# UFC Ready for Explosion



## bencole (Mar 14, 2006)

Seeing how we always seem to come back to these same arguments of "martial arts" vs. "martial sports," I thought it would be nice to preserve this link.

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5373408?print=true

This article is a fascinating look at how the introduction of rules and government oversight have helped UFC grow into a legitimate SPORT. 

-ben

-=-=-=-=-

UFC conducts its bouts under rules that are becoming widely accepted as industry standards in commission states. Here is a partial list of UFC do's and don'ts: 

*
What's legal*
Punching 
Elbowing 
Kicking and kneeing standing fighters 
Wrestling takedowns and throws 
Olympic judo-style chokes 
Submission joint locks
*
What's not* 
Head butts 
Eye gouging 
Hair-pulling 
Groin strikes 
Strikes to the spine or back of the head 
Kicking, kneeing or stomping a grounded opponent 
Holding the fence for leverage 
Throat strikes


----------



## bencole (Mar 15, 2006)

Please note that this thread was started because there seems to be a never-ending debate over whether certain types of training, such as sparring, are appropriate for those pursuing Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.

Those supporting the "pro-sparring" stance believe that sparring and competitions, such as those practiced in MMA, build skills that mirror real life encounters. They claim that if you cannot handle yourself in a ring, then you cannot handle yourself on the street.

Those supporting the "anti-sparring" stance believe that sparring and competitions, because of the banning of certain techniques (e.g. no hair-pulling) and the adherence of rules (e.g. no throwing sand in the face of your opponent, or no hiding knives behind your thigh), actually do a poor job of mirroring real life encounters. 

The "anti-sparring" group, of which I am a card-carrying member, believe that sparring teaches a mentality and encourages habits that are detrimental to one's development in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.

As an aside, the front page of the Wall Street Journal today (3/15/06) has a similar article about how UFC is replacing boxing as the fighting sport of choice.

Regards,

-ben


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 15, 2006)

I'm no card-carrying member of the vale tudo crowd, but I still think Rorion Gracie had at least one good point when he said "you can't even handle one person, why are you worrying about more?"


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 16, 2006)

Dale just posted this article over at Martial Arts Planet recently. It was so damn good, I thought it beared repeating here:



> *Assumptions
> 
> *Posted by Toby Threadgill on March 14th, 2006
> 
> ...


 
Laterz.


----------



## Monadnock (Mar 16, 2006)

bencole said:
			
		

> Please note that this thread was started because there seems to be a never-ending debate over whether certain types of training, such as sparring, are appropriate for those pursuing Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.
> 
> Those supporting the "pro-sparring" stance believe that sparring and competitions, such as those practiced in MMA, build skills that mirror real life encounters. They claim that if you cannot handle yourself in a ring, then you cannot handle yourself on the street.
> 
> ...


 
Do you think this is true for all martial arts, or just BBT? If you do not want to comment on other martial arts, I'd be just as happy to know more on why you think it is so for BBT, specifically, what part of the pratictioner's development?

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## bencole (Mar 16, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Do you think this is true for all martial arts, or just BBT? If you do not want to comment on other martial arts, I'd be just as happy to know more on why you think it is so for BBT, specifically, what part of the pratictioner's development?


 
I will not comment on the role/efficacy of sparring in other martial arts (despite my experience in several arts). My concern is with practitioners of other arts (usually MMA guys) who insist that practitioners of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu MUST spar or they will get killed in a "real fight." In their eyes, sparring is the "closest thing" to a real fight and so the exclusion of sparring means that BBT=crap. We frequently see similar questions from noobies to the Bujinkan arts, who have experience in other arts, and question why their teachers do not actively spar. Here is my response to such inquiries:

In Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, we teach you how to respond, rather than react. There is a huge difference between the two. The only specifics anyone can give you is to point you to all the practitioners who have used Taijutsu in their actual lives in order to avert or survive potential disasters. 

For me, it would be my friend who got hit by a taxi in Tokyo while on a bicycle, was thrown fifteen feet sidewise and rolled right up unscathed. Or my friend who successfully defended a family trapped in their car from a large group of weapon wielding punks. Or a friend who "unbalanced" a crazed druggie in a hotel lobby merely through words and body language. Or perhaps that man from Eastern Europe (Croatia? Serbia?) who had his leg blown off by a landmine and crawled miles, bleeding all the way, to get help. After a several hour trip, on his belly and in later by vehicle, he survives to this day because of his sheer strength of will to live. All of these examples embody the teachings of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and NONE of these could be attributed to sparring.

In my opinion, and in the opinions of people with vastly more skill and experience in our art, sparring creates a mentality that there is only one way to resolve an issue. Sparring creates habits and reactions; it gets you to think within a box and within a framework. 

Before you got into the toe-to-toe situation, what brought you to this point? Were you situationally aware? Were you an egotistical ******* or did you simply find yourself in the wrong place by happenstance? 

Once you do end up toe-to-toe, when you are focused intentedly upon your sparring partner, have you forgotten that guy behind you who just came back from the bathroom and has found his friend facing off with you? Did you remember him? Did you notice that he had come in with your adversary at all?

Once fists are flying, are you focusing on trying to "get techniques" to "win"? Have you forgotten that you could put an _ura gyaku_ on anyone with greasy pinky fingers, if you would just focus on controlling the _kukan_? Did you know that at the highest levels of BBT, there truly are no "openings." That's because you are the one molding your fate, in real time. 
The world is much more complex than sparring would have you believe. It takes a lot to get into a fight, make it through a fight, and avoid jailtime after a fight. If you want to learn JUST how to fight, there are far faster ways to learn than through Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. If you want to learn how to live and survive, it will take some time, but we've got some things that we'd like to show you."

-ben


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 16, 2006)

Damn Ben.

:asian:

I hope someday, I am 1/2 that wise.


