# Play the Game - and Protect Your Life



## TaiChiTJ (Dec 26, 2009)

Master Dominick Ruggieri explains how the game he invented can help you to protect your life. 

Here is their youtube channel:


http://how2playthegame.com/


Here is Master Dominick Ruggieri's home page covering his school where he teaches shaolin, hsing i, ba gua and tai chi. It also has a Play the Game section:

http://www.chinahand.com/


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 26, 2009)

[sarcasm]Yeah. That stuff will work.[/sarcasm]


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 27, 2009)

Uhm...........yeah.  

I don't want to be entirely critical.....it has some merit as a training tool, certainly.  Marketing it as an end unto itself, however, seems a little (okay a lot!) disingenuous.


----------



## mook jong man (Dec 27, 2009)

Looks like very crappy chi sau to me.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Dec 27, 2009)

Yes, clearly its elementary at this level. It will be interesting to see what or if, he evolves it to.


----------



## geezer (Dec 28, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> Looks like very crappy chi sau to me.



Make that *HUGELY CRAPPY* chi sau! LOL


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 28, 2009)

Lets see, Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji and Shaolin all have thier own forms of tuishou and the best he can come up with is no contact slap fighting... interesting.

Play the game - and put more money in his bank account


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Dec 28, 2009)

fyi - 


*We Will D**onate*
A portion of the procedes from all sales of each
"Play The Game ~ Protect Your Life!"
will be donated to such charities as
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 28, 2009)

"a portion"

That's a loaded phrase. Like the "portion" of some television charity commercials...for every dollar donated .10 goes to the starving kid overseas while the rest lines the pockets of the charity administrators.

Those "feel good" sales gimicks do nothing for me.


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2009)

Ummm....I'm kinda speechless at the moment.  This guy can't really be serious with this stuff.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 28, 2009)

Admittedly, it is a novel way to teach concepts like "sticky hands" or sinawali's. 

But "protecting your life"? Not with that you aren't.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 29, 2009)

TaiChiTJ said:


> fyi -
> 
> 
> *We Will D**onate*
> ...


 
fyi - see quote below



Archangel M said:


> "a portion"
> 
> That's a loaded phrase. Like the "portion" of some television charity commercials...for every dollar donated .10 goes to the starving kid overseas while the rest lines the pockets of the charity administrators.
> 
> Those "feel good" sales gimicks do nothing for me.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 29, 2009)

Patty-cake saves lives. :highfive:

In all seriousness... one can't expect to achieve the same level of skill and ability to defend oneself from a single seminar as someone who spends hours training each week; however, a quality seminar can teach some valuable lessons... if done right. 

IMHO these need to be simple, direct, practical, and most importantly easily applied by anyone. I didn't see that in the clip provided. In all fairness, it's just one clip and I can't honestly make any fair judgement without experiencing "the game" for myself.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Dec 29, 2009)

Yes, we need to see the full range of how he thinks this can be used, good point. 


I find visual aids in learning ma interesting, and it can be analyzed for its "fit" in the total scheme of things, which is, as all members of this board immediately see, limited. 


I am going to explore this method and if I find anything noteworthy, will let folks know.



> In all seriousness... one can't expect to achieve the same level of skill and ability to defend oneself from a single seminar as someone who spends hours training each week


 
Of course your right! As I understand this its an on-going class. What he "does next", how he fits it into whatever else he's teaching, is the question. And yes, he''s making bigger claims for this than is warranted. I can see both positive and negative to it and intend to explore it a bit. 
:ultracool


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 29, 2009)

The street ain't like that.

They come up to you and try to get inside your personal space with talk. They might sucker punch you, try to take you down with a grab for your hips, or a 'passerby' decks you from behind.

And when they hit, they try to hit HARD. Micky-mouse blocks won't stop that kind of hit.

Yes it looked like a game. And the people playing the game on the video just played. Didn't see a serious person there.

It may have some good teaching for reaction, but that's about it. Even Bruce Lee got away from that.

Deaf


----------



## K831 (Dec 29, 2009)

MJS said:


> Ummm....I'm kinda speechless at the moment.  This guy can't really be serious with this stuff.



