# Sports vs Traditional in terms of Self Defense



## Nobufusa (Apr 3, 2022)

According to John Danaher, in the following video 



 he says that sports based martial arts with competitive aspects are the most reliable for self defense purposes. However, traditional Budoka of the Koryu, often talk down or even denigrate the sportification of martial arts. Phil Relnick Sensei has even stated in an interview that he considered Judo a sport, not a martial art (a sentiment with which I really wholeheartedly disagree with). Toby Threadgill Sensei, in a Shu-Ha-Ri dialogues interview talked about how his Sensei effortlessly put down hardned Judoka. But what John Danaher is saying, as I understand it, essentially contradicts the things we hear from the traditional martial arts representatives.

In my opinion, the ideal thing to do is to probably do both competitive and traditional (theoretical) based martial arts.

What are your thoughts and reactions to John Danaher in this video?


----------



## frank raud (Apr 3, 2022)

In the words of Chris Haueter..."Think street train sport practice art".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 3, 2022)

I think "sport vs. martial art" is a false dichotomy. There are folks who seem to define "martial art" as something that must be more esoteric, more "do" centered. I disagree. The "jistu" arts were and are still martial arts - just no "do" arts (though some are now taught with more of a "do" orientation than most "do" arts, IMO).

I don't think there's a complete distinction between "sport" and "traditional", either. I think it's unlikely traditional artists in the past didn't have any kind of competition. In some cases (arts that were actually taught to active warriors) the "competition" was more what worked on the battlefield of the time, but it seems very likely that hard sparring and at least internal tournaments were used to test students and even sometimes compare schools and get feedback.

Training with good feedback will be more likely to reliably develop solid fighting skills. Those skills are fundamental to physical defense (not to be confused with things that help us avoid needing physical defense).

I think where the real confusion is sown is in conflating "best" with "works", and confusing "best for context" with "best every anywhere" - both types of errors made by both sides in this unnecessary argument.

Personally, I'm not fond of anything purported to develop fighting skill that doesn't involve _at least_ a solid sparring element. It might work fantastically, but how can you know? I favor folks testing their skills more widely - either by sparring with folks from other schools and styles, or by getting involved in competition. I never had that interest (and it was not encouraged by most of my instructors), and wish I'd gotten into it at least a little when I was training hard and in fighting shape.


----------



## Holmejr (Apr 3, 2022)

In Eskrido de Alcuizar we train for self defense only. We have not found a way to successfully spar in our style. We’ve put on  “protective gear” but that simply allows for too much dueling. A head shot with a short galvanized pipe should end a fight! But not with protective gear! We practice as hard as possible without destroying our classmates. We believe that after one has reached a certain level of proficiency in our style they are more than street ready. We have many law enforcement students that would agree. 

Eskrido de Alcuizar 
Orange County, CA
World Eskrido Federation


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2022)

There is and always should  be considered, age....If your not there yet then you can't possibly understand. SPORT VS Traditional is all about mental state and what you're trying to accomplish. The agility you need at a younger age for sport has a very small window as we age. So...at my age of 79 years old I would lean more toward Traditional where the focus is more on getting it done in a very short amount of time.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 3, 2022)

seasoned said:


> There is and always should  be considered, age....If your not there yet then you can't possibly understand. SPORT VS Traditional is all about mental state and what you're trying to accomplish. The agility you need at a younger age for sport has a very small window as we age. So...at my age of 79 years old I would lean more toward Traditional where the focus is more on getting it done in a very short amount of time.


Off topic but : As a 79 year old what martial art do you recommend for people around your age? I am trying to get my 75 year old father to get started in martial arts, as a way to build his strength and focus back after battling cancer. What would you suggest?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 3, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Off topic but : As a 79 year old what martial art do you recommend for people around your age? I am trying to get my 75 year old father to get started in martial arts, as a way to build his strength and focus back after battling cancer. What would you suggest?


I'll suggest 1 hour walking with the upper body doing:

1. right jab
2. left cross
3. right hook
4. left hook
5. right uppercut
6. left uppercut
7. right overhand
8. right back fist
9. left overhand
10. left back fist.

This 10 punches combo (along with 1 hour walking) is very good for older people's health.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 3, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Off topic but : As a 79 year old what martial art do you recommend for people around your age? I am trying to get my 75 year old father to get started in martial arts, as a way to build his strength and focus back after battling cancer. What would you suggest?