----------



## DWeidman (Mar 16, 2006)

bencole said:
			
		

> In my opinion, and in the opinions of people with vastly more skill and experience in our art, sparring creates a mentality that there is only one way to resolve an issue. Sparring creates habits and reactions; it gets you to think within a box and within a framework.
> -ben


 
I agree with the above as long as the wording is lightened a bit:  Sparring doesn't "create a mentality..." - but rather it MAY create a mentality...  

Not everyone who spars regularly is trapped by these issues - just as there are plenty of people who handle themselves well despite no full speed training.  

Slow training *may* create effective habits that can be used in real time (full speed) encounters...

Sparring *may* create mental boxes (boundaries) to the detriment of the individual practicing the art...

This isn't black and white.

-Daniel Weidman
Bujinkan TenChiJin Guy...

PS>  I am even ok with the wording "tends to"...


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2006)

I think DWEIDMAN has raised a very valid point.  One of the biggest problems that I see with the never-ending debat over reality-testing your fighting skills is that absolutely nothing is guaranteed one way or the other.  Many methods of training exist, all designed to develop competent fighting skills.  These methods do not work equally well for everyone, for a variety of reasons.  But they all work, in their way.

Would an experienced MMA fighter prevail in a fight on the street?  Quite possibly, but it's not guaranteed.

Would a traditionalist who practices technique application in a controlled dojo setting prevail in a fight on the street?  Quite possibly, but it's not guaranteed.

Would a traditionalist who practices mostly kata, but intellectually understands the application of the kata prevail in a fight on the street?  Quite possibly, but it's not guaranteed.

Would a sport tournament fighter prevail in a fight on the street?  Quite possibly, but it's not guaranteed.  

And the same is true in reverse.  COuld any of these people be defeated in a fight on the street?  of course, but it's not guaranteed.

No matter what method one uses to develop their fighting skills, true combat is always a step up.  You cannot practice for combat using real combat.  People get seriously injured and killed in combat.  So we do our best to prepare in what way seems most appropriate and reasonable, and this will differ from person to person, but understand that when it comes down on the street, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT, and you can never fully prepare for that.  That's just reality for ya.

I just don't see a need for the constant arguing over whether or not this or that method is adequate.  It both is, and it isn't.  It depends on the individual, and it will also depend on the circumstances on the street.  

This argument seems to be happening on several threads right now, so I just thought i'd put in my thoughts.


----------



## Monadnock (Mar 16, 2006)

bencole said:
			
		

> All of these examples embody the teachings of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and NONE of these could be attributed to sparring.
> 
> In my opinion, and in the opinions of people with vastly more skill and experience in our art, sparring creates a mentality that there is only one way to resolve an issue. Sparring creates habits and reactions; it gets you to think within a box and within a framework.
> 
> ...


 
This is true and these are good points. I think a lot of this is left out of most schools as the focus is more on points, staying toe to toe, and winning. Not surviving. The physical part is usually the attraction to a lot of new martial artists. They need to be entertained, or are there to stroke their egos. A good school will offer more. Anyways, thanks for sharing.

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 17, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> I'm no card-carrying member of the vale tudo crowd, but I still think Rorion Gracie had at least one good point when he said "you can't even handle one person, why are you worrying about more?"



Depends on how you define "Handle" does it not?

One of the first guys who used me to thank Nagase for teaching him stuff that saved his life talked about the time he tried complaining about a loud party, only to find it was being held for some convicts just out of prison. It got violent and it ended up with four guys going back to jail.

He did not defeat them, splat them or anything like that. But they never got their wish of splatting him either.

In the UFC, the motive is to defeat the other  guy. In taijutsu, the idea is to get home in one peice. Running? Great idea! But not for the UFC. The UFC and competitions build up habits of going after someone and defeating them. You can't defeat more than one person unless you are really, really good. But you can keep them from pounding you.

I can't remember a time when I had a session with Hatsumi that he _didn't_ end up having us be attacked in the middle of the previous  technique by a third attacker. That tends to build up habits, and not ones you need for set rule competition. I think many Daikomyosai tapes show this type of thing if you need examples.

And I would point out that I said _competition._ I know some Bujinkan members use a little free play as part of their training. Most of them tend to have different rules or situations to avoid getting into one training mode. So the debate about sparring is the subject of another thread.

This thread kind of seems to be in counter to the line used by many that if you do not do well in a UFC, you art is not usefull for the real thing.  Considering all the restrictions listed at the beggining of this thread, you see that the UFC _is not_ the street and there is no way a general practicioner can do well against a specialist on the specialists home turf.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 17, 2006)

Not going to say anything about the other "fouls", but in regards to eye gouging, fishhooking, hair pulling and biting, you simply cannot rely on those tactics saving the day for you. Doesn't matter if it's the street or in a match, you've got to be able to move around and utilize leverage (i.e. taijutsu).


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 17, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Not going to say anything about the other "fouls", but in regards to eye gouging, fishhooking, hair pulling and biting, you simply cannot rely on those tactics saving the day for you. Doesn't matter if it's the street or in a match, you've got to be able to move around and utilize leverage (i.e. taijutsu).



Ah, but there is the other side of the coin in terms of rules. When you have rules, things can't be used against you. And you get used to the idea of things not being used against you and fall into those habits. A case may be where you train in a situation where attacks agains the eyes are not allowed. You don't cover them up in your training and you don't get negative feedback. You can do better against those that _waste_ their time trying to cover something that is off limits anyway. You train that way and that is the habit you build up for a real situation.

So if you train only under certain rules, you may find yourself surprised in a situation where the other guy won't feel restrained about breaking them. You train yourself to leave open things and make moves that work in the rules but leave you vulnerable when the other guy is not playing nice. That is a bad thing, a very bad thing.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 17, 2006)

You're preaching for someone who's already been converted. :asian:


----------



## bencole (Mar 17, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Not going to say anything about the other "fouls", but in regards to eye gouging, fishhooking, hair pulling and biting, you simply cannot rely on those tactics saving the day for you.


 
Um... I disagree. I used to wrestle in high school and so I have a fairly decent double leg takedown. After I started training in Taijutsu, I was instructed (along with a few others) to attack a senior student in precisely the same way that Don is describing. 

