# I think this here is way better than wing chun



## kehcorpz (Aug 1, 2016)

Check this out. I'd like to see a wing chun expert fight against this guy.

The stuff he does looks way more brutal and effective.

It's like 1,2 and baaam the attacker's arm is gone. Very impressive!

I wish he had a school where I live. I'd sign in for 12 years if I had to.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 1, 2016)

I swear I need to grab you by the face and drag you into literally just any gym or dojo.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 1, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Check this out. I'd like to see a wing chun expert fight against this guy.
> 
> The stuff he does looks way more brutal and effective.
> 
> ...


Luke has a strong FMA background along with some silat, muay thai, and kung fu.


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2016)

Yeah Luke's stuff is cool. So find somebody like that where you live and go for it. But be prepared, I hear he charges a whole lot!


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Why are you still here no one on these boards actually respects you now


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 2, 2016)

To the original poster:

I'm going to give you a bit of a reminder here, not as an administrator, but as just an ordinary forum member.  

Just because you weren't able to gain a benefit from a particular system does not necessarily mean that others can't either.  

Furthermore, please keep in mind that art-bashing is forbidden on this forum.  If you continue down this path, you'll probably be hit with warning points for violating the  Rules and Policies, specifically:



> *1.10.2 No Art bashing. *
> 
> No one art is "the best", no one "style" is the best. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Do your research and find what best fits your ability and need.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Check this out. I'd like to see a wing chun expert fight against this guy.
> 
> The stuff he does looks way more brutal and effective.
> 
> ...



Yeah.  But what does luke look like in a fight? Everything looks awesome in drills.

Identify what turned you off the chun and re apply the principles.  That will help yo get a bead on what style is going to work for you. 

Then do boxing.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> I wish he had a school where I live. I'd sign in for 12 years if I had to.



No, you wouldn't.


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Check this out. I'd like to see a wing chun expert fight against this guy.
> 
> The stuff he does looks way more brutal and effective.
> 
> ...


his methods may be good but i disagree with his professionalism, his language is offensive and i see more and more people and instructors doing this. i for one would not attend his or anyone's school if they spoke to me that way.


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> his methods may be good but i disagree with his professionalism, his language is offensive and i see more and more people and instructors doing this. i for one would not attend his or anyone's school if they spoke to me that way.



In a regular class I'd agree completely. A polite and respectful environment is called for.

Now, if you are doing simulated self-defense scenarios, that may call for a different set of rules. Thugs don't talk nice. ...or respond well to polite talk designed not to offend their tender sensibilities.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 2, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Check this out. I'd like to see a wing chun expert fight against this guy.
> 
> The stuff he does looks way more brutal and effective.
> 
> ...




Okay I am going to stop replaying here because...yeah.  There is NO DIFFERENCE.  If you go into a Silat or FMA class you will learn gunting more than trapping, WC, more trapping than limb destruction.  They all have them, they simply prioritize something different.  STOP looking at the "cool" martial art or the art some guy in a video makes looks cool to you.  Stop and look at actually full demonstrations.  Ask "which one looks to fit my mindset, my strength and my flexibility."  Then chose the art because there is no "special sauce", no innately superior MA. Honestly look in the mirror, ask "what am I physically and mentally capable of" then choose. If you can ask this question and answer it honestly you will find the right Art for you.  If you can't, then you shouldn't study the Martial arts because regardless of the Art step 1 is understanding your personal limitations.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> what am I physically and mentally capable of" t



I seem to remember the OP posting on one of this threads about how weak and ill he was? He had all sorts of physical issues.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I seem to remember the OP posting on one of this threads about how weak and ill he was? He had all sorts of physical issues.


And if this is the case in reality, I recall this thanks to you, any hard/striking art is not appropriate.


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I seem to remember the OP posting on one of this threads about how weak and ill he was? He had all sorts of physical issues.



I have trained students with serious physical issues and they have made great progress. Heck, I have some physical issues myself. IMO, the OP's most crippling issues are not physical.


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> In a regular class I'd agree completely. A polite and respectful environment is called for.
> 
> Now, if you are doing simulated self-defense scenarios, that may call for a different set of rules. Thugs don't talk nice. ...or respond well to polite talk designed not to offend their tender sensibilities.



look there is no doubt that we all talked trash at one point or another in our lives, whether it was in the class or the street is not the point of my opinion, here as with the other videos i posted on the combat Aikido, its not what they are teaching its how they are portraying their schools and themselves, would you want your children learning MAs from curse troopers such as these guys? maybe I'm just old fashioned like leave it to beaver or maybe the world is going to crap IDK, but you wont catch me F-ing this and F-ing that to anyone i don't know personally in a public environment.
 i just think its unprofessional and uncalled for.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> look there is no doubt that we all talked trash at one point or another in our lives, whether it was in the class or the street is not the point of my opinion, here as with the other videos i posted on the combat Aikido, its not what they are teaching its how they are portraying their schools and themselves, would you want your children learning MAs from curse troopers such as these guys? maybe I'm just old fashioned like leave it to beaver or maybe the world is going to crap IDK, but you wont catch me F-ing this and F-ing that to anyone i don't know personally in a public environment.
> i just think its unprofessional and uncalled for.



This is exactly why I disliked the mma gym my mother was taking my sister and her step siblings to. All of the teachers were practically covered head to toe in tattoos and every other word out of their mouth was Fvck or B!tch.

On top of that they didn't even learn any form of viable self defense and they were there for good few months. They also seemed to promote the kids unusually fast. The place was also always blarring with gangsta rap and hip hop with lyrics about shanking people and dealing drugs and getting all them bitches and making that money.

This would reflect in the kids as whenever they would talk to cousins of mine around their age the first few words from their mouth would be things like "don't Fvck with me, I'll beatchu up eh."

Hearing a 6 year old kid always talking and acting like a cholo is never a good thing. Way to perpetuate the stereo type that this how all mma gyms are. The sad thing is the owner seemed to be like a nice man but he wasn't their and didn't run it all himself.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> This is exactly why I disliked the mma gym my mother was taking my sister and her step siblings to. All of the teachers were practically covered head to toe in tattoos and every other word out of their mouth was Fvck or B!tch.
> 
> On top of that they didn't even learn any form of viable self defense and they were there for good few months. They also seemed to promote the kids unusually fast. The place was also always blarring with gangsta rap and hip hop with lyrics about shanking people and dealing drugs and getting all them bitches and making that money.
> 
> ...



Well mma technically isn't for self defence it's for the ring sure the stuff you learn will help defend yourself but mma main attention isn't fighting in the streets also mma doesn't have belts or promotions


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Well mma technically isn't for self defence it's for the ring sure the stuff you learn will help defend yourself but mma main attention isn't fighting in the streets also mma doesn't have belts or promotions



So what does that tell us about this place?


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> ...would you want your children learning MAs from curse troopers such as these guys?  ...you wont catch me F-ing this and F-ing that to anyone i don't know personally in a public environment...



_Children?_ Jeez, have you heard how most young people talk these days?  My own little angel dropped out of college, moved back int her old room at home, and has a mouth that would make Halloway blush. My son is actually a little better. It's a crazy world, man.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

But the arm breaking would be OK for the kiddies. Just not the poo words.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> So what does that tell us about this place?


Well for the self defence that's your mistake since mma isn't a self defence school as for the promotions it depends if they're just doing mma or jiu jitsu as well I know the mma place near me has pure jiu jitsu mainly and has mma as well


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Well for the self defence that's your mistake since mma isn't a self defence school as for the promotions it depends if they're just doing mma or jiu jitsu as well I know the mma place near me has pure jiu jitsu mainly and has mma as well



Any place that is combative should be able to defend themselves.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Any place that is combative should be able to defend themselves.


Yes but mma isn't built towards defending yourself it's made for fighting in the ring so it's not going to teach you to kick the groin or poke in the eyes things that you'd learn in karate, Kung fu etc


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yes but mma isn't built towards defending yourself it's made for fighting in the ring so it's not going to teach you to kick the groin or poke in the eyes things that you'd learn in karate, Kung fu etc



Dude. They didn't even tell to you restomp the groin! They were bad at blocking which is the most basic aspect of self defense.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Dude. They didn't even tell to you restomp the groin! They were bad at blocking which is the most basic aspect of self defense.


Don't forget they're only kids they're not going to be Anderson silva just yet and everywhere does it different. At my gym the beginners classes were focused on combinations and only went into defence when you started sparring drills. Just because your shou shu does it differently doesn't make their way wrong. Now do any of their adults compete? Do they win? If they do then it shows it's a good gym for mma


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Don't forget they're only kids they're not going to be Anderson silva just yet and everywhere does it different. At my gym the beginners classes were focused on combinations and only went into defence when you started sparring drills. Just because your shou shu does it differently doesn't make their way wrong. Now do any of their adults compete? Do they win? If they do then it shows it's a good gym for mma



I've never seen any of them with a fight record. Also it's never good to teach kids how to be thugs, I don't know if you saw my above post earlier but the environment was everything but professional.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I've never seen any of them with a fight record. Also it's never good to teach kids how to be thugs, I don't know if you saw my above post earlier but the environment was everything but professional.


I saw but that's not what I was commenting on but yeah I agree that isn't good but in my opinion children shouldn't be training mma simply because it's not a self defence style and it doesn't have as much focus on respect and discipline as traditional martial arts. Before anyone starts on me I'm not saying mma is for thugs but in TMA its yes sir, no sir, yes sensai no sensai oss and bowing to each other where mma is more focused on just the fighting aspect


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Children?_ Jeez, have you heard how most young people talk these days?  My own little angel dropped out of college, moved back int her old room at home, and has a mouth that would make Halloway blush. My son is actually a little better. It's a crazy world, man.


just out of college is hardly a child.....yeah its always been a crazy world and always will be which why training in MAs is a plus.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 2, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> I wish he had a school where I live. I'd sign in for 12 years if I had to.



I doubt that. I really do. You'd whine because he wasn't teaching for free and offering you a free foot massage after class.


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> But the arm breaking would be OK for the kiddies. Just not the poo words.


well gee let me see, if i was a 10 yr old girl and some teenager or older guy dragged me into an alleyway to rape me then yes breaking anything is! i doubt calling him an F-n bleeping whatever is going to stop him....


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> well gee let me see, if i was a 10 yr old girl and some teenager or older guy dragged me into an alleyway to rape me then yes breaking anything is! i doubt calling him an F-n bleeping whatever is going to stop him....



This happens to you a bit does it?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yes but mma isn't built towards defending yourself it's made for fighting in the ring so it's not going to teach you to kick the groin or poke in the eyes things that you'd learn in karate, Kung fu etc



Because the punching, kicking, knees,elbows,throws and submissions are not going to be a suitable tool box.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Because the punching, kicking, knees,elbows,throws and submissions are not going to be a suitable tool box.


Didnt say that I said it's focus isn't self defence which it isn't. an mma coach isn't coaching you about how to fight a drunk in a bar he's coaching you on how to win a mma fight yes the skills you learn will help you in self defence but it's not the focus


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> This happens to you a bit does it?


hrm. what is the point of your replies? are you looking to argue a point because your obviously not understanding my opinion on how a professional should be acting/speaking and/or promoting their school.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Didnt say that I said it's focus isn't self defence which it isn't. an mma coach isn't coaching you about how to fight a drunk in a bar he's coaching you on how to win a mma fight yes the skills you learn will help you in self defence but it's not the focus



Dosent matter what the focus is. Running a hundred meter sprint isn't focused on running away from a drunk in a bar.

But it will do that job just fine. Because it is built to deal with that circumstance.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> hrm. what is the point of your replies? are you looking to argue a point because your obviously not understanding my opinion on how a professional should be acting/speaking and/or promoting their school.



No I just think made up unlikely scenarios are a pretty poor way to justify a method.

We can all make up scenarios to justify things. That is called rationalising. 

Swearing dosent cripple people. Crippling people does.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Dosent matter what the focus is. Running a hundred meter sprint isn't focused on running away from a drunk in a bar.
> 
> But it will do that job just fine. Because it is built to deal with that circumstance.


Yes but the whole point of my comment was ironbear was saying it didnt teach self defence and I'm saying mma isn't a self defence class it's a class where you learn to fight. They don't teach you how to avoid a fight or how to talk your way out of it because if you're in the cage you'd look pretty stupid telling a guy you don't want to fight and then and try walk out before the match starts


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> it doesn't have as much focus on respect and discipline as traditional martial arts.