Spend a little more time on youtube, or pop into the next couple of "dojo's" you drive by... it boggles the mind what people are serious about.

EDIT: Having said that, I could see some merit to the idea if applied to getting the attention of very young children.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Dec 30, 2009)

> The street ain't like that.
> 
> They come up to you and try to get inside your personal space with talk. They might sucker punch you, try to take you down with a grab for your hips, or a 'passerby' decks you from behind.
> 
> And when they hit, they try to hit HARD. Micky-mouse blocks won't stop that kind of hit.


So true. 

The question could be asked, how much content being taught in most martial art schools has anything to do with street reality?
When does the instructor teach it, and how?

How much physical strength is required? Is there a clear relationship between physical movement patterns or drills previously taught and their use in a real physical bout? Is the reality of the multi-person attack ever addressed? When? How about various weapons? Low light or other environmental conditons?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 30, 2009)

I'm sorry but the bottom-line for me is this

If the school is legitimately teaching Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji and Shaolin then it should be pretty well versed at tuishou of all of them. However this "Game" is at best a silly slap fight and if they actually had understanding of Tuishou they would know it was a silly slap fight. This leads me to they are either not legitimate teaching Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji and Shaolin so why take this seriously or if they are legitimately teaching the arts they claim to teach they are just looking for a way to bilk the public out of money by use of "the Game" and again why take it seriously


----------



## MJS (Dec 30, 2009)

K831 said:


> Spend a little more time on youtube, or pop into the next couple of "dojo's" you drive by... it boggles the mind what people are serious about.
> 
> EDIT: Having said that, I could see some merit to the idea if applied to getting the attention of very young children.


 
I agree.  And then people who train in the arts, wonder why others call BS all the time.  Its garbage like this, that ruins the legit people that're out there.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 31, 2009)

Hi,

Not being a CMA guy, I wasn't really going to enter into this, as I didn't know how my limited experience with such systems would taint my understanding of what I was seeing. However, this is the General Self Defence section, and that I can talk about.

I checked out the home page of our potential life-saving teacher there, as well as the "game" he is showing, and there are so many bells going off for me it's beyond funny. Now, without fraudbusting here, I didn't see anything that didn't seem as if it was taken straight off a Hong Kong movie, the clip of the Student of the Month was lamentable at best (and before anyone says "oh, but he's just a student", he was demonstrating quite a range of weapons and techniques, showing that he is probably a more senior student, none of which had any intent, spirit, skill, or understanding to them whatsoever), and come on, "China Hand Kung Fu"? So he translated the older characters for Karate, and named his school "Karate Kung Fu"? Really?

On the other hand, it was a good laugh.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 1, 2010)

All the comments have been used.  Nothing more to say other then.  I've seen it all now.


----------



## ninjachamp3 (Jan 15, 2010)

Too often in the martial arts, students learn self-defense that is unrealistic and possibly detrimental to the defender. When it comes to practicality, fight with facts, do not be fooled by your training. Below is only a small list of realities that you can use as a guide to build a better basis for your protection.
*Most fights end up on the ground.*
Prepare by improving your grappling skills.
*There are no rules and no judges in combat*.
If it works, use it, and do not stop until it does.
*Kicks above the waist are unrealistic.*
It is better to be safe than sorry.
*How you train is how you will fight.*
If it is not contact you will be surprised.
*Point sparring is not realistic for true combat.*
Pull your punches and pull your chances.
*Most people punch to the face or head.*
Get used to hooks and crosses, wild and fast.
*Attackers do not hold their punch in the air.*
Learn to control your opponent, not dance around a frozen one.
*Everything is forgotten in a fight.*
All defenses will be natural reactions from years of practice.
*Punches and kicks can hurt you too.*
The attacker might also be prepared, do not underestimate an
opponent.
*Most punches and kicks are off target, thus useless.*
Do not waste energy, focus on primary striking areas.
*Reality is nothing like a movie.*
Survival is the name and it is not a game.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 16, 2010)

Hmm. While I agree in principle with the basic concept you're talking about here, the specifics I think need some work. 