Being the type who always complained about how Bruce Lee's assailants would attack one after another, rather than all at once, I turned to my partners in crime and said, "I'll go low and give you time to get in on him."

Three seconds later, I almost blacked out from confusion. I got in on my opponent's leg (as expected) but my brain suddenly shut down when my opponent thrust his hand into my mouth and yanked me off him by the inside of my cheek!!! HOLY MOLEY that was painful!!!

THAT was something I had NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED as an option given my training. Had he had a weapon in his other hand, my five-second state of delirium would have put me in GRAVE danger.

When you train with expectations of what is acceptable and what is not, you leave open holes for the sake of efficiency. Why cover something if it will not be in danger?

I've seen Soke choke Mark O'Brien with his pony tail, for example. Is that hair pulling? I don't know. But it certainly was effective and led to Mark wearing a bandana from that day forward. 

%-} 

-ben


----------



## bencole (Mar 17, 2006)

DWeidman said:
			
		

> I agree with the above as long as the wording is lightened a bit: Sparring doesn't "create a mentality..." - but rather it MAY create a mentality... (snip) This isn't black and white.


 
Well, seeing how this is *MY* opinion   and the opinion of others that I have heard, it is black and white. No "may."

I have NEVER met anyone who has incorporated "sparring" regularly from Day 1 of their training who has achieved the level of understanding in our art that I would consider "good." From what I have seen, all it leads to is crap movement and big attitudes.

If you know of anyone that I have missed, please inform. PM/email is okay.

-ben


----------



## DWeidman (Mar 17, 2006)

bencole said:
			
		

> Well, seeing how this is *MY* opinion  and the opinion of others that I have heard, it is black and white. No "may."
> 
> I have NEVER met anyone who has incorporated "sparring" regularly from Day 1 of their training who has achieved the level of understanding in our art that I would consider "good." From what I have seen, all it leads to is crap movement and big attitudes.
> 
> ...


 
You just changed your statement.  Now it has to be from Day 1?  And what is "regularly"?

How can anyone determine if someone else has a level of understanding that you would consider "good"?

Would you consider Nagato in this statement?  He started sparring early in his career - and has a pretty decent knowledge base.  How about Soke?  Before Takamatsu - Judo has a decent amount of sparring in it...

Just playing devil's advocate on this.

And without the additional verbage of "regularly" and "Day 1" - I still think you are myopic on this topic.  

-Daniel Weidman
Bujinkan TenChiJin Guy...

PS>  I still agree with the reason for starting this thread - in that the UFC isn't the "proving grounds" for real budo...


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 17, 2006)

bencole said:
			
		

> Three seconds later, I almost blacked out from confusion. I got in on my opponent's leg (as expected) but my brain suddenly shut down when my opponent thrust his hand into my mouth and yanked me off him by the inside of my cheek!!! HOLY MOLEY that was painful!!!


 
I've been able to successfully hold down people stronger than myself in a kesa gatame while they tried fishhooking me in the mouth. I've also unsuccessfully tried to use the same tactic myself. There are no guarantees, especially not if adrenaline enters into the equation.



			
				bencole said:
			
		

> When you train with expectations of what is acceptable and what is not, you leave open holes for the sake of efficiency. Why cover something if it will not be in danger?


 
As with Don's post, no objections.


----------



## bencole (Mar 17, 2006)

DWeidman said:
			
		

> You just changed your statement. Now it has to be from Day 1? And what is "regularly"?


 
Fine. Retract those points. Still doesn't matter. I'll repeat *MY* opinion for you, Dan: 

*Sparring is bad for your development in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. The end.*



> How can anyone determine if someone else has a level of understanding that you would consider "good"?


 
I can. Others can. Don't know why you couldn't, Dan, if you know what you are doing.... 

If the purpose of your training is to GET GOOD in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, then you should NOT spar, IN MY OPINION.

Again, I have never seen ANYONE who has used sparring to better their Taijutsu IN A WAY THAT *I* AND *SOME OF MY SENIORS WHO ALSO HAVE AN EYE FOR "GOOD TAIJUTSU"* could see.



> Would you consider Nagato in this statement? He started sparring early in his career - and has a pretty decent knowledge base. How about Soke?


 
Yup.

Neither Soke nor Nagato would be where they are today IN TERMS OF THE MOVEMENT IN BUJINKAN BUDO TAIJUTSU had they NOT given up their sparring practices of their youth. Granted there is no way of "proving this" because you don't buy that there is actually a way of saying what is "good" and object to me placing further refinements in my statement. 

I feel consoled that both Nagato-sensei and Hatsumi-sensei agree with this assessment BASED UPON MY PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM. That, combined with my own subjective assessments of "goodness," is good enough for me. 



> And without the additional verbage of "regularly" and "Day 1" - I still think you are myopic on this topic.


 
Not myopic, dogmatic.   I've seen enough and been through enough to NOT be myopic about this issue.

-ben


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 17, 2006)

Gentlemen, 

Before this heats up, I just want to remind everyone posting here to keep the conversation polite...

This can be a heated issue, and I just dont want to see it spark into a full fledged flame.

Thanks!


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 18, 2006)

So what about what Nakadai's doing?


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 18, 2006)

DWeidman said:
			
		

> PS>  I still agree with the reason for starting this thread - in that the UFC isn't the "proving grounds" for real budo...



Well, there is the start of some meeting on common ground. If we all agree that an art that does well in the UFC might not be the best one you want as a civilian on the street we may just keep talking _with_ each other rather than _at_ each other.


----------



## bencole (Mar 18, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> So what about what Nakadai's doing?


 
You tell me what you think he is doing....