Really? Says who? You need a lot of discipline and respect in an MMA gym I can tell you, self discipline, always the best kind, saying yes sir no sir isn't discipline it's going through the motions. Do you imagine that people who do MMA can't work out for themselves that techniques can very easily be made lethal? Do you think that because they fight with rules that if they are attacked they still abide by those rules? They don't, they know very well which techniques are 'illegal' and can very easily do them as well as the 'legal' ones if they have to. Underestimate MMAers at your peril.
The focus in MMA is training, training, and more training, the fight is the fun part, the least of it all. A bout will have three-five rounds of three to five minutes, that's nothing, it's the bit you get to enjoy. Training is everything.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yes but the whole point of my comment was ironbear was saying it didnt teach self defence and I'm saying mma isn't a self defence class it's a class where you learn to fight. They don't teach you how to avoid a fight or how to talk your way out of it because if you're in the cage you'd look pretty stupid telling a guy you don't want to fight and then and try walk out before the match starts



You still generally get basic lessons on how to behave around other people.

What happens if you flip out during training?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yes but the whole point of my comment was ironbear was saying it didnt teach self defence and I'm saying mma isn't a self defence class it's a class where you learn to fight. They don't teach you how to avoid a fight or how to talk your way out of it because if you're in the cage you'd look pretty stupid telling a guy you don't want to fight and then and try walk out before the match starts



Many self defence classes don't teach you how to de-escalate or prevent a fight either. In fact most focus on technique. Fight 'prevention' isn't actually a subject studied by many Sd places.
An MMA fight isn't actually a fight as such, it's a competition, an agreed bout with rules between consenting adults. It doesn't bear any resemblance to a fight where self defence would be needed, the players know this but they also know that outside that construct they can also defence themselves because it doesn't take a lot of imagination to turn what they do into the self defence needed if attacked.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Really? Says who? You need a lot of discipline and respect in an MMA gym I can tell you, self discipline, always the best kind, saying yes sir no sir isn't discipline it's going through the motions. Do you imagine that people who do MMA can't work out for themselves that techniques can very easily be made lethal? Do you think that because they fight with rules that if they are attacked they still abide by those rules? They don't, they know very well which techniques are 'illegal' and can very easily do them as well as the 'legal' ones if they have to. Underestimate MMAers at your peril.
> The focus in MMA is training, training, and more training, the fight is the fun part, the least of it all. A bout will have three-five rounds of three to five minutes, that's nothing, it's the bit you get to enjoy. Training is everything.


Is anyone actually bothering to read my posts or are they only seeing a small part for the hundredth time yes you CAN use it to defend yourself and they CAN use the techniques to fight on the street but that's not the main FOCUS If you ask an mma coach what do I do if a drunk comes at me with a broken bottle he won't give you that answer because that's not he's training you to deal with. I'm not underestimating anyone simply saying mma isnt as focused on self defence as other styles.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Butt hurt, oh dear, are you reading what people are saying at all? You are burbling about something you know little about then complaining because you are being corrected. Put your dummy back in your mouth, it gets dirty when you spit it out.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Butt hurt, oh dear, are you reading what people are saying at all? You are burbling about something you know little about then complaining because you are being corrected. Put your dummy back in your mouth, it gets dirty when you spit it out.


I know plenty about it thanks and when I say something and everyone says oh actually yes you can use it to defend yourself. I never said in any post that you can't defend yourself with it never once did I say that I even made the point of saying plenty of times that you CAN use it but it's not a style that will specifically teach you how to fight 3 armed attackers can you use it to beat 3 armed attackers sure but that's not what the coach Is teaching your for. Same as kicboxing I know it's not teaching street fighting self defence but I know I can handle myself if I need to


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I know plenty about it thanks and when I say something and everyone says oh actually yes you can use it to defend yourself. I never said in any post that you can't defend yourself with it never once did I say that I even made the point of saying plenty of times that you CAN use it but it's not a style that will specifically teach you how to fight 3 armed attackers can you use it to beat 3 armed attackers sure but that's not what the coach Is teaching your for. Same as kicboxing I know it's not teaching street fighting self defence but I know I can handle myself if I need to



then why are you making silly statements like MMA not teaching 'discipline and respect'? How do you know that when the MMA coaches are teaching techniques they don't also teach the self defence variation at the same time because a good many do. Our instructor does, he will teach a techniques then show how it can be used for self defence out of competition. A lot of instructors do that.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> then why are you making silly statements like MMA not teaching 'discipline and respect'? How do you know that when the MMA coaches are teaching techniques they don't also teach the self defence variation at the same time because a good many do. Our instructor does, he will teach a techniques then show how it can be used for self defence out of competition. A lot of instructors do that.


Oh for god sake it's actually hilarious because I actually wrote before anyone starts on me saying it does teach it because I knew if you saw it you'd start moaning and I was obviously right


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No I just think made up unlikely scenarios are a pretty poor way to justify a method.
> 
> We can all make up scenarios to justify things. That is called rationalizing.
> 
> Swearing doesn't cripple people. Crippling people does.


listen, you asked a smart assed question ( that had nothing to do with the actual OP or understanding my opinion about using foul language where it shouldn't be) and i answered it by giving you a "made up NOT SO UNLIKELY scenario" and who said anything about a "method" i certainly didn't and i don't see it anywhere in the OP either so maybe you should explain what it is your talking about or stay on subject. it just seems to me like your looking for an argument. see that is another one of my opinions.

P.S. sorry for correcting your grammar errors, spell check you know..


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Oh for god sake it's actually hilarious because I actually wrote before anyone starts on me saying it does teach it because I knew if you saw it you'd start moaning and I was obviously right



whatever.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> whatever.


Please can you point out where I said it doesn't teach respect here's my post 

"I saw but that's not what I was commenting on but yeah I agree that isn't good but in my opinion children shouldn't be training mma simply becauseit's not a self defence style and it doesn't have as much focus on respect and discipline *as much as* traditional martial arts. Before anyone starts on me I'mnot saying mma is for thugs but in TMA its yes sir, no sir, yes sensai no sensai oss and bowing to each other where mma is more focused on justthe fighting aspect"


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> listen, you asked a smart assed question ( that had nothing to do with the actual OP or understanding my opinion about using foul language where it shouldn't be) and i answered it by giving you a "made up NOT SO UNLIKELY scenario" and who said anything about a "method" i certainly didn't and i don't see it anywhere in the OP either so maybe you should explain what it is your talking about or stay on subject. it just seems to me like your looking for an argument. see that is another one of my opinions.
> 
> P.S. sorry for correcting your grammar errors, spell check you know..



So you are one of those grammar people. That explains your priorities.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

Okay I think it's just best everyone ignores this guys threads from now on. There's as much chance of the op starting to train as there is me becoming the president. He won't listen to a word any of us say and is obviously happy thinking he's a grandmaster because he watches YouTube videos no point people getting in arguments because of someone's who either lazy, a troll or both


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Many self defence classes don't teach you how to de-escalate or prevent a fight either. In fact most focus on technique. Fight 'prevention' isn't actually a subject studied by many Sd places.
> An MMA fight isn't actually a fight as such, it's a competition, an agreed bout with rules between consenting adults. It doesn't bear any resemblance to a fight where self defence would be needed, the players know this but they also know that outside that construct they can also defence themselves because it doesn't take a lot of imagination to turn what they do into the self defence needed if attacked.



And the ones that do generally are not psychologists or hostage negotiators or anyone with any real grounding in the field of deescalation. Or fight prevention.

So you are still getting about the same level of training in that area as you would from a sport anyway.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Okay I think it's just best everyone ignores this guys threads from now on. There's as much chance of the op starting to train as there is me becoming the president. He won't listen to a word any of us say and is obviously happy thinking he's a grandmaster because he watches YouTube videos no point people getting in arguments because of someone's who either lazy, a troll or both



We all make our own choice in that matter. We have always had that choice.

That is why am suprised people are so upset.


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So you are one of those grammar people. That explains your priorities.


what do you know of me personally to make such a statement? Because i take pride in doing things proper I'm some kind of bad person? i fixed the grammar errors, that's all, i just happened to notice some were yours and to make a seemingly bad situation a bit better by adding some humor as you can see by the smiley i added, but i guess i was correct that your just looking for an argument. I hope in some way this helped you vent and that you have a better latter 1/2 of the day because of it.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

That's my point. An mma gym, boxing gym, any fighting art should over lap into self defense. For example my American kenpo dojo focused more on preparing us for karate competitions and that showed alot when I went into Shou shu. I did things like back away from a punch to throw a kick for example. I did things like eating a weak hook in order to return with my own strikes. 

That is all fine and dandy in competition where the worst thing that can happen is well, you lose the competition,but in the real world none of that would be a good idea.

Still though that kind of training was enough to get me by, but it definitely wasn't the most ideal stuff.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Didnt say that I said it's focus isn't self defence which it isn't. an mma coach isn't coaching you about how to fight a drunk in a bar he's coaching you on how to win a mma fight yes the skills you learn will help you in self defence but it's not the focus


  Nobody should need coaching on how to fight a drunk in a bar. After all, it's a *drunk* person. Easy peasy.



Kickboxer101 said:


> Please can you point out where I said it doesn't teach respect here's my post
> 
> "I saw but that's not what I was commenting on but yeah I agree that isn't good but in my opinion children shouldn't be training mma simply becauseit's not a self defence style and it doesn't have as much focus on respect and discipline *as much as* traditional martial arts. Before anyone starts on me I'mnot saying mma is for thugs but in TMA its yes sir, no sir, yes sensai no sensai oss and bowing to each other where mma is more focused on justthe fighting aspect"


  Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have been involved in classical Japanese martial arts for well over 20 years now. Nobody has ever insisted that I say yes sir or no sir. I tell my students to knock off the sensei stuff. Oss has got to be the most overused and ridiculous thing to come out of most karate people's mouths, and I refuse to let it be used in my dojo, and bowing to each other is simply Japanese societal mores. It all depends on *the school*, not the art.



Ironbear24 said:


> That's my point. An mma gym, boxing gym, any fighting art should over lap into self defense. For example my American kenpo dojo focused more on preparing us for karate competitions and that showed alot when I went into Shou shu. I did things like back away from a punch to throw a kick for example. I did things like eating a weak hook in order to return with my own strikes.
> 
> That is all fine and dandy in competition where the worst thing that can happen is well, you lose the competition,but in the real world none of that would be a good idea.
> 
> Still though that kind of training was enough to get me by, but it definitely wasn't the most ideal stuff.


  But most of them don't. The majority of self defense is more about situational awareness, de-escalation techniques, and having enough self confidence to laugh off insults rather than fighting. The vast majority of actual fights that anyone is likely to engage in will *not* be with a trained individual, therefore just about any sort of fight training will give a person a large advantage.

  I do agree with you though that all gyms should have some cross-over into non-refereed scenarios.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 2, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Nobody should need coaching on how to fight a drunk in a bar. After all, it's a *drunk* person. Easy peasy.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have been involved in classical Japanese martial arts for well over 20 years now. Nobody has ever insisted that I say yes sir or no sir. I tell my students to knock off the sensei stuff. Oss has got to be the most overused and ridiculous thing to come out of most karate people's mouths, and I refuse to let it be used in my dojo, and bowing to each other is simply Japanese societal mores. It all depends on *the school*, not the art.
> ...


Not at all drunks can be very violent and won't always feel the pain as much as when they're sober because the booze numbs their senses


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 2, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Not at all drunks can be very violent and won't always feel the pain as much as when they're sober because the booze numbs their senses


  While that's certainly true, it also greatly affects coordination. If a person is so drunk that they're going to attack you in a bar, then it has been my experience that they have bad cognitive skills and poor coordination by that point, and they are easily defeated using the most rudimentary of techniques. You were talking about self defense fighting, not door guard or LEO.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> what do you know of me personally to make such a statement? Because i take pride in doing things properly I'm some kind of bad person? i fixed the grammar errors, that's all, i just happened to notice some were yours and to make a seemingly bad situation a bit better by adding some humor as you can see by the smiley i added, but i guess i was correct that your just looking for an argument. I hope in some way this helped you vent and that you have a better latter 1/2 of the day because of it.



Lol.  No.  You take pride in telling people they have failed in your eyes.

But nice try though.

Passive aggressive? Not sure.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Nobody should need coaching on how to fight a drunk in a bar. After all, it's a *drunk* person. Easy peasy.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have been involved in classical Japanese martial arts for well over 20 years now. Nobody has ever insisted that I say yes sir or no sir. I tell my students to knock off the sensei stuff. Oss has got to be the most overused and ridiculous thing to come out of most karate people's mouths, and I refuse to let it be used in my dojo, and bowing to each other is simply Japanese societal mores. It all depends on *the school*, not the art.
> ...



You only need a small percentage of roided up kill monsters who are out to bash dudes.  To create a significant threat to every body else. 