To begin with, you talk about students learning self defence that is unrealistic or possibly detrimental, which I agree with, but you then go on to say a few things that are less correct. You state that people should fight with facts, and not be fooled by their training... not exactly sure what you mean by that. It reads as if you are saying that if you get into a fight, use common sense instead of anything you have been taught, as what you have been taught may not be right. Is that a correct reading of your statement? If so, then what is the point, in your opinion, of training in anything whatsoever, as it could be "fooling" you? And what place do facts come into it? Facts are a part of your conscious processing, and as you yourself state a little later, that goes pretty much straight away. So facts will have no place, and training should be ignored? Okay.

As to your "realities", some are fine, others need clarification. To start with, number one. The propulgated idea that most fights go to ground is a little erroneous, and originates from a study of LEOs based on their prevalent tactic of taking the bad guy down in order to cuff them. It was then latched onto by the Gracies and their counterparts to aid in the promotion of BJJ back in the day, and doesn't seem to go away. But, in short, no, they don't. At least, not to the point of groundfighting, it is more often slipping, getting back up, and so on.

Number 2 is fine, to a point. For one thing, by being so definate in your phrasing, you are not taking into account the different circumstances you may find yourself in. "Not stopping until it (works)" can lead to being overly aggressive, and that can lead to jail. But you whole premise here is a little flawed. Your exact "reality" is as follows: *If it works, use it, and don't stop until it does. *If it works, and it is applicable to the situation, then use it. If it is a viable tactic/technique, you apply it, and it doesn't work, don't keep going, change to something else. If it works, there is no need to continue.

Oh, and you contradict yourself later. We'll get to that.

Number 3. Such blanket statements are dangerous as they can leave you open to things you discount, you miss openings, and basically limit yourself. For the record, I don't do any high kicks, but I don't discount them completely, and I'm sure our Tae Kwon Do guys here (and others, obviously) will be very comfortable with their ability to use their high kicks realistically. 

Number 4 is okay, but it actually goes a lot deeper than you seem to be aware of here. Contact in some form I feel is essential if a realistic self defence is what you are after, but that is one tiny part of it, and is not even the most important. And if the way you train is the way you fight, how do you not get "fooled" by your training and fight with facts instead, as you originally stated?

Number 5 is only dealing with one form of training. And bear in mind that not everyone will be training for self defence, or the same reasons that you are. And really, point sparring has some definate benefits, so another blanket statement about something you don't train in aren't really what I will consider informed commentary. 

Six is good again, but limited. For example, most knife attacks are shanking style actions to the body. I'd suggest, if true self defence is what you are after, get used to recognise those actions as well as others, as you won't see the knife. Really, you just won't.

With number 7, ha, yes. The problem is that too many people take the training drills and skill building exercises as self defence techniques, and that is one thing that leads to such training habits. But yes, agree completely.

Number 8, though, again contradicts your opening statements. Here we are dealing with the effects of adrenaline and acing under stress and pressure. And the important thing is to know how to train to make the most of that, recognise what the effects will be, what the restrictions and limitations will be, and how to deal with it all. Really, if you forget everything, what use is the training?

For the last few, they're pretty good. So I have little to add. But one thing I will say is that you may look to your own understanding, as you are contradicting yourself a fair bit here. Your first point is about most fights going to the ground, and that is the last mention of a grappling/ground range you mention. So it would appear that although you consciously believe it, you really don't on an unconscious level. And that usually stems from one of a couple of sources, but I won't go into those here. I simply suggest you look closer at what you actually believe, as it is a little confused here.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 16, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> As to your "realities", some are fine, others need clarification. To start with, number one. The propulgated idea that most fights go to ground is a little erroneous, and originates from a study of LEOs based on their prevalent tactic of taking the bad guy down in order to cuff them. It was then latched onto by the Gracies and their counterparts to aid in the promotion of BJJ back in the day, and doesn't seem to go away. But, in short, no, they don't. At least, not to the point of groundfighting, it is more often slipping, getting back up, and so on.


 
Thank You :asian:

I was about to start a thread asking for proof of that statement because to be honest I am getting sick of it. Sadly I have been in a few fights in my time and only one ended up as a fight on the ground any other altercation that ended up on the ground was for restraint purposes, when I was security in a hospital with a mental health and detox unit.


----------