-ben


----------



## Marvin (Mar 18, 2006)

Hi everyone. Let me preface this by saying, I think individuals should train in whatever they dig! Period! 
Although I don't train in Ninjutsu. But I posted here because the topic was on MMA and my questions, I think, are as valid here as anywhere else. There is a lot of talk about assumptions in MMA. But I believe there is a lot of misunderstand about what MMA is and especially what it isn&#8217;t. Why do a lot of individual believe that because someone trains MMA they don't train weapons? I am a certified instructor thru several different firearms schools. Or that MMA individuals don't train in area awareness, the assumption is that MMA people have blinders on and are oblivious to their surroundings? Training in MMA doesn&#8217;t make you ignore what is going on around you. No the ring is not the street; the ring is a sportive competition that two individuals agree before hand what the rules are. Why do individual assume MMAer&#8217;s won&#8217;t use &#8220;dirt&#8221;; eye gouges groin shots etc? An individual gave the example of getting fish hooked and had never expected it, I wonder if the next time he shoots he will be aware of that technique? Sparring is not the street, but it is the closest thing to safely training it. If you have a self defense school and you don&#8217;t train for multiple opponents and/ or weapons, shame on you. Because in an assault, the aggressors will never attack unless the have some sort of advantage. But the mental and &#8220;tactical&#8221; aspects of self defense don&#8217;t take nearly as much time to develop
As the physical attributes do. Heck, most of the mental aspect can be summed up as, listen to your brain, not your ego. Don&#8217;t go to bad places if you don&#8217;t have to and if you are fighting never quit until the fight is done. And as far as tactics go, tactics change upon contact, so if an individual has never experienced this contact how will they be able to change their tactics?
Not trying to start anything, just trying to figure out, or maybe shed some light on this either/or dichotomy


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 18, 2006)

bencole said:
			
		

> You tell me what you think he is doing....


 
My then teacher went to Japan in 2001 and trained with Nakadai, during which they did a kind of randori in which there is a set attacker and defender. The attacker uses any types of kicks and punches, and the defender takes him down however he sees fit. All done at probably between 50-75 percent speed at the most. According to a lady from our dojo who visited Japan last autumn and earned her shodan there (from Nakadai, I think), he's still at it.


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 18, 2006)

Marvin... you are correct in that simply because one trains/studies MMA one is not oblivious to their surroundings.  And you are correct that no plan survives contact.  However, most people will fight how they train.  I know it sounds cliche but, it's true.  I have seen this idea validated not only in the martial arts but in intense close combat in the military as well.  Combat is no place to discover that you have prepared/trained yourself poorly because of stupid/naive assumptions about what you might face and your ability to be "aware".

Nimravus... Randori exercises are not MMA sparring/competition, regardless of how poorly some people translate the japanese to english or interpret what they think they saw or experienced.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 18, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> However, most people will fight how they train. I know it sounds cliche but, it's true.


 
No, it's not. The only thing I'm afraid of is being kicked out of the dojo due to having seriously injured someone who decided to up the ante without a warning, no matter how much that person may deserve it. 



			
				teisatsu said:
			
		

> Randori exercises are not MMA sparring/competition.


 
So what? I trust you're not implying that all MMA people spar the same way all the time??


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 18, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> No, it's not. The only thing I'm afraid of is being kicked out of the dojo due to having seriously injured someone who decided to up the ante without a warning, no matter how much that person may deserve it.


 
What are you talking about?

Are you concerned about having to wipe out someone you're training with to protect yourself?  If so, train somewhere else.  You're in danger.

Or, are you concerned that you have so little control and skill that you will injure your training partner if he does something unscripted?  If so, stop training, you are a danger to yourself and others.

Or, are you concerned that you will not be allowed to train if you have to use your training to protect yourself outside the dojo?  If so, train somewhere else, your instructor is an idiot. 





			
				Nimravus said:
			
		

> So what? I trust you're not implying that all MMA people spar the same way all the time??


 
Maybe not.  However, in my experience, MMA people tend to prepare for their anticipated competitive environment and stick to principles that work for that situation.  Randori is not confined by those rules.  Yes it is a controlled situation but is controlled more in terms of speed and degree of response than by technique or rules restrictions.  It's easier to increase speed in a real situation than it is to change conditioned response.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 18, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> Are you concerned about having to wipe out someone you're training with to protect yourself? If so, train somewhere else. You're in danger.


 
No, the problem is quite the opposite. I, unlike many around my parts, have the guts to train with people from other dojos regularly - this occasionally means I have to be a little more decisive than usually, such as when I had to heelhook a guy to make him settle down last february. Funny thing was, he offered me a handshake afterwards too.



			
				teisatsu said:
			
		

> Or, are you concerned that you have so little control and skill that you will injure your training partner if he does something unscripted?


 
If that was the case, I would hardly have confidence enough to spar at all. Look around for the thread about sparring in the Bujinkan I created. Still, the best safety regulation in sparring is trust among the participants. For me to spar, I want either that, or rules.



			
				teisatsu said:
			
		

> Or, are you concerned that you will not be allowed to train if you have to use your training to protect yourself outside the dojo?


 
Not as long as I don't tell the guy I have to beat up where I train, I guess.:asian: 



			
				teisatsu said:
			
		

> Maybe not. However, in my experience, MMA people tend to prepare for their anticipated competitive environment and stick to principles that work for that situation. Randori is not confined by those rules. Yes it is a controlled situation but is controlled more in terms of speed and degree of response than by technique or rules restrictions. It's easier to increase speed in a real situation than it is to change conditioned response.


 
However, Ben never said anything about "MMA type sparring" specifically, he only wrote "sparring", period.


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 18, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> However, Ben never said anything about "MMA type sparring" specifically, he only wrote "sparring", period.


 
Partially true.  By making the UFC and MMA a part of the title, the implication (intended or otherwise) is that we are discussing MMA sparring.  Additionally, you asked me if I thought MMA people sparred the same way all the time.  My direct response was to your direct question.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 18, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> Partially true. By making the UFC and MMA a part of the title, the implication (intended or otherwise) is that we are discussing MMA sparring. Additionally, you asked me if I thought MMA people sparred the same way all the time. My direct response was to your direct question.



I can settle for that.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 19, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> Maybe not. However, in my experience, MMA people tend to prepare for their anticipated competitive environment and stick to principles that work for that situation. Randori is not confined by those rules. Yes it is a controlled situation but is controlled more in terms of speed and degree of response than by technique or rules restrictions. It's easier to increase speed in a real situation than it is to change conditioned response.