So the likeyhood of coming across a trained bad guy is a bit higher than the numbers may suggest.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 2, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Nobody should need coaching on how to fight a drunk in a bar. After all, it's a *drunk* person. Easy peasy.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have been involved in classical Japanese martial arts for well over 20 years now. Nobody has ever insisted that I say yes sir or no sir. I tell my students to knock off the sensei stuff. Oss has got to be the most overused and ridiculous thing to come out of most karate people's mouths, and I refuse to let it be used in my dojo, and bowing to each other is simply Japanese societal mores. It all depends on *the school*, not the art.
> ...





drop bear said:


> You only need a small percentage of roided up kill monsters who are out to bash dudes.  To create a significant threat to every body else.
> 
> So the likeyhood of coming across a trained bad guy is a bit higher than the numbers may suggest.



I don't agree with this entirely becuase there are fighters out there in the world who go through some heavy **** in life. They could be going through a very rough patch and be very irritable and quick to anger which can lead to a fight over the dumbest thing.

Martial artists are not perfect people and are capable of being in the wrong when they fight. It sucks but it happens .


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree with this entirely becuase there are fighters out there in the world who go through some heavy **** in life. They could be going through a very rough patch and be very irritable and quick to anger which can lead to a fight over the dumbest thing.
> 
> Martial artists are not perfect people and are capable of being in the wrong when they fight. It sucks but it happens .



Not the point i was getting at.  But valid any way. 

When an area gets a spate of thefts it can quite often be just one guy. So a big problem id caused buy a small number of people.

Assults can be the same.  You don't need a large number of baddies out there to be under a threat.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 2, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Nobody should need coaching on how to fight a drunk in a bar. After all, it's a *drunk* person. Easy peasy.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have been involved in classical Japanese martial arts for well over 20 years now. Nobody has ever insisted that I say yes sir or no sir. I tell my students to knock off the sensei stuff. Oss has got to be the most overused and ridiculous thing to come out of most karate people's mouths, and I refuse to let it be used in my dojo, and bowing to each other is simply Japanese societal mores. It all depends on *the school*, not the art.
> ...



Drunks aren't necessarily easy.  First there are the people I call "career drinkers." These are the people who aren't even functional until they are a .05.  These people will have the poor decision making and cognitive skills when intoxicated, these people are also statistically more likely to be violent.  Their experience with drinking however means their physical degradation takes longer.

Second regardless of whether they are in category #1 fight or flight has an interesting effect.  The adrenaline dump doesn't change the poor decision making skills, lack of cognitive ability etc BUT it can let you fight as if sober.  Essentially what happens is that the adrenaline dump puts the primitive mind in charge.  As long as you are not, literally, falling down drunk, you will resort to instinctively fighting (if no formal training) if you have formal training muscle memory kicks in.  The alcohol then also reads pain response on top of the deadening on pain response the adrenaline itself brings.

Add all of this together and there is, in essence, a "sweet spot" where drunks can actually be some of the most dangerous people to fight.

I agree with the rest of your post however.  The last part is why I see a difference between "combatives" and self defense, though others clearly don't see the distinction.  To me "combatives" is a method of training one should undergo if you are going to regularly encounter situations when walking a way isn't an option.  I am a bigger fan of verbal judo than actual fighting BUT every day I find myself in a circumstance where I quite literally can't walk away.  This means, sadly on a regular basis due to where I work, I will without doubt end up engaged in a hostile encounter.  Self-defense for me actually has more options. If you are a reasonable person you should rarely, if ever, find yourself the knowing instigator of a confrontational situation.  If you find yourself in one you can use verbal judo BUT, unless you are literally surrounded or backed into a corner, you can almost always walk or run away.  The only issue I have with some self-defense training is that they don't teach those options that lead up to the fight AND they all too often don't do a good job of dealing with the actual stress of the encounter.  I have watched black belts that are the stars of their schools get thumped by an "average" brawler because they simply were prepared for the stress and brutality of a real fight outside the dojo.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 3, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> While that's certainly true, it also greatly affects coordination. If a person is so drunk that they're going to attack you in a bar, then it has been my experience that they have bad cognitive skills and poor coordination by that point, and they are easily defeated using the most rudimentary of techniques. You were talking about self defense fighting, not door guard or LEO.


Maybe but still if the guys drunk and has some training or even a weapon they can still be dangerous that's why a lot of assaults happen when the attackers drunk if they were so easy to beat drunks wouldn't be able to assault anyone


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 3, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Maybe but still if the guys drunk and has some training or even a weapon they can still be dangerous that's why a lot of assaults happen when the attackers drunk if they were so easy to beat drunks wouldn't be able to assault anyone




Actually see above.  Medical professionals still quite understand why but there have been studies involving people who purposefully became intoxicated.  They then had them perform tasks that included fine muscle motor function.  Next they subjected them to things that would cause a natural adrenaline response (typically via the infliction of pain).  The test subjects were asked to perform the same test and there were marked improvements in performance.  There is a limit of course, you can't be falling down drunk, but the fight or flight mechanism is an amazing thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2016)

When people have had a few drinks it's less about their fighting abilities and more about their inhibitions being lowered. People who normally wouldn't argue or fight become aggressive under the influence of alcohol, they also become unpredictable and can switch moods very quickly.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 3, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> When people have had a few drinks it's less about their fighting abilities and more about their inhibitions being lowered. People who normally wouldn't argue or fight become aggressive under the influence of alcohol, they also become unpredictable and can switch moods very quickly.



Yep, and add to the unpredictability of the suspect the that alcohol will bring additional pain suppression to that the adrenaline brings.  I would rather deal with a sober person trained in Martial arts than one after a few drinks or high on something any day of the week.


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Lol.  No.  You take pride in telling people they have failed in your eyes.
> 
> But nice try though.
> 
> Passive aggressive? Not sure.


and yet another assumption based solely on no facts what so ever..still hoping for that argument i see..


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 3, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> and yet another assumption based solely on no facts what so ever..still hoping for that argument i see..


Best way to not let someone argue is to not argue with them


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Any place that is combative should be able to defend themselves.


Absolutely (obviously, that wouldn't necessarily include those styles training for very-light-contact point sparring). When you say they didn't learn any self-defense, did they learn nothing that would work? I studied Judo for a while before I found NGA. We never studied self-defense, but what I learned there is actually what I used in my first physical self-defense encounter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Dosent matter what the focus is. Running a hundred meter sprint isn't focused on running away from a drunk in a bar.
> 
> But it will do that job just fine. Because it is built to deal with that circumstance.


I agreed, except that focus does matter. Yes, running a faster 100-meter sprint will work. Running a little slower and being able to dodge around things will work better. Doing that and staying aware of the people around you (in case one is trying to grab you for his friend) will work better yet.

Focus does matter. That doesn't make other training irrelevant. Cross-training is an important component in almost all effective physical training.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Absolutely (obviously, that wouldn't necessarily include those styles training for very-light-contact point sparring). When you say they didn't learn any self-defense, did they learn nothing that would work? I studied Judo for a while before I found NGA. We never studied self-defense, but what I learned there is actually what I used in my first physical self-defense encounter.



They were shown how to throw crazy punches and shown a double leg takedown. As far as anything like blocking to you know, not get hit, they didn't know squat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Because the punching, kicking, knees,elbows,throws and submissions are not going to be a suitable tool box.


Why did you address all the things he didn't talk about, rather than the point he actually made? His point is valid, as is yours. Discussion is not a zero-sum game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> They were shown how to throw crazy punches and shown a double leg takedown. As far as anything like blocking to you know, both get hit, they didn't know squat.


If they weren't learning blocking, they weren't actually learning for MMA competition, either. There's a reason MMA training normally translates well to physical self-defense.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> If they weren't learning blocking, they weren't actually learning for MMA competition, either. There's a reason MMA training normally translates well to physical self-defense.



That's my point. What the hell were they learning? It said mma on the building but what they got was ********.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 3, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree with this entirely becuase there are fighters out there in the world who go through some heavy **** in life. They could be going through a very rough patch and be very irritable and quick to anger which can lead to a fight over the dumbest thing.
> 
> Martial artists are not perfect people and are capable of being in the wrong when they fight. It sucks but it happens .



  While I agree that this is a possibility, I've never encountered it. Nobody that I've trained with has ever encountered it. The vast majority of martial artists that I've asked the question of have never even had to use their skills in a fight against anyone, never mind a drunk martial artist. Therefore, it is an extremely remote possibility in my mind, and not worth making an issue out of it. Perhaps you should be more worried about training to defeat a drunk attacking you with his artificial arm, since I've actually seen that happen. That makes it a more likely encounter in my mind than worrying about how to fight a drunk martial artist.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 3, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> While I agree that this is a possibility, I've never encountered it. Nobody that I've trained with has ever encountered it. The vast majority of martial artists that I've asked the question of have never even had to use their skills in a fight against anyone, never mind a drunk martial artist. Therefore, it is an extremely remote possibility in my mind, and not worth making an issue out of it. Perhaps you should be more worried about training to defeat a drunk attacking you with his artificial arm, since I've actually seen that happen. That makes it a more likely encounter in my mind than worrying about how to fight a drunk martial artist.



You never heard of the drunken master?

Anyway it is unlikely, but it can happen, whether you wish to train for it us up to you, id rather train to fight other martial artists because not only will I be competing but if I can beat a guy who is trained for fighting then odds are I will be able to beat an idiot drunk.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 3, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> While I agree that this is a possibility, I've never encountered it. Nobody that I've trained with has ever encountered it. The vast majority of martial artists that I've asked the question of have never even had to use their skills in a fight against anyone, never mind a drunk martial artist. Therefore, it is an extremely remote possibility in my mind, and not worth making an issue out of it. Perhaps you should be more worried about training to defeat a drunk attacking you with his artificial arm, since I've actually seen that happen. That makes it a more likely encounter in my mind than worrying about how to fight a drunk martial artist.



Well I am here.  I have been a LEO for almost 20 years in a "high crime" urban community.  How many drunk people who have trained in boxing or at a McDojo or "MMA rocks!!!!" do you think I have encountered while they were drunk?

That said the purpose of self defense training is like that of a condom.  Better to have it, and not need it, than to need it and not have it.  Otherwise what is the dang point?


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 3, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Best way to not let someone argue is to not argue with them


i totally agree, i still don't see where there is any argument.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 3, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well I am here.  I have been a LEO for almost 20 years in a "high crime" urban community.  How many drunk people who have trained in boxing or at a McDojo or "MMA rocks!!!!" do you think I have encountered while they were drunk?
> 
> That said the purpose of self defense training is like that of a condom.  Better to have it, and not need it, than to need it and not have it.  Otherwise what is the dang point?


  Yes, but I specifically said in my earlier post that we were discussing self defense scenarios, not door guards or LEOs. People in the security or law enforcement industry have a different set of requirements than the rest of us, and need to train accordingly.

  I just get a bit disgruntled by all of the (mostly younger) folks that will argue vehemently about how (insert MA name here) won't properly teach you how to "fight on the street" (why the heck would you be getting into fights on the street anyway?) or fight a drunk in a bar (re: my earlier response regarding fighting drunks). My point is that arguing about it is fruitless and, for the most part, totally worthless. Just training regularly in *any* martial art will give a normal person all the skills they'll likely ever need unless they decide to go into security or law enforcement.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> and yet another assumption based solely on no facts what so ever..still hoping for that argument i see..



If you want to fix spelling or grammar. You care about the spelling or grammar. If you want to tell people you have done it. 

Then it is no longer about the spelling/grammar.

Still being passive aggressive.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agreed, except that focus does matter. Yes, running a faster 100-meter sprint will work. Running a little slower and being able to dodge around things will work better. Doing that and staying aware of the people around you (in case one is trying to grab you for his friend) will work better yet.
> 
> Focus does matter. That doesn't make other training irrelevant. Cross-training is an important component in almost all effective physical training.



Street excuses for being slow.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Why did you address all the things he didn't talk about, rather than the point he actually made? His point is valid, as is yours. Discussion is not a zero-sum game.



No his point is not valid. He made the distinction. 

Self defence is not defined by specific techniques.  A groin kick is not any more self defence than a face punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Street excuses for being slow.


Sloppy attempt to avoid the point being made.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No his point is not valid. He made the distinction.
> 
> Self defence is not defined by specific techniques.  A groin kick is not any more self defence than a face punch.


No, but it is a self-defense technique that can be useful, but not so in competition.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Sloppy attempt to avoid the point being made.



Yeah.  Ok.  So we have usain bolt and you.

Do i train with him and then learn to run around obstacles if that floats my boat.  Or do i train with you because anecdotaly you out ran some guys. But have a specific system.

Wait.  Mabye you have been running for fifty years.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> No, but it is a self-defense technique that can be useful, but not so in competition.



They are both self defence techniques that can be useful. And it is an important distinction. Because it depends where you are getting your information from.  You are either looking at the best representation of an idea.  Or you are discarding that for a buch of stories.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  Ok.  So we have usain bolt and you.
> 
> Do i train with him and then learn to run around obstacles if that floats my boat.  Or do i train with you because anecdotaly you out ran some guys. But have a specific system.
> 
> Wait.  Mabye you have been running for fifty years.