Potentially anything, but it depends on his overall health and physical capabilities.  As a cancer survivor, I would suggest something gradual and less rigorous, perhaps Yang taiji done specifically as an exercise form for older folks.  The movement is gentle and slow, but intensity can be increased if appropriate.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Off topic but : As a 79 year old what martial art do you recommend for people around your age? I am trying to get my 75 year old father to get started in martial arts, as a way to build his strength and focus back after battling cancer. What would you suggest?





Flying Crane said:


> Potentially anything, but it depends on his overall health and physical capabilities.  As a cancer survivor, I would suggest something gradual and less rigorous, perhaps Yang taiji done specifically as an exercise form for older folks.  The movement is gentle and slow, but intensity can be increased if appropriate.


I think Flying Crane makes a great point. Your dad's body should be the guide and it should be something he likes doing.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Apr 3, 2022)

This thread's title is "Sport vs Traditional.."  I know what "sport" means, but I'm unclear on the meaning of "_traditional_."  That term is quite ambiguous with multiple possible definitions.  Is it (A) karate without sparring, just for self-development?  Is it (B) karate as it's been commonly taught and practiced for the past 100 years?  If so, the sport aspect is an inherent _part_ of traditional.  Or are we referring to karate as it was practiced prior to 1920 concentrating almost fully on combat self-defense (C)?


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 3, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> According to John Danaher, in the following video
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My reaction? He's an idiot.

Okay, that was a bit harsh... I'm sure he's an intelligent person, and is certainly eloquent in his speech, however, in this area, he is woefully undereducated, on pretty much every level one can think of. His arguments are full of straw-men, false (and incorrect) assumptions, misunderstanding of concepts and contexts, lack of grasp of key areas, and unverifiable beliefs.

To be fair, though, the entire set-up (in the questioning) is, in itself, deeply lacking in any real understanding of what it is even asking itself, as the interviewer/podcaster seems unsure about what he's actually asking about... so there's a lot that would need to be clarified first.

The first thing that needs to be looked at is the context... self defence and "street fighting" are very different in many areas, so thinking of them as being the same, or somewhat equivalent, is already demonstrating a lack of any real grasp of the topic. Without getting that understood in the first place, you can't really move onto what's "best" suited, as we don't know what we're wanting it to be best for.

The second is to understand the variety of training methodologies... not only what is used, but why, and exactly how it is structured. Of course, you also need to understand that the training methods themselves change over the course of study... so minimalist exposure is really not enough to get a real understanding, excepting in sporting methods (in the main... there are still exceptions to that, of course).

The corollary to this is that you also need to understand the intended context of the system itself, which plays into the cultural background of it's development and foundation; in other words, the "Who", "What", "Where", "When", and "Why" of the system itself. This is going to be the largest difference between a "sport" system, a "traditional" system, and a "classical" system (yeah, I've brought another category into it... but that's really the kind of arts that Nobufusa is asking about in the above OP). And, what cannot be ignored (or, at least, really shouldn't be) is that there are numerous arts that cross borders, being both "sports" and "traditional"... as well as other categorisations that can be applied.

Finally, and this is the big one, it's important to note that no martial arts are actually designed for self defence. None of them. Zero. So, there's that.

There's a lot more to unpack, including the comments from Relnick-sensei about Judo (which is accurate in a modern setting, to be frank), however time is getting away from me, so I'll likely come back to do that either later today, or tomorrow. I'll break down John's interview, and highlight the issues as I see them, but, for now, while I see where he's coming from, he doesn't have the education to speak on this, from my perspective... especially when it comes to talking about other arts approaches, that he misses the reality of entirely.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> This thread's title is "Sport vs Traditional.."  I know what "sport" means, but I'm unclear on the meaning of "_traditional_."  That term is quite ambiguous with multiple possible definitions.  Is it (A) karate without sparring, just for self-development?  Is it (B) karate as it's been commonly taught and practiced for the past 100 years?  If so, the sport aspect is an inherent _part_ of traditional.  Or are we referring to karate as it was practiced prior to 1920 concentrating almost fully on combat self-defense (C)?



Generally it is arts that have a mechanism for live training and competition. And arts that don't.

Rather than say age. Because then wrestling would then be more traditional than most arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 4, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> Finally, and this is the big one, it's important to note that no martial arts are actually designed for self defence. None of them. Zero. So, there's that.


That’s a pretty broad and definitive statement. I doubt it’s true.


----------



## _Simon_ (Apr 4, 2022)

I'm peggin this'll be yet another 54 page thread. Buckle up y'all!


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s a pretty broad and definitive statement. I doubt it’s true.


depends on how you define self defense.  Doesn't it?  And we know there are a LOT of different definitions of that term.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 4, 2022)

Steve said:


> depends on how you define self defense.  Doesn't it?  And we know there are a LOT of different definitions of that term.