 
Bingo! :asian:


----------



## MJS (Mar 19, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> Maybe not. However, in my experience, MMA people tend to prepare for their anticipated competitive environment and stick to principles that work for that situation. Randori is not confined by those rules. Yes it is a controlled situation but is controlled more in terms of speed and degree of response than by technique or rules restrictions. It's easier to increase speed in a real situation than it is to change conditioned response.


 
I agree with this!  While all MMA people may/may not train the same, their main goal in fighting in the ring and under the preset conditions for that event.  Dealing with mult. attackers, weapons, etc., is IMO not something that I picture a MMA fighter training for on a regular basis.  While I don't train in BBT, I'd think that the goals of those students would be more around realistic SD and not ring fighting.

Just my .02 

Mike


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 19, 2006)

Let's try to clear out what distinguishes "randori" from "sparring" then, aiight?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 19, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Let's try to clear out what distinguishes "randori" from "sparring" then, aiight?



Thats a good idea, often they seem very similar, but... not.


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 19, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Let's try to clear out what distinguishes "randori" from "sparring" then, aiight?


 
I thought I did that.

From Wikipedia (I've made a specific sentence *BOLD* and red):

***Randori (&#20081;&#21462;&#12426 is a term used in Japanese martial arts to describe free-style practice or sparring, sometimes with multiple attackers. The term literally means "chaos taking".

*The exact meaning of randori depends on the martial art it is used in*. In Judo and Tomiki Aikido, it most often refers to one-on-one sparring where partners attempt to resist and counter each other's techniques. In other styles of Aikido, in particular Aikikai, it refers to a form of practice in which a designated aikidoka defends against multiple attackers in quick succession without knowing how they will attack or in what order. This form of randori is not sparring, and the attackers are not allowed to resist or attempt to counter the defender's techniques. It must be noted that the term is used only by Aikikai dojos outside Japan. In Japan, this form of practice is called Taninzu-gake(&#22810;&#20154;&#25968;&#25499;&#12369 which literally means multiple attackers.

Although in karate usually the word kumite is used for sparring, in some schools they also use the term randori for the "mock-combat" in which both karatekas move very fast, attempting and parrying acts of extreme violence with all four limbs (including knees, elbows, etc.) and yet never making other than the lightest contact. Total control of the body is necessary and therefore usually only the senior grades can practise randori.

Randori may be contrasted with kata, as two potentially complementary types of training.

Randori is a way in which one person may test his ability to fend off various opponents at a time.***


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 19, 2006)

You have avoided my question. We're discussing MMA and Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu here.


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 19, 2006)

Um... no, I haven't avoided your question.  In fact, I answered it before you asked it.  You neglected to read and comprehend it.

Once more for posterity and clarification...

In my experience, MMA enthusiasts spar to build the skills they anticipate needing in the ring.  Those skills are focused by the existance of rules...  Because it is senseless to train to avoid something that won't happen becuase there is a referee, with rulebook in hand to call foul and stop the action if/when it does.

With Taijutsu on the other hand, our training methods are not predicated on existing rules.  The opposite, in fact is true.  We assume that if things come to a physical confrontation that requires the use of taijutsu, things have degenerated to a degree that we should assume that anything is possible and that all bets are off.  Therefore, we train not to condition specific responses to specific stimulii in terms of set technique vs set technique.  As a result, we tend to use the sort of randori that has no limitations on what technique we can use but we do regulate to what extent a technique can be performed (like stopping short of actually breaking a shoulder with onikudaki) and how fast things happen.  The speed thing is important in that working at a somewhat reduced pace the exercise tends not to generate into a flailing contest devoid of good taijutsu technique.

Hence my comments about the ease of changing speed vs changing conditioned response... before the question about definitions.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 19, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> In my experience, MMA enthusiasts spar to build the skills they anticipate needing in the ring. Those skills are focused by the existance of rules... Because it is senseless to train to avoid something that won't happen becuase there is a referee, with rulebook in hand to call foul and stop the action if/when it does.


 
Again, no objections, BUT - Ben wrote "sparring", not any particular type of such. And yes, I do think the above mentioned methods reportedly used by Nakadai can be said to be a type of sparring. All training is about being aware of it's limitations.

Besides, if we truly were to train the way we fight all of us would have been dead by now.


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 19, 2006)

You can't have it both ways.  Either we are talking MMA sparring vs Taijutsu randori or we are not.  You agreed before that because of the title and the implications in the post thus far that we were comparing MMA and Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.  So... how is it going to be.

This is what I love about the internet.  One can post perfectly clear and concise comments with very few possible interpretations and, yet, there is an infinite variety of ways to mis-interpret, mis-read, not read, not comprehend, and generally obfuscate said comments.

And, we don't train how we fight.  We fight how we train.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 19, 2006)

teisatsu said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways. Either we are talking MMA sparring vs Taijutsu randori or we are not.


 
But neither MMA nor Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu utilizes only one type of sparring, if you look at the thread I created you can see that there are quite a lot of variations.:asian: 



			
				teisatsu said:
			
		

> And, we don't train how we fight. We fight how we train.


 
If so, quit training. You are a danger to yourself and others.


----------



## teisatsu (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow.... again with the lack of reading comprehension.

I'm obviously fighting a losing battle.  Correct or not.

Nimmy... train however you wish.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 19, 2006)

If your point is that MMA people and Bujinkan people train with different goals in mind, :cheers:


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 19, 2006)

Plus, Nim, you are the one who asked for a clarification of the differences between randori and sparring, and teisatsu simply proivided a definition.

​


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2006)

I took the title of the thread as discussion of the rules of the UFC/NHB fights, as a comparison of the do's and don'ts of NHB and what can be done in BBT.  This post:



> Maybe not. However, in my experience, MMA people tend to prepare for their anticipated competitive environment and stick to principles that work for that situation. Randori is not confined by those rules. Yes it is a controlled situation but is controlled more in terms of speed and degree of response than by technique or rules restrictions. It's easier to increase speed in a real situation than it is to change conditioned response.


 
summed it up pretty good IMHO.  While both are done in a controlled setting, there appear to be more restrictions in one, compared to the other.  