You're comparing an extreme to an average. Poor comparison doesn't prove any point. A similar example would be to say that training to defend against a knife attack is foolish, because a world knife-fighting champion can still kill you. You are smart enough to make more reasonable arguments than that.

Let's try a more realistic example. I'm 47, with iffy knees. I still run, and am a bit faster than average. I could work really hard to train my 100M sprint time, and I'll get a bit faster. Or, I can train half that hard on the sprint and the other half on agility and awareness. Since the latter training better fits the situation, I'm more likely to escape by that method of training.

Is it a huge difference? That depends upon the person (how agile/aware are they to start with?) and the situation (how many obstacles/people are between me and the door?). There's definitely a gain to be had by the straight sprint training. There's definitely advantage to be had from training for the situation. Combining the two may be the best answer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> They are both self defence techniques that can be useful. And it is an important distinction. Because it depends where you are getting your information from.  You are either looking at the best representation of an idea.  Or you are discarding that for a buch of stories.


Or you're ignoring real-world evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not "a bunch of stories". It's a term for evidence that doesn't come in large enough numbers to be statistically analyzed. In SD terms, anecdotal evidence is people's experience. A cop can provide anecdotal evidence of what works in a lot of situations. If he makes a lot of arrests against resisting suspects, he may be able to do more than provide anecdotal evidence, since he'd have enough examples to draw analytical conclusions.

In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't just reading stories on the internet, it's what we get when we debrief someone about their experience. Like when my instructor took down a druggie robbing the pharmacy he worked at. Like when a youth student avoided a bully's punch at school. Like when I used my Judo to drop a guy who grabbed me from behind. Like when I escorted a belligerent drunk out of a college bar before he could start any real trouble.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Or you're ignoring real-world evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not "a bunch of stories". It's a term for evidence that doesn't come in large enough numbers to be statistically analyzed. In SD terms, anecdotal evidence is people's experience. A cop can provide anecdotal evidence of what works in a lot of situations. If he makes a lot of arrests against resisting suspects, he may be able to do more than provide anecdotal evidence, since he'd have enough examples to draw analytical conclusions.
> 
> In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't just reading stories on the internet, it's what we get when we debrief someone about their experience. Like when my instructor took down a druggie robbing the pharmacy he worked at. Like when a youth student avoided a bully's punch at school. Like when I used my Judo to drop a guy who grabbed me from behind. Like when I escorted a belligerent drunk out of a college bar before he could start any real trouble.



The problem is some people ignore anecdotal evidence, and try to twist the definition, when it contradicts either their own experience or, more often, when it contradicts a preconceived notion that has not actually been tested.  People often confuse such notions with opinion because they don't recognize the fact that an opinion isn't just something you think or believe, it is something that must be informed by facts that you can test and demonstrate.

To quote Harlan Ellison, "you do not have a right to an opinion.  You have a right to an informed opinion, no one is entitled to be ignorant."

Now when changing topics, moving goal posts, strawmaning etc fail the next step often is to engage in hyperbole.  Often it is hyperbolic enough to again stray into the land of strawmaning but not always.  

In the end however all these methods simply illustrate that there is no actual experience or data to defend the notion being presented.  I actually find it kinda sad how many people today miss a basic rule of discussion/debate.  If you have a position you wish to support the way you actually support it by defending it.  You present facts and/or experiences that validate your position.  When you are reduced to only attacking the opposing position, especially with the tactics I note in brief above, you illustrate that either A) your position is actually indefensible and can't stand on its own or B) you are arguing for argument's sake, aka trolling.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> ) you are arguing for argument's sake, aka trolling.



I see that a lot on this site and on the internet in general.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I see that a lot on this site and on the internet in general.


Yes. Unfortunately, it seems to draw out the arguy-ness (I seem to be using a lot of neologisms these days) in some folks. I come here to discuss, sometimes debate, get new ideas and even corrections, and hopefully to occasionally change someone's mind - as often as not, my own.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You're comparing an extreme to an average. Poor comparison doesn't prove any point. A similar example would be to say that training to defend against a knife attack is foolish, because a world knife-fighting champion can still kill you. You are smart enough to make more reasonable arguments than that.
> 
> Let's try a more realistic example. I'm 47, with iffy knees. I still run, and am a bit faster than average. I could work really hard to train my 100M sprint time, and I'll get a bit faster. Or, I can train half that hard on the sprint and the other half on agility and awareness. Since the latter training better fits the situation, I'm more likely to escape by that method of training.
> 
> Is it a huge difference? That depends upon the person (how agile/aware are they to start with?) and the situation (how many obstacles/people are between me and the door?). There's definitely a gain to be had by the straight sprint training. There's definitely advantage to be had from training for the situation. Combining the two may be the best answer.



No that is the realistic comparison. because usain bolt is a champion in sport that is why he is an expert.

Who is the expert in self defence running?

Pretty much anybody who says they are. 

The comparison quite often is usain bolt and you. 


I train under a champion sports fighter who is an expert. You are a self defence expert.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I train under a champion sports fighter who is an expert. You are a self defence expert.



I smell a superiority complex.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I smell a superiority complex.



Not at all.  It is how i decided who i would put my faith in and why. 

I am explaining my logical prosess.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not at all.  It is how i decided who i would put my faith in and why.
> 
> I am explaining my logical prosess.



So how is it different from what gpseymor did?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> So how is it different from what gpseymor did?



What do yoi mean?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No that is the realistic comparison. because usain bolt is a champion in sport that is why he is an expert.
> 
> Who is the expert in self defence running?
> 
> ...


Usain Bolt can probably teach you to run fast. But he cannot teach you to run around obstacles unless that's something he has done. A football (US) coach would be a better choice for that. Why? Because their agility training is closer to the situation. So, rather than compare a champion athlete to someone in a sector with no comparison (there are no champion self-defense instructors), compare a champion athlete to a champion coach in a better sector. A football coach is used to teaching not just speed, but also agility. Since that's closer to the situation you're training for, he'd be a better choice than a champion sprinter. And it would be better for another reason: his skill is producing skill, rather than showing it. If I want to train for a competition, I don't need a prize fighter; I need someone who has trained prize fighters. If I want to train for self-defense (and not take the physical beating of competiion), then I go to someone who has trained effective defenders.

You seem to be claiming at the same time that competition is the best preparation for self-defense, and that any claim of effective self-defense is bunk. You can't have both of those. Either competition (including sparring/randori) is an effective measurement, or it isn't. Make a choice and stick to one argument.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Usain Bolt can probably teach you to run fast. But he cannot teach you to run around obstacles unless that's something he has done. A football (US) coach would be a better choice for that. Why? Because their agility training is closer to the situation. So, rather than compare a champion athlete to someone in a sector with no comparison (there are no champion self-defense instructors), compare a champion athlete to a champion coach in a better sector. A football coach is used to teaching not just speed, but also agility. Since that's closer to the situation you're training for, he'd be a better choice than a champion sprinter. And it would be better for another reason: his skill is producing skill, rather than showing it. If I want to train for a competition, I don't need a prize fighter; I need someone who has trained prize fighters. If I want to train for self-defense (and not take the physical beating of competiion), then I go to someone who has trained effective defenders.
> 
> You seem to be claiming at the same time that competition is the best preparation for self-defense, and that any claim of effective self-defense is bunk. You can't have both of those. Either competition (including sparring/randori) is an effective measurement, or it isn't. Make a choice and stick to one argument.



Some people don't understand the concept that while many people can do something, even do it well, it doesn't mean they can teach it well.  Also as you say, competition fighting and self defense are different.  In a ring you are facing off, there is almost a script as to how things work.  Not specific moves but an initial progression.  In a self defense scenario however the instigation of violence can be ridiculously varied.

As for the last I have pointed this out before.  If competition in the Octagon or Ring is valid then so is Lei Tai (full contact competition) at Kuo Shu. I can agree that light points sparing might not be relevant.  I firmly believe in the "train like you fight" method and if your experience is limited to light point sparing you can developed he habit of not going "all in", the problem rises when people assume that this is the limit of self-defense/traditional martial arts sparing, it's not.  

Lei Tai at Kuo Shu is a knockout fest, especially during the qualifiers.  In the free weapons fighting (sticks) I have watched protective gear get broken, even though the sticks have padding. Thing is some people search for rationalizations to attack other things, without the requisite knowledge, when they are trying to justify a preconceived belief that "their way" is the "right way."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No his point is not valid. He made the distinction.
> 
> Self defence is not defined by specific techniques.  A groin kick is not any more self defence than a face punch.


No, it isn't. But excluding training in valid self-defense techniques because they don't apply to a competition is LESS self-defense. He's not saying train one or the other - SD should include both. So, yes, his point is also valid.


----------



## Argus (Aug 11, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Some people don't understand the concept that while many people can do something, even do it well, it doesn't mean they can teach it well.  Also as you say, competition fighting and self defense are different.  In a ring you are facing off, there is almost a script as to how things work.  Not specific moves but an initial progression.  In a self defense scenario however the instigation of violence can be ridiculously varied.
> 
> As for the last I have pointed this out before.  If competition in the Octagon or Ring is valid then so is Lei Tai (full contact competition) at Kuo Shu. I can agree that light points sparing might not be relevant.  I firmly believe in the "train like you fight" method and if your experience is limited to light point sparing you can developed he habit of not going "all in", the problem rises when people assume that this is the limit of self-defense/traditional martial arts sparing, it's not.
> 
> Lei Tai at Kuo Shu is a knockout fest, especially during the qualifiers.  In the free weapons fighting (sticks) I have watched protective gear get broken, even though the sticks have padding. Thing is some people search for rationalizations to attack other things, without the requisite knowledge, when they are trying to justify a preconceived belief that "their way" is the "right way."



Juany, your last few posts leave me confused. They don't seem to relate directly to gpseymour's posts, which you seem to be criticizing. Actually, they almost seem to be directed at dropbear? I'm having trouble understanding your points and who you intend them for.

Gpseymour's points are very logically consistent and well constructed. If you see things differently, it may help to be more specific with where you think his logic is at fault. It may help to quote the particular parts that you're challenging so that we can appreciate your arguments.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 11, 2016)

A lot of people who are not involved in TMA think TMA is all "sissified" and watered down. TMA is not also only about self defense but many have full contact competitions as well, just look at kyokyushin karate which holds tournaments not only for themselves but all styles can compete in it given you follow the rules of the tournament.

I myself have never walked out of my dojo without some sort of bruise and fatigued feeling. That is because for one, we get hit very hard with nothing on but a gi and no gloves, and two if we were to train weak, we would never become anything beyond weak.

It's like jack blacks character in school of Rock said. "You're not hardcore, unless you live hardcore."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2016)

Argus said:


> Juany, your last few posts leave me confused. They don't seem to relate directly to gpseymour's posts, which you seem to be criticizing. Actually, they almost seem to be directed at dropbear? I'm having trouble understanding your points and who you intend them for.
> 
> Gpseymour's points are very logically consistent and well constructed. If you see things differently, it may help to be more specific with where you think his logic is at fault. It may help to quote the particular parts that you're challenging so that we can appreciate your arguments.


I think Juany's talking to me about others' posts, in most of the posts you are referring to.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> A lot of people who are not involved in TMA think TMA is all "sissified" and watered down. TMA is not also only about self defense but many have full contact competitions as well, just look at kyokyushin karate which holds tournaments not only for themselves but all styles can compete in it given you follow the rules of the tournament.



Kyokushin was created in the 1960s, and was a derivative of martial arts created in the 1920s. I'd hardly consider that a TMA.

In fact, it was created BECAUSE it's founder believed that older methods had become "sissified".


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 11, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Kyokushin was created in the 1960s, and was a derivative of martial arts created in the 1920s. I'd hardly consider that a TMA.
> 
> In fact, it was created BECAUSE it's founder believed that older methods had become "sissified".



The organization was created in the 1964. The style was there in the 50's. Modern or traditional is an argument I won't get into but when boxing is called modern and tae kwon do is called traditional then we got some obvious hilarity there since boxing has been around since ancient Greece and TKD was made in the 50's.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> The organization was created in the 1964. The style was there in the 50's.




LoL! Okay... 



> Modern or traditional is an argument I won't get into but when boxing is called modern and tae kwon do is called traditional then we got some obvious hilarity there since boxing has been around since ancient Greece and TKD was made in the 50's.



Kyokushin was created for competitive and self defense purposes. It wasn't created to kill a thousand samurai with your bare hands. The lack of traditional weaponry is also a dead giveaway.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 11, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> LoL! Okay...
> 
> 
> 
> Kyokushin was created for competitive and self defense purposes. It wasn't created to kill a thousand samurai with your bare hands. The lack of traditional weaponry is also a dead giveaway.