Great point!! We can try to duplicate self defense techniques as they may happen, but... the unpredictability factor still remains. Training is the thinking part but true application is the feeling part....and this requires us to be "clear and clam"... so we can differentiate...


----------



## seasoned (Apr 4, 2022)

_Simon_ said:


> I'm peggin this'll be yet another 54 page thread. Buckle up y'all!


It has the makings for sure...


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

If you know how to fight, it's possible to fight in a different context.  But, if you can't do something, I don't think it matters if you're bad at it in the ring or on the street.  And if you've never done something, you're probably not very good at it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 4, 2022)

frank raud said:


> In the words of Chris Haueter..."Think street train sport practice art".


I like this quote, but I'd like to expand a bit on how I interpret it in my own practice.


Chris Parker said:


> Finally, and this is the big one, it's important to note that no martial arts are actually designed for self defence. None of them. Zero. So, there's that.





Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s a pretty broad and definitive statement. I doubt it’s true.





Steve said:


> depends on how you define self defense.  Doesn't it?  And we know there are a LOT of different definitions of that term.


Yeah, we can argue about this all day, but I'm going to suggest a working definition for this particular discussion. "Self-defense" can cover a lot of ground - lifestyle, threat awareness, avoidance, target hardening, de-escalation, escape and evasion, legal considerations ... and sometimes the application of physical violence. I'm going to suggest that when we bring up "self-defense" in the context of martial arts discussion then we are normally talking about the part where we deal with actual violence as it might come up in a scenario where we are protecting ourselves from a non-consensual physical attack. The other aspects of self-defense are not normally a major direct portion of martial arts training, although there can be significant indirect benefits for self-defense depending on how you train. 

Fighting in a self-defense context has some important differences from consensual "street fighting", but there is also a large amount of overlap in the skills and physical and mental attributes necessary for each. Thinking that they are completely different is just as big a mistake as thinking they are the same thing.

Moving on to the original "sport vs traditional" argument ...

I'm not even going to attempt to define "traditional" in terms of martial arts. I haven't seen any attempt to distinguish "traditional" from "non-traditional" martial arts which is both internally consistent and widely accepted within the martial arts community. There's also no good way to clearly separate "sport" from "TMA". So I'm going to just focus on the value and limitations of "sport" training within the martial arts for those who want to develop the ability to fight in a non-sport setting (whether that setting is self-defense or some sort of consensual altercation).

1) I strongly believe that there is no way to develop reliable technical ability in any martial skill (punching, kicking, throwing, choking, joint locking, pinning, blocking, dodging, hitting someone with a stick, stabbing someone with a sword, whatever) without experience applying it against someone who is actively trying to prevent you from succeeding. This can be through real world application (fighting) or through live, resistive training (sparring). Note that sparring can come in a huge variety of forms depending on your objectives in terms of the specific skills and attributes you are trying to develop and the degree of safety you want to maintain while doing so. More on that a bit later.

2) Formalizing your sparring practice into some sort of official sport beyond the confines of your own training hall can have a number of benefits. One is that you can end up with a much larger talent pool of competitors who can push you to train harder and come up with technical innovations in the art. Another is that athletes have a high degree of motivation to win an official competition, as compared to regular sparring in the dojo. They'll train harder. They'll bring their "A" game and all their physical attributes to beat you, whereas in daily practice they might be focusing on exploring new techniques and not trying to overpower a weaker classmate with superior physicality. Competition also brings out more of an adrenaline dump and being able to deal with that is an important aspect of real fighting. Even those students who don't participate in the sport can benefit if their classmates do compete and become better sparring partners as a result. 

3) Turning your sparring into a formal sport also has potential downsides. In every sport you have to have rules. (There are also rules in real fights, despite the protestations of the "no rules in da streetz" crowd, but I'll save that discussion for another post.) Competitors want to win, so they will inevitably start to tailor their practice into ways which work well under those rules but may be less beneficial or even harmful in a different context.

4) How do you gain the benefits of sportive competition without developing dangerously bad habits for a more combative context? There are a number of ways ...

5) You can start by structuring your sport rules in a way which you hope will reward the attributes, skills, and tactics which you are trying to develop for combative purposes. This will inevitably not work out as well as you would like, because someone will figure out how to exploit the rules in ways you hadn't thought of, but at least it can give you a good place to start and hopefully the sport can still help develop the goals you were aiming for even if some habits you don't like also get reinforced.

6) You compete under multiple rulesets, each of which is designed to reinforce skills and attributes you want to develop, but which have different weaknesses in terms of the "non-combative" behaviors they might engender. This way you can learn to turn off the "bad habits" when you are in a context where they aren't beneficial. 