Perhaps Nimravus, you can give your version of differences between the two.

Mike


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 20, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Plus, Nim, you are the one who asked for a clarification of the differences between randori and sparring, and teisatsu simply proivided a definition.​


 
Sorry. I know you guys aren't too big on irony, but it was a rhetorical question.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 20, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Perhaps Nimravus, you can give your version of differences between the two.
> Mike


 
For simplicity's sake, I'm going to refer specifically to the type Nakadai reportedly uses. To begin with, there is a set attacker and defender (those who want to see NHB drills done under the same premises - check out Erik Paulson's "Game Development"), it is usually not done at 100 percent speed, there may be multiple attackers, and no protective equipment is usually required.

Now that we have that out of the way, what type of MMA sparring are we talking about? Stand-up? If so, with knees, elbows and takedowns or not? Grappling? If so, with striking, heelhooks, finger/wrist locks or not?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Sorry. I know you guys aren't too big on irony, but it was a rhetorical question.


 
Ahhh.

It doesnt translate well in written format.  Hard to read the _intention_ of the post.


----------



## DWeidman (Mar 20, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> For simplicity's sake, I'm going to refer specifically to the type Nakadai reportedly uses. To begin with, there is a set attacker and defender (those who want to see NHB drills done under the same premises - check out Erik Paulson's "Game Development"), it is usually not done at 100 percent speed, there may be multiple attackers, and no protective equipment is usually required.
> 
> Now that we have that out of the way, what type of MMA sparring are we talking about? Stand-up? If so, with knees, elbows and takedowns or not? Grappling? If so, with striking, heelhooks, finger/wrist locks or not?


 
Without a very narrow definition of "sparring" - our (BBT) version of Randori *should* also be considered "sparring".

I also have an issue with Ben's comments - as I like to think I have a decent grasp BBT.  I am sure Nakadai has "good" understanding of taijutsu.  



> Ben wrote:
> *Sparring is bad for your development in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. The end.*




I can't agree with this.  

I can agree that training for ring fighting only is bad for development in BBT.  

I would love to hear reasons what in sparring specifically is "bad" and what in randori is "acceptable".  

Sorry, I have tried to hit my instructor -- full speed, Tori / Tori.  Is this sparring?  Does this mean he isn't "good" - or that it was "bad" for him / me?  Seems to me that I got nothing but great advice on what to work on from the exercise...

Then again, maybe I am just fooling myself...  ;-)

-Daniel Weidman
Bujinkan TenChiJin Guy...


----------



## DWeidman (Mar 20, 2006)

*Sparring*
_From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_

*Sparring* is a form of training common to many martial arts. Although the precise form varies, it is relatively free-form fighting, with enough rules, customs, or agreements to make injuries unlikely. By extension, argumentative debate is sometimes called "verbal sparring".

The physical nature of sparring naturally varies with the nature of the skills it is intended to develop; sparring in a striking art such as Savate will normally begin with the players at opposite corners of a ring and will be stopped if they clinch. Sparring in a grappling art such as judo might begin with the partners holding one another and end if they separate.

The organization of sparring matches also varies. If the participants know each other well and are friendly, it may be sufficient for them to simply play, without rules, referee, or timer. If the sparring is between strangers, or there is some emotional tension, or the sparring is being evaluated, it may be appropriate to introduce formal rules and have an experienced martial artist supervise the match.

_Sparring is normally distinct from fights in competition. The goal of sparring is normally the education of the participants, while a competitive fight seeks to determine a winner._

The educational role of sparring is a matter of some debate. In any sparring match, precautions of some sort must be taken to protect the participants. These may include wearing protective gear, declaring certain techniques and targets off-limits, playing slowly or at a fixed speed, forbidding certain kinds of trickery, or one of many other possibilities. These precautions have the potential to change the nature of the skill that is being learned. For example, if one were to always spar with heavily padded gloves, one might come to rely on techniques that risk breaking bones in one's hand. Most schools recognize this problem but value sparring nonetheless because it forces the student to improvise, to think under pressure, and to keep their emotions under control.

Sparring has different names and different forms in various schools. Some schools prefer not to call it sparring, as they feel it differs in kind from what is normally called sparring.

In Chinese martial arts, sparring is usually trained at first as individual applications, eventually combined as freestyle training of long, medium and short range techniques. See chin na, pushing hands.
*In **Japanese martial arts**, a sparring-like activity is usually called **randori**. In **judo**, this is essentially one-on-one sparring; in some forms of **aikido** it is a formalized form of sparring where one aikidoka defends against many attackers. *


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2006)

Hmm.  I really do think its a definition issue.  When I think "Sparring" I think back to what we used to do back in my Hapkido days at that school... which is 99% different from what we do in Randori in my current BBT school.  

So maybe the disagreements people are having is based on the fact that we have different understandings of what sparring is.  *I* for one would NOT advocate sparring to increase BBT ability, IF its defined under what sparring was in my old Hapkido school... which is my only reference to actuall sparring, so it is what comes to mind when you say the word "Sparring".


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 21, 2006)

Where I train regularly, sparring does occur, in various forms, from time to time. Newaza is by far the most common. However, we always take it for what it is, i.e. we don't do it to find out "what works" or to "get used" to uncooperative opponents (if I haven't made that clear yet, you don't have to spar to encounter those...).


----------



## DWeidman (Mar 21, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> *I* for one would NOT advocate sparring to increase BBT ability, IF its defined under what sparring was in my old Hapkido school... which is my only reference to actuall sparring, so it is what comes to mind when you say the word "Sparring".


 
Would you change your mind after reading the wikipedia definition?

Curious...

-Daniel Weidman
Bujinkan TenChiJin Guy...