I doubt anyone trained to kill one thousand samurai with their bare hands. You are being dramatic again. 

You obviously have very different definitions when it comes to tmas and mmas. Me personally I think both are completely nonsensical terms that we would be better of without, they themselves don't make sense.

How do you define a TMA and an MMA? Would kenpo be a TMA or an MMA? Kenpo has no weapons and also has a competitive mindset. Do you define TMA by the use of weapons and the year it came to be? 

If that's the case I guess boxing is a traditional martial art since it has no use of weapons and is very ancient.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 11, 2016)

Argus said:


> Juany, your last few posts leave me confused. They don't seem to relate directly to gpseymour's posts, which you seem to be criticizing. Actually, they almost seem to be directed at dropbear? I'm having trouble understanding your points and who you intend them for.
> 
> Gpseymour's points are very logically consistent and well constructed. If you see things differently, it may help to be more specific with where you think his logic is at fault. It may help to quote the particular parts that you're challenging so that we can appreciate your arguments.



I am just agreeing with GP but giving detail, based on his responses, as to the motivations I have experienced that would illicit GP's response.  I have Drop Bear (and a few others) on ignore so the only info I have access to is GP's responses. It actually makes for odd reading tbh.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I doubt anyone trained to kill one thousand samurai with their bare hands. You are being dramatic again.
> 
> You obviously have very different definitions when it comes to tmas and mmas. Me personally I think both are completely nonsensical terms that we would be better of without, they themselves don't make sense.
> 
> How do you define a TMA and an MMA? Would kenpo be a TMA or an MMA? Keno has no weapons and also has a competitive mindset.



That would depend on which version of Kenpo you're talking about.



> Do you define TMA by the use of weapons and the year it came to be?



I also use the purpose of its creation.



> If that's the case I guess boxing is a traditional martial art since it has no use of weapons and is very ancient.



Modern boxing has little in common with ancient boxing beyond the name. Further, the term "boxing" has multiple meanings in multiple countries. Many styles of Kung Fu for example are considered "boxing".

However, we're missing the point here; Your argument that Kyokushin proves that TMAs aren't "sissified" is laughable because Kyokushin isn't a TMA, and it was created because its founder felt that older styles were "sissified".


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 11, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> That would depend on which version of Kenpo you're talking about.



American kenpo.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 11, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> However, we're missing the point here; Your argument that Kyokushin proves that TMAs aren't "sissified" is laughable because Kyokushin isn't a TMA, and it was created because its founder felt that older styles were "sissified".



TMA or not many styles are more than welcome to go participate in their tournaments and often do.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 11, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Kyokushin was created in the 1960s, and was a derivative of martial arts created in the 1920s. I'd hardly consider that a TMA.
> 
> In fact, it was created BECAUSE it's founder believed that older methods had become "sissified".



But that is largely due to Government interference with the Japanese Martial Arts.  The following is an excerpt from "Modern Bujutsu and Budo" regarding the effects of the Meiji Restoration.



> _Ultranationalists and militarists, both in and out of government, distorted the intrinsic purpose of classical bujutsu (martial arts) and budo (martial ways), thus proving the truism that new uses can be found for any product of man's ingenuity; indeed, a hammer can be used to paint a house if it satisfies the expectations of whoever uses it in this absurd fashion.
> 
> The intrinsic nature of classical bujutsu is manifested by the threefold relationship: (1) combat, (2) discipline, and (3) morals. The forced change modified this relationship to the following: (1) discipline, (2) morals. Similarly, the intrinsic nature of classical budo comprises (1) morals, (2) discipline, (3) aesthetic form. This was changed to (1) discipline, (2) morals. It will readily be seen by these changes, made approximately a century ago, that the people advocating them made no distinction between bujutsu and budo; in their eyes, the two were equated. This is the overriding reason for the general misunderstanding of classical disciplines that prevails today, which helps explain why the majority of modern Japanese are unable to distinguish between these two very different kinds of classical disciplines, and furthermore, why they are unable to make any distinction at all between classical and modern disciplines." _



A similar dynamic occurred in China due to Mao, from "the Tao of Wing Chun" in a portion about the History of Martial Arts and why most of the "older" CMA came to the West via Hong Kong in the post WWII period.  The below is also why, initially, the focus of Martial Arts on the Mainland was largely sport (Wushu) and fitness.



> When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) first took power in 1949 they banned all martial arts for fear of a revolution. Chinese history is full of revolutions that were instigated by martial artists, so to ensure that this didn’t happen again, the CCP’s solution was to obliterate them. The Cultural Revolution, which started in 1966, hammered the last nail onto the coffin of the Chinese martial arts, in what was probably the lowest point for Chinese martial arts in the history of China. When Mao eventually died in 1976, China began to change under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping and most of Mao’s Cultural Revolution reforms were abandoned by 1978. However, the citizens were fearful and suspicious of new reforms, lest they should change again, and no one wanted to be exposed to further persecution. As a result, during the 1980s the Chinese people conducted themselves as if the Cultural Revolution was still in effect. It wasn’t until the CCP officially declared that all of the ancient Chinese traditions, religions and martial arts practices that were under government control would now be legal that people started to feel comfortable about practicing them...
> 
> With the popularity of Hong Kong action movies (even Mao was said to have been a fan of Bruce Lee’s movies), the Chinese Government began producing them also, the earliest and most popular one being The Shaolin Temple, starring a young Jet Li, who had won several national Wushu forms competitions. It was only when the Government had opened the doors of China to the West, and particularly to the revenue generated by tourism, that they realized that there was a significant market for martial arts and cultural tourism. As a result they began to resurrect and renovate the temples throughout China that had been destroyed and neglected, especially those that had a deep martial arts history like the northern Shaolin Temple.



So what you really end up having are arts we call "traditional martial arts" which were purposefully changed by the central authority to meet political ends.
_
_


----------



## Blindside (Aug 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> How do you define a TMA and an MMA? Would kenpo be a TMA or an MMA? Kenpo has no weapons and also has a competitive mindset. Do you define TMA by the use of weapons and the year it came to be?



Kenpo has weapons, it has forms for stick and club, a staff set and SGM Parker made a nunchaku set to cash in on the craze.

And what competitive mindset does Kenpo have?  What AK students have excelled in which competitions?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 11, 2016)

Plenty.

Tournaments


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Or you're ignoring real-world evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not "a bunch of stories". It's a term for evidence that doesn't come in large enough numbers to be statistically analyzed. In SD terms, anecdotal evidence is people's experience. A cop can provide anecdotal evidence of what works in a lot of situations. If he makes a lot of arrests against resisting suspects, he may be able to do more than provide anecdotal evidence, since he'd have enough examples to draw analytical conclusions.
> 
> In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't just reading stories on the internet, it's what we get when we debrief someone about their experience. Like when my instructor took down a druggie robbing the pharmacy he worked at. Like when a youth student avoided a bully's punch at school. Like when I used my Judo to drop a guy who grabbed me from behind. Like when I escorted a belligerent drunk out of a college bar before he could start any real trouble.



And that time i dropped a football team with my lazer eyes.

They are just stories. You can't really give them much weight. Even from guys who do bash people for a living.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Usain Bolt can probably teach you to run fast. But he cannot teach you to run around obstacles unless that's something he has done. A football (US) coach would be a better choice for that. Why? Because their agility training is closer to the situation. So, rather than compare a champion athlete to someone in a sector with no comparison (there are no champion self-defense instructors), compare a champion athlete to a champion coach in a better sector. A football coach is used to teaching not just speed, but also agility. Since that's closer to the situation you're training for, he'd be a better choice than a champion sprinter. And it would be better for another reason: his skill is producing skill, rather than showing it. If I want to train for a competition, I don't need a prize fighter; I need someone who has trained prize fighters. If I want to train for self-defense (and not take the physical beating of competiion), then I go to someone who has trained effective defenders.
> 
> You seem to be claiming at the same time that competition is the best preparation for self-defense, and that any claim of effective self-defense is bunk. You can't have both of those. Either competition (including sparring/randori) is an effective measurement, or it isn't. Make a choice and stick to one argument.



There are no champion self defence instructors.  That is where your issue starts.

There is no method of identifying good self defence instructors from bad other than anecdotes.

They have nothing else which is why so much importance is placed on stories in self defence.

"I saw a guy who did this thing which is why you cant punch in a street fight".  Or whatever.

It is kind of silly.

And the important factor here is if your ability is defined by your ability yo tell stories. Your truth can never compete with their fiction. Why would i do bjj and struggle to beat one guy when i can do krave and train to beat ten guys?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And that time i dropped a football team with my lazer eyes.
> 
> They are just stories. You can't really give them much weight. Even from guys who do bash people for a living.


Okay, what part of my previous posts is unintelligible. I'm the one who originally said that anecdotal evidence wasn't statistically valid.

But, no, they are not "just stories". They are examples of actual events. The term "anecdotal evidence" is actually used in research to refer to incidents that cannot be statistically analyzed due to very small numbers, but which provide useful information for those digging into the theories and processes being investigated.

If you want to say someone's experience is "just stories", then how does that, in any way, differ from when someone analyzes their performance after a competition? How is that not "just stories"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There are no champion self defence instructors.  That is where your issue starts.
> 
> There is no method of identifying good self defence instructors from bad other than anecdotes.
> 
> ...


There are also no "champion police". Self-defense isn't a competition, so there won't be any champions. You're complaining that something doesn't exist, the existence of which is a logical impossibility. It's like saying there is no dull sharpness.

I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be complaining in circles, just wanting "self-defense" training to be a bad idea. Until you can show me evidence that it's bad, you're just mouthing off, hoping to "win" something here.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There are also no "champion police". Self-defense isn't a competition, so there won't be any champions. You're complaining that something doesn't exist, the existence of which is a logical impossibility. It's like saying there is no dull sharpness.
> 
> I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be complaining in circles, just wanting "self-defense" training to be a bad idea. Until you can show me evidence that it's bad, you're just mouthing off, hoping to "win" something here.



I guess you can say drop bear is being unBEARable.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There are also no "champion police". Self-defense isn't a competition, so there won't be any champions. You're complaining that something doesn't exist, the existence of which is a logical impossibility. It's like saying there is no dull sharpness.
> 
> I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be complaining in circles, just wanting "self-defense" training to be a bad idea. Until you can show me evidence that it's bad, you're just mouthing off, hoping to "win" something here.



Would anecdotal evidence count?

Trying to find evidence that self defence is bad  is like trying to find evidence that fairies don't exist.

It works the other way.  There is no evidence ecept for your desparate anecdotes that self defence is good.

I am not trying to win.  I am trying to get you to realize that separate from whether your system works or not.your arguments are primarily a fairy tale.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, what part of my previous posts is unintelligible. I'm the one who originally said that anecdotal evidence wasn't statistically valid.
> 
> But, no, they are not "just stories". They are examples of actual events. The term "anecdotal evidence" is actually used in research to refer to incidents that cannot be statistically analyzed due to very small numbers, but which provide useful information for those digging into the theories and processes being investigated.
> 
> If you want to say someone's experience is "just stories", then how does that, in any way, differ from when someone analyzes their performance after a competition? How is that not "just stories"?



Because of the weight you put on the stories. There is no advantage to being truthful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Because of the weight you put on the stories. There is no advantage to being truthful.



As usual, you've decided to lock onto a single aspect of a statement and claim it is the entire statement. I made it clear that anecdotal evidence is a part of the validation (along with sparring, randori, purposeful resistance, and examining what is working in arts/styles that compete), because to exclude it would be to exclude the only evidence we have that comes from the real world. You choose to see that as too much weight put on it. Then go ahead, ignore what actually happens on the street, if that works for you.

I'm now done with this discussion, too. You have the knowledge and ability to discuss reasonably. You simply choose not to, and to drive debates into useless loops. So now I'm done with you. I cannot help you with your mindset, and you clearly have no interest in helping me.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> As usual, you've decided to lock onto a single aspect of a statement and claim it is the entire statement. I made it clear that anecdotal evidence is a part of the validation (along with sparring, randori, purposeful resistance, and examining what is working in arts/styles that compete), because to exclude it would be to exclude the only evidence we have that comes from the real world. You choose to see that as too much weight put on it. Then go ahead, ignore what actually happens on the street, if that works for you.
> 
> I'm now done with this discussion, too. You have the knowledge and ability to discuss reasonably. You simply choose not to, and to drive debates into useless loops. So now I'm done with you. I cannot help you with your mindset, and you clearly have no interest in helping me.



Did the sparring randori and purposeful resistance ever present itself?

Because although it was mentioned anecdotaly i dont think an example ever came up.

Clearly you need these fairy tales to validate your your position. And that you are tied to the topic emotionally rather than logically.

This is why the anecdotal method is so effective it suspends rational thought.  Leaving people lile yourself to explore other ideas that do not fit the dogma.