7) You can supplement your "sports rules sparring" in the training hall with drills and sparring methods which address the specific weaknesses in those rules. You can approach this in a lot of ways, but I'm particularly fond of asymmetric drills since you won't generally see those in sporting competition. For example, last week I put my students through a sparring drill where one defender started on the ground and two attackers (wearing MMA gloves) started standing. The attackers' goal was to stay on top and strike the defender. The defender's goal was to get back to his feet and make his way to a designated escape point while taking as little damage as possible. Doing this required the same skills the defender had been developing in one-on-one sparring, but obviously the scenario made it much harder to apply them.

8) Along the same lines as the previous two points, it's helpful to just regularly mix up your regular sparring with different scenarios and rules - grappling only, punching only, one partner grapples while the other punches, start standing, start on the ground, start on the ground with one partner trying to get up and the other trying to keep them down, use bare hands, use weapons, toss a training knife into the middle of an ongoing unarmed sparring match, allow hair pulling, allow groin kicks, start sparring inside a car, start sparring around obstacles, etc, etc. The point is that the practitioner can develop the mental flexibility to adjust their behavior to the requirements of the immediate context.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, we can argue about this all day, but I'm going to suggest a working definition for this particular discussion. "Self-defense" can cover a lot of ground - lifestyle, threat awareness, avoidance, target hardening, de-escalation, escape and evasion, legal considerations ... and sometimes the application of physical violence. I'm going to suggest that when we bring up "self-defense" in the context of martial arts discussion then we are normally talking about the part where we deal with actual violence as it might come up in a scenario where we are protecting ourselves from a non-consensual physical attack. The other aspects of self-defense are not normally a major direct portion of martial arts training, although there can be significant indirect benefits for self-defense depending on how you train.



This seems very reasonable to me, but I'm curious how well it will go over.  I think that a lot of folks around here consider those other elements you mention (e.g., target hardening, deescalation, lifestyle) to actually BE self defense.  Don't get me wrong.  I like this definition, and personally,  I think if someone has learned how to fight (in any context), it is relatively simple to address the other elements of self defense.  Also, when you say the other aspects are not normally a major part of martial arts training, I would agree and further suggest that there are other... often better... places than a martial arts school to work on those things. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> Fighting in a self-defense context has some important differences from consensual "street fighting", but there is also a large amount of overlap in the skills and physical and mental attributes necessary for each. Thinking that they are completely different is just as big a mistake as thinking they are the same thing.
> 
> Moving on to the original "sport vs traditional" argument ...
> 
> ...



Yes!


Tony Dismukes said:


> 2) Formalizing your sparring practice into some sort of official sport beyond the confines of your own training hall can have a number of benefits. One is that you can end up with a much larger talent pool of competitors who can push you to train harder and come up with technical innovations in the art. Another is that athletes have a high degree of motivation to win an official competition, as compared to regular sparring in the dojo. They'll train harder. They'll bring their "A" game and all their physical attributes to beat you, whereas in daily practice they might be focusing on exploring new techniques and not trying to overpower a weaker classmate with superior physicality. Competition also brings out more of an adrenaline dump and being able to deal with that is an important aspect of real fighting. Even those students who don't participate in the sport can benefit if their classmates do compete and become better sparring partners as a result.



Agreed.


Tony Dismukes said:


> 3) Turning your sparring into a formal sport also has potential downsides. In every sport you have to have rules. (There are also rules in real fights, despite the protestations of the "no rules in da streetz" crowd, but I'll save that discussion for another post.) Competitors want to win, so they will inevitably start to tailor their practice into ways which work well under those rules but may be less beneficial or even harmful in a different context.


Agree, for the most part, though I see this as an argument for more diverse rulesets and not fixating on one. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> 4) How do you gain the benefits of sportive competition without developing dangerously bad habits for a more combative context? There are a number of ways ...
> 
> 5) You can start by structuring your sport rules in a way which you hope will reward the attributes, skills, and tactics which you are trying to develop for combative purposes. This will inevitably not work out as well as you would like, because someone will figure out how to exploit the rules in ways you hadn't thought of, but at least it can give you a good place to start and hopefully the sport can still help develop the goals you were aiming for even if some habits you don't like also get reinforced.
> 
> ...


Yup.  And I would say the same is true for any brand of application, whether it's LEO, bouncers, soldiers, superheroes.  Just substitute these for "sport" above, and the general concepts apply equally, though the specifics would be different.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 4, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think that a lot of folks around here consider those other elements you mention (e.g., target hardening, deescalation, lifestyle) to actually BE self defense.