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 21, 2006)

DWeidman said:
			
		

> Would you change your mind after reading the wikipedia definition?
> 
> Curious...
> 
> ...


 
Hmm, not really... because I have no real frame of reference to what that is exactly, only what someone wrote.  IF I was INVOLVED in sparring and it was, say, like the randori we do... then I might, yeah.  I'm absolutlry open to training that will work FOR ME, but you cant just tell me about it, I gotta see and do it.  Or as close an approximation as I can at my level.


----------



## DWeidman (Mar 21, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hmm, not really... because I have no real frame of reference to what that is exactly, only what someone wrote. IF I was INVOLVED in sparring and it was, say, like the randori we do... then I might, yeah. I'm absolutlry open to training that will work FOR ME, but you cant just tell me about it, I gotta see and do it. Or as close an approximation as I can at my level.


 
I am trying to understand this:

If you liked "apples" - but didn't like "oranges" - but found out that what you called an "apple" was really an "orange" - you would still say you didn't like "oranges"?  

Can you really not extend written word into reality?  Seriously?

-Daniel Weidman
Bujinkan TenChiJin Guy...


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2006)

Yes, after reading the various descriptions, I can see where there can be many different meanings/understandings, etc., so I can see where the confusion comes into play.  

I've always looked at sparring meaning putting on protective padding, ie: gloves, headgear, etc. and throwing punches and kicks, the goal being to hit or tag the person with those strikes.  There are set rules as to the targets available for striking, etc.

I've looked at the randori or SD aspect of it as a predetermined or randomly thrown attack, and the other person executes a defense.  While it is still done in a controlled fashion, there are no off limit areas as to where strikes can be applied.

Mike


----------



## Seattletcj (Mar 21, 2006)

How about this... for ease of discussion the wikapedia definition will be used as the point of reference....unless someone has a better definition.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Mar 22, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> I've always looked at sparring meaning putting on protective padding, ie: gloves, headgear, etc. and throwing punches and kicks, the goal being to hit or tag the person with those strikes. There are set rules as to the targets available for striking, etc.


 
I think it would be a tad farfetched to thusly label all sorts of takedown/submission grappling as "randori", don't you think? (not saying anyone does, but I'm trying to make a point)


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 22, 2006)

DWeidman said:
			
		

> I am trying to understand this:
> 
> If you liked "apples" - but didn't like "oranges" - but found out that what you called an "apple" was really an "orange" - you would still say you didn't like "oranges"?
> 
> ...


 
Your comparison is off... it would be closer to:

You dislike oranges, but like apples.  One day a dude comes and says "here have this orange" and you say... "No dude, I dont like oranges." and he says, "Oh, but its good, and crunchy, and has a shiny red skin" and you go... "sounds like you are describing an apple" and he says "No man... its an ORANGE"... 

I dunno about you, but I'd be skeptical UNTIL I tasted it... regardless of what wording he used.  Why?  Because I dont like oranges.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 22, 2006)

Or maybe I wrote that backwards... But you get my meaning.

Regardless of what you "call it" my PERSONAL experience has been that they are different, so until I experience things the other way, then no, I dont think the written words matter.

I could write Football is a sport where you kick a small round ball with your feet, and keep your hands off of it.... but where Im from that isnt football.


----------



## seansnyder (Mar 27, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Or maybe I wrote that backwards... But you get my meaning.
> 
> Regardless of what you "call it" my PERSONAL experience has been that they are different, so until I experience things the other way, then no, I dont think the written words matter.
> 
> I could write Football is a sport where you kick a small round ball with your feet, and keep your hands off of it.... but where Im from that isnt football.


 
Just curious, what is your PERSONAL experience?


-sean


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 28, 2006)

seansnyder said:
			
		

> Just curious, what is your PERSONAL experience?
> 
> 
> -sean



Well, Sean,

If you read further upthread... 



			
				me said:
			
		

> When I think "Sparring" I think back to what we used to do back in my Hapkido days at that school... which is 99% different from what we do in Randori in my current BBT school.


----------



## seansnyder (Mar 28, 2006)

My error, thank you-must be getting blind in my old age


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 28, 2006)

Yeah, I took Hapkido for over 2 years.  We used to spar almost every class, and I also competed in tournaments in the sparring competition.

My experience with it, it was more like playing "Tag" than fighting


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (May 18, 2006)

Seeing as this thread has taken off elsewhere as well, I thought I'd try to put a different spin on it here again. I've studied rhetoric, so I thought I'd take a new look at the subject from that point of view.

One of the most common mistakes speakers do is that they tend to mistake personal and/or moral convictions with actual truths as pertaining to mathematics or natural sciences. People actually do tend to get convinced in regards to the latter, if your arguments are sound and based on provable facts - that is, unless they're not educated enough to understand them.

But in regards to ethical conducts, political systems or, in this case, theories about combat and self defense, the situation is a totally different one.

It is very, very common (I've done it myself more than enough times and it will probably haunt me for a while to come) to make the faulty assumption that deep down, everybody is essentially like yourself, even when speaking of very temporary opinions. The more convinced you are of the validity of a given theory, the more you tend to believe that all that's necessary for the people you're speaking to to embrace your ideas and values is a little bit of education and enlightenment. You often like to think to yourself that people have been sharing your point of view all along.
In worst case scenarios, one may very well be so full of one's own convictions that one doesn't even pay attention to the reactions of the listeners, upon which one commits the most fatal mistake of all - becoming enraged at their perceived stupidity.

There are plenty of interesting cases to illustrate this point, probably because this is a very general problem. It concerns all that we feel is the most important to us - good and evil, healthy and unhealthy, good and bad from a moral perspetive.

One particularly strange political phenomenon is the fact that regardless of our own particular affiliation, we always seem to be able to rationally understand how those to our right think and look at things, but we never seem to be able to understand how people to our left reason with the aid of pure logic. Why this is the case, I don't pretend to know. But the phenomenon if very prevalent all over the world.
If, by left we mean people who want more economical and social equality, and by right, those who see different reasons why this is unachievable, there have always been a right and a left, even though the words themselves came into use under the French revolution.*
Furthermore, there is always someone to our right, as well as to our left. On the right side of the right-wing conservative we have the fascist and the Nazi. On the left side of the socialist we have the communist, the anarchist and Pol Pot.