I get the same responses when talking to a flat earther.  They feel fact and fiction are competing ideologies.  When they are really not.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 16, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> American kenpo.



Definitely a modern MA.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> But that is largely due to Government interference with the Japanese Martial Arts.  The following is an excerpt from "Modern Bujutsu and Budo" regarding the effects of the Meiji Restoration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And a similar thing occurred after WW2 when scores of westerners began learning Japanese and Chinese MA.

None of that contradicts anything I stated above.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> And a similar thing occurred after WW2 when scores of westerners began learning Japanese and Chinese MA.
> 
> None of that contradicts anything I stated above.



Oh I wasn't trying to contradict you.  I was simply trying to put why certain martial arts (forms of Karate, Wushu etc) are seen as "sissified" in the historical context.  My first course of Study in College was history (at its still my academic passion) so I have a tendency to try and put everything into it's historical context.

Though the one thing I would argue is your latest point.  The Karate learned in the post WWII period was the Meiji Restoration Karate, so it was already altered.  As for Chinese MA it really depended on the teacher, in terms of those who escaped to Hong Kong or Taiwan.  There wasn't a "global" alteration as we saw with the Meiji Restoration.  So depending on the Lineage some CMA's still teach the "real" art.

The real trick there is how far is the student will to go?  I doubt there are many Westerners walking into a school willing to go through the effort and pain necessary to make some of the animal style techniques actually work.  As an example a tiger claw basically requires you to strike hard objects repeatedly with your fingertips in order to produce microfracturing that not only increases pain tolerance but when produces denser bone due to how the body heals such fracturing.  The people who developed some of the animal styles I think had to be masochists.  It works, if trained right, but there are more efficient, and less self destructive training methods imo.  Same for traditional Muay Thai.  The shin kicks can be brutal, I have seen bone broken by them, BUT the conditioning of the shins to pull that off?  Jeebus.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Oh I wasn't trying to contradict you.  I was simply trying to put why certain martial arts (forms of Karate, Wushu etc) are seen as "sissified" in the historical context.  My first course of Study in College was history (at its still my academic passion) so I have a tendency to try and put everything into it's historical context.
> 
> Though the one thing I would argue is your latest point.  The Karate learned in the post WWII period was the Meiji Restoration Karate, so it was already altered.  As for Chinese MA it really depended on the teacher, in terms of those who escaped to Hong Kong or Taiwan.  There wasn't a "global" alteration as we saw with the Meiji Restoration.  So depending on the Lineage some CMA's still teach the "real" art.



It's important to note that the Meiji restoration predates the founders of most modern Karate styles, along with the founders of Aikido and Judo. The point I was making was that a softening of the various Japanese styles took place following the war. Before and during the war, those styles were quite a bit harder, partially because they were utilized by the military. By the time westerners began learning Japanese systems in larger numbers, they were learning a far softer version of what had been previously taught.

You also had Asian instructors purposely teaching westerners nonsense for a variety of purposes. A great deal of Chinese MA and a lot of Karate styles fell under that umbrella. Mas Oyama was trying to fix a lot of that with Kyokushin.



> The real trick there is how far is the student will to go?  I doubt there are many Westerners walking into a school willing to go through the effort and pain necessary to make some of the animal style techniques actually work.  As an example a tiger claw basically requires you to strike hard objects repeatedly with your fingertips in order to produce microfracturing that not only increases pain tolerance but when produces denser bone due to how the body heals such fracturing.  The people who developed some of the animal styles I think had to be masochists.  It works, if trained right, but there are more efficient, and less self destructive training methods imo.  Same for traditional Muay Thai.  The shin kicks can be brutal, I have seen bone broken by them, BUT the conditioning of the shins to pull that off?  Jeebus.



Well the issue now is that there's zero evidence of that kind of training giving you any real benefit over someone using more conventional methods. It should also be noted that if you need to mutilate yourself to make a fighting style "work" (when there's little evidence outside of Asian fairy tales that such styles ever "worked") then you're practicing an extremely flawed fighting method.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> It's important to note that the Meiji restoration predates the founders of most modern Karate styles, along with the founders of Aikido and Judo. The point I was making was that a softening of the various Japanese styles took place following the war. Before and during the war, those styles were quite a bit harder, partially because they were utilized by the military. By the time westerners began learning Japanese systems in larger numbers, they were learning a far softer version of what had been previously taught.
> 
> You also had Asian instructors purposely teaching westerners nonsense for a variety of purposes. A great deal of Chinese MA and a lot of Karate styles fell under that umbrella. Mas Oyama was trying to fix a lot of that with Kyokushin.
> 
> ...



But the Legacy of the restoration remained, with the exception of some of the people we have noted here.

As for the second part, that is part and parcel with my "it depends on the teacher." As for the effectiveness, increasing the strength of the hand over all via that method, not some of the crazy finger based techniques al la animal styles, is still very useful for arts you intend on using on the streets.  Though not to the extremes a finger would require.  It is not at all uncommon for well trained boxers to have received "boxing fractures" because they were punching, especially to the face/head, without their hands taped and/or in gloves.

As for Asian Fairy tales might I invite you to look up historical Lei Tai and how the Chinese Government eventually had to outlaw the practice because of the deaths involved?  The use of those arts in Lei Tai up into the 20th century and the deaths involved are actually documented.

Additionally there have been scientific studies that have proved that the "tiger claw" actually doesn't work.  I won't speak to other techniques (like monkey style) but more straight forward styles like Hung Ga use it, as does Choi Li Fut and the later is seen holding its own in many videos showing them against Sanda and Muay Thai.  They aren't cleaning house like the commonly brought up quote attributed to Bruce Lee would make you think but they certainly hold their own.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> But the Legacy of the restoration remained, with the exception of some of the people we have noted here.



It certainly did, but you can't blame the restoration for the softening of styles. Turn of the century Judo for example was certainly not for the faint of heart. The restoration simply offered a more scientific method for a lot of Japanese martial arts. The softening of arts was more a result of the Japanese defeat and the American occupation.



> As for the second part, that is part and parcel with my "it depends on the teacher." As for the effectiveness, increasing the strength of the hand over all via that method, not some of the crazy finger based techniques al la animal styles, is still very useful for arts you intend on using on the streets.  Though not to the extremes a finger would require.  It is not at all uncommon for well trained boxers to have received "boxing fractures" because they were punching, especially to the face/head, without their hands taped and/or in gloves.



No argument there. I was more talking about older methods not showing much if any significant advantage over newer (and safer) methods.



> As for Asian Fairy tales might I invite you to look up historical Lei Tai and how the Chinese Government eventually had to outlaw the practice because of the deaths involved?  The use of those arts in Lei Tai up into the 20th century and the deaths involved are actually documented.



I'm well aware of the Lei Tai bouts. Simply because people were killed doesn't prove the effectiveness of the styles on display. Children horse playing too roughly can kill each other. Further some of the practitioners were using weapons. Keep in mind that in latter Lei Tai bouts Xingyiquan tended to dominate. Where is Xingyiquan in modern fighting? Did all the Xingyi masters vanish off the face of the earth?

Also its pretty interesting to note that many famous masters refused to participate in Lei Tai because they believed their skills could only be proven in serious duels and not "sporting" contests.

History truly repeats itself.



> Additionally there have been scientific studies that have proved that the "tiger claw" actually doesn't work.  I won't speak to other techniques (like monkey style) but more straight forward styles like Hung Ga use it, as does Choi Li Fut and the later is seen holding its own in many videos showing them against Sanda and Muay Thai.  They aren't cleaning house like the commonly brought up quote attributed to Bruce Lee would make you think but they certainly hold their own.



I've seen those vids and its pretty hard to tell the difference between those traditional styles and straight run-of-the-mill kickboxing. Clearly in order to be competitive those styles have had to adopt methods from modern kickboxing styles.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> It certainly did, but you can't blame the restoration for the softening of styles. Turn of the century Judo for example was certainly not for the faint of heart. The restoration simply offered a more scientific method for a lot of Japanese martial arts. The softening of arts was more a result of the Japanese defeat and the American occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well some masters yes, then you have people like Huo Yuanjia among others who didn't have an issue with real fighting, even made their living in "escort" companies.

As to the last point.  If I have learned one thing about Traditional Martial Arts is that the picture perfect stances exist in training to train the principles and proper techniques but real fighting is not choreographed pretty.  As an example years ago, before I started studying Wing Chun a friend took me to some fights in Philly.  Only "no go" target was the groin.  Only protection, sparring gloves, mouth piece and cup.  Every fight ended in knockouts.  I said the same thing you did "looks like kick boxing." However now having studied WC I watch videos of those fights and say "that was a _tan-sau_, that was a _bong_, _gum_, _lap_" etc.  When I see them punch I see them using the Sun Fist, keeping the elbow down proper overall structure etc (not leaning in at the waist like a boxer etc.) 

Basically the perfect looking stuff is using the philosophy of "if you can't do it slow you can't do it fast."


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> But the Legacy of the restoration remained, with the exception of some of the people we have noted here.
> 
> As for the second part, that is part and parcel with my "it depends on the teacher." As for the effectiveness, increasing the strength of the hand over all via that method, not some of the crazy finger based techniques al la animal styles, is still very useful for arts you intend on using on the streets.  Though not to the extremes a finger would require.  It is not at all uncommon for well trained boxers to have received "boxing fractures" because they were punching, especially to the face/head, without their hands taped and/or in gloves.
> 
> ...


I practice an animal style, we don't do any crazy finger techniques like you mentioned.  My own experience with animal styles indicate the "animal" issue is more focused on some deeper principles of movement and application, and less about specific techniques.  But this is anecdotal evidence, and so apparently not worth anything, according to some earlier posts.

However, yes there were some conditioning exercises that would be seen as extreme by today's standards and were probably injurious in the long run.  Perhaps a peasant, or even a wealthy person in China in 1300 didn't have much prospect of living past age 45 or so, and didn't live long enough to realize those long term injuries.  Less advanced medical technology and whatnot.  But apparently some people at the time felt they were useful.  Certainly in society today they are mostly unnecessary, but could be argued that a less extreme version might be appropriate.  

I will also suggest that probably those who really carried those conditioning methods to the extreme were the rare exceptions.  Not everyone who practiced were high level folks, or needed to use their skills every day.  Much like today.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I practice an animal style, we don't do any crazy finger techniques like you mentioned.  My own experience with animal styles indicate the "animal" issue is more focused on some deeper principles of movement and application, and less about specific techniques.  But this is anecdotal evidence, and so apparently not worth anything, according to some earlier posts.
> 
> However, yes there were some conditioning exercises that would be seen as extreme by today's standards and were probably injurious in the long run.  Perhaps a peasant, or even a wealthy person in China in 1300 didn't have much prospect of living past age 45 or so, and didn't live long enough to realize those long term injuries.  Less advanced medical technology and whatnot.  But apparently some people at the time felt they were useful.  Certainly in society today they are mostly unnecessary, but could be argued that a less extreme version might be appropriate.
> 
> I will also suggest that probably those who really carried those conditioning methods to the extreme were the rare exceptions.  Not everyone who practiced were high level folks, or needed to use their skills every day.  Much like today.




On the first part agreed.  Thing is with many animal styles the "modern arts are the best crowd, especially mine" often point to the more specific and idiosyncratic strikes used in some animal styles that are usually intended for soft tissue (but just don't get that) or those that require crazy conditioning as proof animal styles DON'T work.  My only point was to prove they do work.

I also think that your life expectancy thing has a lot to do with the crazy conditioning methods.  If you die before 40 from Natural causes chances are the arthritis and other issues that can be crippling never kick in.

I would also say there are "moderate" conditioning methods that are still used in CMA (as well as JMA) that are useful in modern fighting.  I have gone into MMA and Boxing gyms to see most everyone with hands taped up.  If you are looking for self-defense this seems to not be a good idea.  Conditioning fist, side palm/knife hand and palm are not simply good, but imo almost necessary if you are going to learn striking for real world self-defense.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> On the first part agreed.  Thing is with many animal styles the "modern arts are the best crowd, especially mine" often point to the more specific and idiosyncratic strikes used in some animal styles that are usually intended for soft tissue (but just don't get that) or those that require crazy conditioning as proof animal styles DON'T work.  My only point was to prove they do work.
> 
> I also think that your life expectancy thing has a lot to do with the crazy conditioning methods.  If you die before 40 from Natural causes chances are the arthritis and other issues that can be crippling never kick in.
> 
> I would also say there are "moderate" conditioning methods that are still used in CMA (as well as JMA) that are useful in modern fighting.  I have gone into MMA and Boxing gyms to see most everyone with hands taped up.  If you are looking for self-defense this seems to not be a good idea.  Conditioning fist, side palm/knife hand and palm are not simply good, but imo almost necessary if you are going to learn striking for real world self-defense.


