commit, I’d suggest they cross-train or join someplace where they can put more time in (I don’t offer enough classes to serve their full need). You just interpret that as me short-changing what they could do. That’s a primary difference between your view and mine. I know some people only want to commit so much to getting better at combat, and I consider that okay so long as they understand the choice they are making.
> 
> If I had a full-time program, I’d offer a track suitable to those folks who want to train at the level I used to (2-3 classes a day, 4-6 days a week plus fitness). For now (and probably forever) I offer a range of intensities in a limited number of classes, to match what people can manage, physically.
> 
> If they prefer to keep it at “Sweating to the Oldies” intensity to keep from making injuries worse, I’m okay with that.



Having the ability to let people excel doesn't prevent people from training part time or with part intensity. It doesn't prevent old people or injured people from training. It doesn't even take away the benefits of part time training or being old or injured and training.

Striving to be mediocre does prevent the opportunity for people to excel. 

Your system is no more inclusive because you put a cap on ability. That is a different set of dynamics. And is more aligned towards gym culture or training methodology.

Your rationalization isn't valid.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I’m not sure what the point is in this post, DB.



You don't judge people ability on your own preconceptions.

Your training model is designed to make people comfortable rather than better.

And I don't think that is what attracts people to martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Having the ability to let people excel doesn't prevent people from training part time or with part intensity. It doesn't prevent old people or injured people from training. It doesn't even take away the benefits of part time training or being old or injured and training.
> 
> Striving to be mediocre does prevent the opportunity for people to excel.
> 
> Your system is no more inclusive because you put a cap on ability. That is a different set of dynamics. And is more aligned towards gym culture or training methodology.
> 
> Your rationalization isn't valid.


I’m not seeing where you’re getting that I don’t allow people to excel - or that I don’t have the ability to do so. Where are you getting that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't judge people ability on your own preconceptions.
> 
> Your training model is designed to make people comfortable rather than better.
> 
> And I don't think that is what attracts people to martial arts.


And where are you getting all of that from?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I’m not seeing where you’re getting that I don’t allow people to excel - or that I don’t have the ability to do so. Where are you getting that?



From this constant argument that people won't be attracted to a system that produces quality martial artists.
*
I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.*

And it isn't true. Hard martial are expanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> From this constant argument that people won't be attracted to a system that produces quality martial artists.
> *
> I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.*
> 
> And it isn't true. Hard martial are expanding.


I’m not sure where you get from that statement that I don’t think anyone wants hard training. Some people do not. While I can help someone who wants hard training (assuming I have a partner for them), that’s not who normally shows up at my door. I suspect they do what I’d do if I were looking for hard training, which is go to an MMA gym first. 

My comment you quoted was about the other folks. Those who don’t want to go hard, for whatever reason (sometimes fear, sometimes just priorities, sometimes physical limits).


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> From this constant argument that people won't be attracted to a system that produces quality martial artists.
> *
> I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.*
> 
> And it isn't true. Hard martial are expanding.



So, here's my take on this - and I'll throw in an analogy too 

So yes, the "hard" stuff is increasing, more places are offering it and the people who want that are finding it.

It's taking a few away from the "softer" stuff (the ones who wanted harder but couldn't get it are moving), but it's not causing a significant decline.

The ones who deemed the softer stuff not worthwhile so did nothing are also going in.

There's also a few that thought they wanted harder, but after doing it decided they made the wrong choice for them, so migrate the other way.

Not everyone wants the same thing.

Personally, I choose to train harder in what some would deem a softer style, and I enjoy the technical parts. If I only had the choice of "do MMA" it's unlikely I would've started at all. I'm not there to "just fight", that sparks no interest for me.


So the promised analogy: tools.

You can buy cheap crappy tools, you can buy inexpensive functional tools and you can buy high quality expensive tools.

For the person who wants to pop up a shelf or fix a fence a couple of times a year, the cheap crap will probably get the job done and last a couple of years.

The inexpensive functional stuff would make those jobs a bit easier, but cost a bit more. Someone doing the same jobs but on a monthly basis, maybe as a bit of a sideline, these are fine. They'll probably last a couple of years, but the cheap crap won't survive a month.

A tradesman whose tools are used to make a living, they need quality that lasts and is reliable. It's worth paying more, sometimes much more. It needs to work every single time you pick it up because stopping a job can lose the job, and destroy a reputation.

A person who has never experienced needing to absolutely rely on their tools might have difficulty understanding why people pay more for something that does effectively the same job - a neighbour of mine was shocked at my mower costing over £2k new, when his (that had just died) cost him £100 and lasted 2 1/2 years - but his was an hour a fortnight for 2 1/2 years, mine is up to 25 hours a week...

So, different needs = different solutions.


----------