To simplify things, let's look at the extremes. Somehow we can *understand* the fact that Nazis like to feel that they belong to the "chosen" Aryan race or that really rich people feel that everyone has the same needs as them. On the other hand, all the drastic attempts at equalization done at the hands of left-wing extremists always seem to be beyond our comprehension. What the heck did Stalin and Pol Pot achieve by killing all those people who wore glasses or spoke more than one language? And why do anarchists seem to believe that everyone would cooperate for the better of the whole of humanity if all governments were to suddenly cease to exist?

At this point you're probably asking yourself what the hell all this has to do with the topic previously discussed in this thread. Well, here's the answer - if you replace left-wing with traditional martial arts and right-wing with the vale tudo crowd, the problem is totally analogous to the issue mentioned above.

No, I'm *not* saying that all NHB martial artists are Nazis or vice versa. The political affiliation of particular martial artists has nothing to do with this and is another issue altogether. What I'm saying, is that the reason we tend to talk past each other is very similar.

Even for the most vehemently traditional koryu practitioner, it is somehow possible to understand how for example professional shootfighters have to train hard to optimize their conditioning and technique repertoire so that it will fit in with the circumstances they operate under. On the other hand, for Bujinkan practitioners, it can be hard to understand what has caused more traditionally-minded practitioners of Japanese arts to believe that ONLY the practice and repetition of techniques over and over will breed real life effectiveness WITHOUT the Bujinkan trademark understanding of distance, balance breaking, timing, leverage etc. Same goes for doing purely one-man forms. It's no more easy for us to understand than it is for NHB people to believe that by training with ancient Japanese weapons nobody carries around today, much less uses in the cage, we will be able to create attributes that will carry over and better our unarmed movements as well.

Personally, I think this has a little bit to do with the faith people put in experience.
Take for instance the communist idea of a state-controlled utopia, compared with, in this case, the study of kata. The idea is then, that by adhering to the carefully thought out plans, everything will work out for the best and everyone will benefit. In TMA terms, this would be equal to the practice of kata in combination with the faith we choose to put in all the people who put all the knowledge contained within the nine ryuha to actual use in mortal combat.

For capitalists, however, this is not enough. Their experience has taught them that the previous system will fail due to the human factor - i.e. communism is unachievable for as long as there is greed and jealousy among humans, as well as the fact that anarchism does not inspire people to cooperate on their own volition - instead it will promote "the right of might".
The same goes for the MMA people. Blind faith in the effectiveness of the techniques taught by old masters is not sufficient, they want to look at provable results - that is, what works in sparring and in competitions. They want to be able to judge from what they have experienced for themselves.

But if this was all that there was to it, what would Hatsumi have meant when he said "this stuff cannot be taught. It has to be discovered for yourself."? How does that fit in with the popular Bujinkan maxim "shut up and train, shut up and practice, shut up and apply"? Why is it then that so many MMA-oriented people speak and reason exactly alike (dead patterns, absorb what is useful etc etc etc etc.)? And how does one explain the existence of Israeli kibbutzes?:ultracool 

It goes without saying that there has to be at least some technique drilling in all MMA endeavours before sparring (everyone can understand that). But it's not at all self-explanatory that there is more to kata training, at least from a Bujinkan perspective, than just practicing movements over and over (we "traditional leftists" can understand that because that's what we deal with regularly, but the "cage-fighting right-wing" can't always see that just as easily - is this beginning to make sense yet?)
This is particularly due to all the anomalies that appear regularly within the Bujinkan "paradigm" - some spar regularly, some people are uncooperative in training, sometimes you get to change the order of events within a kata and you have to learn to adapt to the situation, some people, like the ones I usually train with, utilize more physical conditioning than what is common elsewhere etc etc.

The only possibility in cases such as these is to look at the opposing side's view of the world from within, so that we'll be able to comprehend where the other side's coming from. Often, right-wing people who gain a large following are themselves former leftists such as Mussolini or Goebbels. Traditionalists who manage to amass a large number of followers are often themselves former sport-oriented practitioners such as Hatsumi or Nagato. Of course, with Matt Thornton for example, the opposite is also true.

But again, what do I know? I'd like to apologize beforehand if I've offended someone with this rant, because that was not my intention. But my point is, as Sun Tzu said, we have to understand our opponent - in any case, we must have the will to strive towards understanding. Only then do we have a chance to get past the stupidity and the prejudices.





* Just for clarification, I do not see myself as either far-left or far-right. However, I have understood that there are several so called political parties who want to take my money and give it to people who have less. What the hell? Stay away from my money, I say. I'm the one who's been risking my neck writing reports and walking back and forth for hours in between apprehending shoplifters. Not them. But, I've got a middle-way solution for them. If you want people to stay away from smoking crack and flipping burgers at American restaurants, you'd better make sure to get them all educated. And the best way to do that is to stop believing in the popular clich&#233; that all kids naturally yearn for knowledge and thus can be raised properly by their school. Of course, knowledge is great and all that but generally speaking, kids don't realize that on their own. If they did, then there would be no need for schools, would there? DS.


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2006)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Seeing as this thread has taken off elsewhere as well, I thought I'd try to put a different spin on it here again. I've studied rhetoric, so I thought I'd take a new look at the subject from that point of view.
> 
> One of the most common mistakes speakers do is that they tend to mistake personal and/or moral convictions with actual truths as pertaining to mathematics or natural sciences. People actually do tend to get convinced in regards to the latter, if your arguments are sound and based on provable facts - that is, unless they're not educated enough to understand them.
> 
> ...


 
Well said, Mr. Nimravus. I agree completely.

:asian: :asian: :asian: :asian: :asian:


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 21, 2007)

I could not help but associate this thread with this video clip.

I mean no disrespect. I just wanted to share the laughter.


----------