Agreed on all parts.

I think my primary motivation in my previous comments was in clearing up a little bit what it means to practice an animal style.  There seems to be a lot of misconception to what that means.  People see crane style and think we stand on one foot and use our fingertips to poke at people, and maybe flap our arms a bit.  It paints a rather less-than intimidating picture.  That is absolutely not what we do.  Our use of the crane beak  and single leg stance is pretty minimal; instead the real issue in crane is a particular methodology of learning to connect the whole body behind our technique delivery.  That is what crane is really about.  I've never experienced another system that has a methodology for developing powerful punches like ours.  In my experience, it is downright frightening.

My suspicion is that tiger probably similarly operates on principles of movement and power generation on a deeper level.  Use of the tiger claw is just one technique that I'm guessing probably gets less use than the uninformed general public assumes, but gets put out to the public as the "signature" technique (however erroneously) of the style.  Hence, my comments.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Definitely a modern MA.



See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?


Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?
> 
> 
> Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.


Agreed. There are those who define "traditional" as meaning it still  sticks closelyto the original traditions of the art (this would be more like the koryu). For others, it's an art of a certain age, with many different cut-offs used (this is the one that's least helpful IMO, as we start to argue about whether we count from a branching, or some unbroken lineage). Others (myself included) tend to use "traditional" to refer to arts that carry on somewhat traditional rituals (like formal bows in a JMA) and uniforms (like the dogi, dobak, etc.). Still others use it to refer to those that still use traditional training methods (kata, punching/kicking lines, etc.).

The distinction becomes un-useful in many discussions, as all of those definitions fail to produce any homogenous grouping of any real value. The only one that seems generally useful to me is the one I use (which is why I use it), since it at least paints a visual of the art in practice. That doesn't usually add much to the discussion, though, since there's so much variability even in that (what color of dogi, how much bowing, etc.).


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. There are those who define "traditional" as meaning it still  sticks closelyto the original traditions of the art (this would be more like the koryu). For others, it's an art of a certain age, with many different cut-offs used (this is the one that's least helpful IMO, as we start to argue about whether we count from a branching, or some unbroken lineage). Others (myself included) tend to use "traditional" to refer to arts that carry on somewhat traditional rituals (like formal bows in a JMA) and uniforms (like the dogi, dobak, etc.). Still others use it to refer to those that still use traditional training methods (kata, punching/kicking lines, etc.).
> 
> The distinction becomes un-useful in many discussions, as all of those definitions fail to produce any homogenous grouping of any real value. The only one that seems generally useful to me is the one I use (which is why I use it), since it at least paints a visual of the art in practice. That doesn't usually add much to the discussion, though, since there's so much variability even in that (what color of dogi, how much bowing, etc.).



I think a lot of it has to so with a misconception of what many martial arts are. I have been told so many times my martial arts looks like " just kickboxing". I say to that well what do you expect it to look like? Some wax on wax off crane kicking mumbo jumbo?

We all have two arms and two legs so many martial arts are going to have similarities in appearance. There will be differences but in the end we are all hitting eachother in the head for fun or for survival.

I am also confused why hanzou calls kenpo an MMA because American Kenpo has tons of punching and kicking lines, tons of bowing. Some teach weapons (mine didn't often). The only modern aspeft of it was the biggest focus was competition. Self defense was taught but we were concerned more about those medals and trophies.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?
> 
> 
> Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.



Just out of curiosity, do American Kenpo practicioners call it traditional or modern?  Kyokushin practicioners call themselves traditional.

In one aspect, I see Kyokushin as traditional.  It follows the respect, bowing, etc. protocol, and uses the old-school kata.  I also see it as modern for the reasons Hanzou said.

I'd call American Kenpo modern before I'd call it traditional, but I don't know nearly enough about it to stand by that statement.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Just out of curiosity, do American Kenpo practicioners call it traditional or modern?


To be honest we usually don't call it either.

Kenpo karate is a lot like kyokyushin karate in the sense that it prides itself on being a very "rough and tough" style.

It believes in many of the same principles and the only major differences is kyokyushin karateka like to land very big head kicks. Kenpo usually keeps its kicks lower suchs inner and outer legs, buttocks and stomach as well as the groin.

People also seem to call kenpo an MMA because of how common crosstraining is amongst its practitioners . It is not uncommon for a kenpoist to seek out and train in other styles to expand their knowledge of martial arts.

My fist Sifu for example had a Judo background as well as high Dan Ranking in the Ed parker system.

My current one is an off shoot style of Tracy Kenpo which is more or less the same thing but with a lot of chinese martial art influences. The founder Al Moore combined his knowledge of kung fu with the training he had with Ed Parker and Tracy, and they mentioned another guy, I don't remember the name but he went off on his own and made "Shoalin kenpo" or something like that.

Here feels a lot like my old Ed Parker dojo, aside from the many differences such as focus on center line and closeness to your opponent, the atmosphere is more traditional than the other place but we still focus heavily on winning competition.

When I asked my current Sifu if he considers what we do to be a modern martial art or traditional one he said he doesn't care about terms like that.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Just out of curiosity, do American Kenpo practicioners call it traditional or modern?  Kyokushin practicioners call themselves traditional.
> 
> In one aspect, I see Kyokushin as traditional.  It follows the respect, bowing, etc. protocol, and uses the old-school kata.  I also see it as modern for the reasons Hanzou said.
> 
> I'd call American Kenpo modern before I'd call it traditional, but I don't know nearly enough about it to stand by that statement.


Honestly I don't think you can call kenpo modern these days I mean I know that was the original sales pitch a modern martial art and sure it's more modern than say kyoshikin or something like that but it's hardly modern. Ed Parker died in 1991 and I think the American kenpo system was developed around the 60s I may be wrong on that and really since Parker died no ones really done anything new to it just followed what he had. I know jeff speakman has his kenpo 5.0 that has grappling now but really I don't think it can be called modern


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Honestly I don't think you can call kenpo modern these days I mean I know that was the original sales pitch a modern martial art and sure it's more modern than say kyoshikin or something like that but it's hardly modern. Ed Parker died in 1991 and I think the American kenpo system was developed around the 60s I may be wrong on that and really since Parker died no ones really done anything new to it just followed what he had. I know jeff speakman has his kenpo 5.0 that has grappling now but really I don't think it can be called modern


So, what is your definition of "modern", then? Something that updates constantly?


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, what is your definition of "modern", then? Something that updates constantly?


Not constantly but there's really 0 difference in kenpo then there was back then. I just don't think a system developed in the 60s can be considered for example on gun techniques there's a move to jam the gun to stop it firing but that wouldn't work today because the guns are different and work differently. I mean Im not saying you have to completely overhaul the style but times are always changing. I mean there's techniques that block a rugby tackle but with people wrestling more these days those techiques wouldn't work now as well


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Kenpo karate is much older than kyokyushin aband had existed in Japan for a long time. James mitose brought it to Hawaii in the 1940's.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Not constantly but there's really 0 difference in kenpo then there was back then. I just don't think a system developed in the 60s can be considered for example on gun techniques there's a move to jam the gun to stop it firing but that wouldn't work today because the guns are different and work differently. I mean Im not saying you have to completely overhaul the style but times are always changing. I mean there's techniques that block a rugby tackle but with people wrestling more these days those techiques wouldn't work now as well


Okay, just to follow on the sub-thread (read: hijacking) about defining "modern", is that your litmus test? Is it just whether the style is updating to accommodate changing tactics, weapons, etc.? Or is there anything else that you'd factor in defining something as "modern"?


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Kenpo karate is much older than kyokyushin aband had existed in Japan for a long time. James mitose brought it to Hawaii in the 1940's.


I'm talking about American kenpo


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, just to follow on the sub-thread (read: hijacking) about defining "modern", is that your litmus test? Is it just whether the style is updating to accommodate changing tactics, weapons, etc.? Or is there anything else that you'd factor in defining something as "modern"?


Just the fact that fighting has changed since those it's less the big John wayne haymakers and the knife techniques are just basic attacks but these days a lot of people know how to fight with a knife so they'd use different attacks. And this isn't me having a go at kenpo I think it's a great art and i have used some of the stuff I learnt from it in self defence as well as my kickboxing and yeah sure it's more modern than some styles but If Parker had been around today I reckon it'd look completely different but when he died no one really took over from him and everyone wanted to preserve what he taught which from my understanding is not what he wanted for kenpo (also who cares if we're highjackjng the thread it was a stupid post to start with that the ops never going to read lol)


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I'm talking about American kenpo



Hawaii is part of America. Kenpo is also often getting new things added to it, many Sifu all add their own things to it from their own experiences with martial arts.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Hawaii is part of America. Kenpo is also often getting new things added to it, many Sifu all add their own things to it from their own experiences with martial arts.


Yes I know but there's difference between mitose kenpo and Parkers kenpo. Mistose was called Hawaiian Kenpo, Mitose taught Parker and Parker adapted it and made American kenpo, in one of his books he said years after he opened his own school Mitose turned up to train and ed Parker was less impressed with Mitose because his stuff wasnt as realistic and parker could see holes in what he was doing so it's not the same style


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Just the fact that fighting has changed since those it's less the big John wayne haymakers and the knife techniques are just basic attacks but these days a lot of people know how to fight with a knife so they'd use different attacks. And this isn't me having a go at kenpo I think it's a great art and i have used some of the stuff I learnt from it in self defence as well as my kickboxing and yeah sure it's more modern than some styles but If Parker had been around today I reckon it'd look completely different but when he died no one really took over from him and everyone wanted to preserve what he taught which from my understanding is not what he wanted for kenpo (also who cares if we're highjackjng the thread it was a stupid post to start with that the ops never going to read lol)


I think that has been an ongoing issue in many styles. I'll leave the ryuha out of this, as I don't understand their approach so can't comment on it. For other arts, I do think every instructor should look at what they learned and make tiny adaptations. If every generation made tiny adaptations (given that a "generation" in MA is about a decade), then an art would stay current, without losing attachment to the origin. There's a place for instructors who exactly copy what and how they were taught - they make solid associate instructors working with their instructor. Those running separate programs/schools, however, should look for where there are adjustments to be made. As you point out, those adjustments aren't usually a deficiency in the original form of the art, but an attempt to use the principles of the art in a different context than the originator of that art.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I think that has been an ongoing issue in many styles. I'll leave the ryuha out of this, as I don't understand their approach so can't comment on it. For other arts, I do think every instructor should look at what they learned and make tiny adaptations. If every generation made tiny adaptations (given that a "generation" in MA is about a decade), then an art would stay current, without losing attachment to the origin. There's a place for instructors who exactly copy what and how they were taught - they make solid associate instructors working with their instructor. Those running separate programs/schools, however, should look for where there are adjustments to be made. As you point out, those adjustments aren't usually a deficiency in the original form of the art, but an attempt to use the principles of the art in a different context than the originator of that art.


One thing I do find with kenpo is there are a lot of great techniques but there's a few awful ones that simply would not work. For gift in return is a techique against a hand grab and you step behind your opponent and bring their hand through their legs, it just wouldn't work and everyone I know who does kenpo says it, I think there's a few that definentely that could be cut from the system and when people ask why we have them they say oh it's for category completion but well it's a self defence art who cares about that if it doesn't work don't teach it I couldn't care less what categories it's completing lol maybe that's just me but yeah


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yes I know but there's difference between mitose kenpo and Parkers kenpo. Mistose was called Hawaiian Kenpo, Mitose taught Parker and Parker adapted it and made American kenpo, in one of his books he said years after he opened his own school Mitose turned up to train and ed Parker was less impressed with Mitose because his stuff wasnt as realistic and parker could see holes in what he was doing so it's not the same style





Kickboxer101 said:


> One thing I do find with kenpo is there are a lot of great techniques but there's a few awful ones that simply would not work. For gift in return is a techique against a hand grab and you step behind your opponent and bring their hand through their legs, it just wouldn't work and everyone I know who does kenpo says it, I think there's a few that definentely that could be cut from the system and when people ask why we have them they say oh it's for category completion but well it's a self defence art who cares about that if it doesn't work don't teach it I couldn't care less what categories it's completing lol maybe that's just me but yeah



I like gift in return, by would I do it in a fight? No. Captures twigs is an iffy technique, if you are aren't lightning fast you will be thrown to the floor pretty hard. There is one technique that uses an awkward punch the uses the middle fingers middle joint. I would rather just use a normal punch than that.

Checking the storm is probably the worst one . If you are off on that knife edge kick you could get your head bashed in with a bat.

I was unaware mitose's stuff was called Hawaiian kenpo. I though that was someone else's take on it. Thanks for that information.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Oh and on a serious note how is the op not banned by now? He should only be permitted to post once he actually begins in training in something.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Ok, a couple of notes.

Just what mitose trained and taught is a controversy.  Some feel he was legit, and others feel he was a downright fraud and a cheat.  This is an issue that cannot be fully resolved and feelings can get pretty high about it, depending on who you talk to.

Mitose never taught Ed Parker.  William chow was Ed Parkers Kenpo teacher.  William chow apparently learned from mitose, but again there is controversy on just what was taught and the real nature of the relationship.  

There is a big lack of clarity surrounding Mitose and the Kenpo of the 1930s era, just what that was and where it came from etc.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I like gift in return, by would I do it in a fight? No. Captures twigs is an iffy technique, if you are aren't lightning fast you will be thrown to the floor pretty hard. There is one technique that uses an awkward punch the uses the middle fingers middle joint. I would rather just use a normal punch than that.
> 
> Checking the storm is probably the worst one . If you are off on that knife edge kick you could get your head bashed in with a bat.
> 
> I was unaware mitose's stuff was called Hawaiian kenpo. I though that was someone else's take on it. Thanks for that information.


Actually I might be wrong ir might be Chinese kenpo not Hawaiian but either way it was different to American kenpo


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, a couple of notes.
> 
> Just what mitose trained and taught is a controversy.  Some feel he was legit, and others feel he was a downright fraud and a cheat.  This is an issue that cannot be fully resolved and feelings can get pretty high about it, depending on who you talk to.
> 
> ...



Did James mitose not have his karate PhD?


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, a couple of notes.
> 
> Just what mitose trained and taught is a controversy.  Some feel he was legit, and others feel he was a downright fraud and a cheat.  This is an issue that cannot be fully resolved and feelings can get pretty high about it, depending on who you talk to.
> 
> ...


Well ed Parker himself says that Mitose trained him a lot so there's that but whatever if I'm wrong I'm wrong that one was one of my problems with kenpo so much political bs and lies I don't care about all that stuff I just want to train that's why kickboxing appeals more to me we just turn up train go home not get into big discussions about who taught who or who's lineage is what or any of that.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Well ed Parker himself says that Mitose trained him a lot so there's that but whatever if I'm wrong I'm wrong that one was one of my problems with kenpo so much political bs and lies I don't care about all that stuff I just want to train that's why kickboxing appeals more to me we just turn up train go home not get into big discussions about who taught who or who's lineage is what or any of that.



Yeah I never put too much care into lineage. I care more about the skill and experience of an individual.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Did James mitose not have his karate PhD?


I have never ever heard that suggestion before.  If such a thing even exists, I suspect it is much more modern in academia than Motose's era.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Well ed Parker himself says that Mitose trained him a lot so there's that but whatever if I'm wrong I'm wrong that one was one of my problems with kenpo so much political bs and lies I don't care about all that stuff I just want to train that's why kickboxing appeals more to me we just turn up train go home not get into big discussions about who taught who or who's lineage is what or any of that.


I believe Ed Parker very specifically stated that Mitose was never his teacher, never trained him.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Yeah I never put too much care into lineage. I care more about the skill and experience of an individual.


From what I hear now ed Parkers family are charging kenpo schools to be registered with them or they won't be called official kenpo and if you don't register with them and pay the money you can't call yourself kenpo or use the badge or even hang up your grading certificates on your wall so if a guy got his black belt from ed Parker but he doesn't to be part of it he's not allowed to hang up his certificate in his school or he'll get sued,,,it's that kind of thing I don't like I don't care if it's a big official school as long as j enjoy the classes and it's taught to a good level I don't care who you associate with or your organisation as just as you have good schools and can teach them I'm happy to train there.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe Ed Parker very specifically stated that Mitose was never his teacher, never trained him.


It's in his book infinite insights volume 1


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> From what I hear now ed Parkers family are charging kenpo schools to be registered with them or they won't be called official kenpo and if you don't register with them and pay the money you can't call yourself kenpo or use the badge or even hang up your grading certificates on your wall so if a guy got his black belt from ed Parker but he doesn't to be part of it he's not allowed to hang up his certificate in his school or he'll get sued,,,it's that kind of thing I don't like I don't care if it's a big official school as long as j enjoy the classes and it's taught to a good level I don't care who you associate with or your organisation as just as you have good schools and can teach them I'm happy to train there.


I don't know if there is any truth to this or not.  However, I believe such attempts would be impossible to enforce, with the possible exception of the use of the name "Ed Parker" in the official name of someone's school.  However, people could always make a statement about having been his student, or somewhere in the downstream of lineage traced back to him.

If the family was really trying to do this, which I rather doubt, it is a big waste of time.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I have never ever heard that suggestion before.  If such a thing even exists, I suspect it is much more modern in academia than Motose's era.



It does not exist. The comment was sarcasm. How can you really point to someone being a fraud if our subject matter lacks such credentials? Especially back in the 30's and 40's.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> It's in his book infinite insights volume 1


Name the page and I'll check it.  I believe that is not true.  He was William Chow's student.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> It does not exist. The comment was sarcasm. How can you really point to someone being a fraud if our subject matter lacks such credentials? Especially back in the 30's and 40's.


The thing is, I've heard other people make a "Ph.D." claim, so I missed the sarcasm.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Name the page and I'll check it.  I believe that is not true.  He was William Chow's student.



I recall him being chows student as well, but chow was trained by mitose.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I recall him being chows student as well, but chow was trained by mitose.


I am certain he was chows student. 

However, it would be possible that he also trained with Mitose, but I am quite certain he went out of his way to distance himself from Mitose and deny such a relationship.

Mitose and Chow had a relationship that would have been teacher-student in some fashion, but just exactly the nature and depth of that relationship is also debated.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I am certain he was chows student.
> 
> However, it would be possible that he also trained with Mitose, but I am quite certain he went out of his way to distance himself from Mitose and deny such a relationship.
> 
> Mitose and Chow had a relationship that would have been teacher-student in some fashion, but just exactly the nature and depth of that relationship is also debated.



The only real way know would be ask relatives of his.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> The only real way know would be ask relatives of his.


Of Mitose?  I wouldn't know who they are.

Personally, I don't care about it, I no longer train Kenpo of any flavor.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Of Mitose?  I wouldn't know who they are.
> 
> Personally, I don't care about it, I no longer train Kenpo of any flavor.



I meant Ed Parker's relatives but if you don't care then that would be pointless too.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know if there is any truth to this or not.  However, I believe such attempts would be impossible to enforce, with the possible exception of the use of the name "Ed Parker" in the official name of someone's school.  However, people could always make a statement about having been his student, or somewhere in the downstream of lineage traced back to him.
> 
> If the family was really trying to do this, which I rather doubt, it is a big waste of time.


Here we are read through the lines of this Ed Parker Sr. Kenpo Karate |   LICENSING


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Well, there have been a lot of soscussions about these issues both here and on kenpotalk, Ron Chapel posts over there and was apparently very close with Mr. Parker up until his death, and was with him from the early 1960s.  Everyone from those early days has their take on what happened, so I view with that in mind, but I think Ron is a straight shooter.  I don't know that Mr. Parker's kids would know more, they were either quite young or not yet born, esp. While still in Hawaii.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Here we are read through the lines of this Ed Parker Sr. Kenpo Karate |   LICENSING


As I say, good luck to them enforcing it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> One thing I do find with kenpo is there are a lot of great techniques but there's a few awful ones that simply would not work. For gift in return is a techique against a hand grab and you step behind your opponent and bring their hand through their legs, it just wouldn't work and everyone I know who does kenpo says it, I think there's a few that definentely that could be cut from the system and when people ask why we have them they say oh it's for category completion but well it's a self defence art who cares about that if it doesn't work don't teach it I couldn't care less what categories it's completing lol maybe that's just me but yeah


Many arts have complex techniques that seem ineffective for defense. I have a theory about them - it comes in two parts (or maybe it's just two theories...I have a theory about that, too). 

Some of those techniques are what I call "test of complexity" techniques. They are used as a device to see if a student can build the necessary sequence of movements - using the principles of the art - to make the technique work. In other words, they are there simply to push the student to work the principles without focusing on application.

Some of the complicated techniques are what I call "now what" techniques. They are there to put the student in strange situations and show how the principles of the art can still be applied. Their purpose is to help the student learn to find the application of principles in any odd situation, since we can never possibly train in all potential situations.

I don't know if either of those is correct, but that's how I've used those types of techniques in my training and teaching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Well ed Parker himself says that Mitose trained him a lot so there's that but whatever if I'm wrong I'm wrong that one was one of my problems with kenpo so much political bs and lies I don't care about all that stuff I just want to train that's why kickboxing appeals more to me we just turn up train go home not get into big discussions about who taught who or who's lineage is what or any of that.


I have to agree with that attitude. While I think lineage is interesting, it only has importance to me in two areas: 1) it can help to understand why different branches of an art (even, of an association) approach the art differently when you know the lineage behind them; 2) if someone claims to have been trained by someone, I expect them to have been trained by that person, and lineage records give us a chance to check for truthfulness. I don't really care who they're trained by unless they make a claim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know if there is any truth to this or not.  However, I believe such attempts would be impossible to enforce, with the possible exception of the use of the name "Ed Parker" in the official name of someone's school.  However, people could always make a statement about having been his student, or somewhere in the downstream of lineage traced back to him.
> 
> If the family was really trying to do this, which I rather doubt, it is a big waste of time.


They might be able to get folks to not use the term "kempo", with the threat of legal action (based on cost, alone). They'd never be able to stop people from putting up their certificates, though. There's really no grounds for such action, so anyone receiving a cease and desist letter for having their certificate up could probably just ignore it.


----------



## ShawnP (Aug 20, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, there have been a lot of soscussions about these issues both here and on kenpotalk, Ron Chapel posts over there and was apparently very close with Mr. Parker up until his death, and was with him from the early 1960s.  Everyone from those early days has their take on what happened, so I view with that in mind, but I think Ron is a straight shooter.  I don't know that Mr. Parker's kids would know more, they were either quite young or not yet born, esp. While still in Hawaii.


i went over to KenpoTalk and read some stuff on the matter, and there were some talks about a video posted and the video is no longer available for what ever reason but the comments about it were rather disturbing to me since i am unable to see the actual video. im wondering since you are aware of the site and probably the post im guessing, would you have access or know someone who has access to that video, i would really love to see it.
here is a link to the thread that posts the video.

Kara-Ho Kempo Karate


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 22, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> They might be able to get folks to not use the term "kempo", with the threat of legal action (based on cost, alone). They'd never be able to stop people from putting up their certificates, though. There's really no grounds for such action, so anyone receiving a cease and desist letter for having their certificate up could probably just ignore it.


Kenpo or kempo is a term out in general use, far before Mr Parker ever used it.  They would never be successful.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 22, 2016)

ShawnP said:


> i went over to KenpoTalk and read some stuff on the matter, and there were some talks about a video posted and the video is no longer available for what ever reason but the comments about it were rather disturbing to me since i am unable to see the actual video. im wondering since you are aware of the site and probably the post im guessing, would you have access or know someone who has access to that video, i would really love to see it.
> here is a link to the thread that posts the video.
> 
> Kara-Ho Kempo Karate


I don't recall that video, its from a couple years ago.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> They might be able to get folks to not use the term "kempo", with the threat of legal action (based on cost, alone). They'd never be able to stop people from putting up their certificates, though. There's really no grounds for such action, so anyone receiving a cease and desist letter for having their certificate up could probably just ignore it.



Before the UFC came to do their first show here in UK they sent letter to all the promoters here saying we couldn't use the words 'Octagon' and 'Ultimate Fighting' on the pain of being sued. We ignored it and nothing came of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Kenpo or kempo is a term out in general use, far before Mr Parker ever used it.  They would never be successful.


As I said, they might be able to deter people just by the cost of dealing with the litgation. There's no way I can see that they'd maange to win in court.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Before the UFC came to do their first show here in UK they sent letter to all the promoters here saying we couldn't use the words 'Octagon' and 'Ultimate Fighting' on the pain of being sued. We ignored it and nothing came of it.


I love that they tried to claim ownership of a geometric shape!


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 22, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, they might be able to deter people just by the cost of dealing with the litgation. There's no way I can see that they'd maange to win in court.


I think it would actually be foolish to try.  It's a Japanese word in wide use.  It would be akin to trying to claim ownership of the word kung fu of taiji or karate.  I could see them trying to put some limits on use of the name Ed Parker, but not Kenpo, and I think the attempt would be ludicrous on its face and would not be seen as a credible threat.

This is so far after the fact, there is just no grounds for it. They should have made thes claims decades ago, before millions of people were using it unrestricted.  It's difficult to unring that bell.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 23, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?
> 
> 
> Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.



Well frankly they're wrong. The arts that both Kyokushin and American Kenpo derived from weren't traditional martial arts, so how in the world can those descendant styles be considered traditional when their parent arts were not?


----------