Well, they absolutely are self-defense. You could make an argument that they're the most important portion of self-defense. They're just not the aspect of self-defense which is normally addressed in martial arts training.


Steve said:


> Don't get me wrong. I like this definition, and personally, I think if someone has learned how to fight (in any context), it is relatively simple to address the other elements of self defense.


It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that it's relatively easy to address the elements of self-defense which are relevant to your fighting methods (such as steering away from tactics which limit your situational awareness or mobility or which could lead to legal issues) then I agree. If you mean the totality of subjects like de-escalation, situational awareness, escape and evasion, etc, then I think those could be areas of fairly deep study regardless of your fighting ability.


Steve said:


> Also, when you say the other aspects are not normally a major part of martial arts training, I would agree and further suggest that there are other... often better... places than a martial arts school to work on those things.


Yep. Being a great martial artist or a great fighter doesn't necessarily mean you know the first thing about, for example, de-escalation or the legal system. I've picked up a few useful tidbits over the years, but I would never present myself as a subject matter expert on these topics. I try to point my students in the right general direction and try to avoid encouraging behaviors or perspectives which could get them into trouble, but that's about the best I can do with the non-fighting aspects of self-defense.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, they absolutely are self-defense. You could make an argument that they're the most important portion of self-defense. They're just not the aspect of self-defense which is normally addressed in martial arts training.


Yeah, I meant that folks would argue those are self defense to the exclusion of other things.  And without them, what you're learning isn't self defense.  Sorry if that wasn't clear. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that it's relatively easy to address the elements of self-defense which are relevant to your fighting methods (such as steering away from tactics which limit your situational awareness or mobility or which could lead to legal issues) then I agree. If you mean the totality of subjects like de-escalation, situational awareness, escape and evasion, etc, then* I think those could be areas of fairly deep study regardless of your fighting ability.*


Yeah, I highlighted area is the main bit I was trying to say.  You don't have to know how to fight to be very experienced at de-escalation.  I have mentioned before that I have known thousands of folks, most of whom couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.  And I'd say there are places as good or better to learn and develop these skills than some self defense schools.  Particularly if the folks doing the teaching have limited personal experience.  



Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep. Being a great martial artist or a great fighter doesn't necessarily mean you know the first thing about, for example, de-escalation or the legal system. I've picked up a few useful tidbits over the years, but I would never present myself as a subject matter expert on these topics. I try to point my students in the right general direction and try to avoid encouraging behaviors or perspectives which could get them into trouble, but that's about the best I can do with the non-fighting aspects of self-defense.


👍


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s a pretty broad and definitive statement. I doubt it’s true.



Yeah.
There is no rock designed For self defence but can be pretty effective if I hit a guy with one.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, they absolutely are self-defense. You could make an argument that they're the most important portion of self-defense. They're just not the aspect of self-defense which is normally addressed in martial arts training.



I think the interview concentrated on street fighting specifically to separate those areas. And for that reason.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

Steve said:


> Yeah, I meant that folks would argue those are self defense to the exclusion of other things.  And without them, what you're learning isn't self defense.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.


This is why I prefer to use the term "combat" instead of "self-defense". If you are a soldier, a body-guard, a secret service person, ..., the term "de-escalation" won't have any meaning to you.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2022)

I think society teaches most people how to function in society. So a very basic concept of survival skills are generally already there.

And I think the skills taught by your average soft skills instructor isn't really all that revolutionary.

I mean do I have to go in to another rant about coopers colour codes?

So the emphasis on soft skills, while nice. In application is generally pointless. Just due to the way in which it is generally handled.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

drop bear said:


> So the emphasis on soft skills, while nice. In application is generally pointless. Just due to the way in which it is generally handled.


If all MA schools teach students how to hug a tree, the world will be so nice, friendly, and peaceful.

Can any MA school be able to survival without teaching any combat skill?


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 4, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> This thread's title is "Sport vs Traditional.."  I know what "sport" means, but I'm unclear on the meaning of "_traditional_."  That term is quite ambiguous with multiple possible definitions.  Is it (A) karate without sparring, just for self-development?  Is it (B) karate as it's been commonly taught and practiced for the past 100 years?  If so, the sport aspect is an inherent _part_ of traditional.  Or are we referring to karate as it was practiced prior to 1920 concentrating almost fully on combat self-defense (C)?


I don't think anything created in the 20th century could be considered "traditional" but that's just my take on it.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 4, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> My reaction? He's an idiot.
> 
> Okay, that was a bit harsh... I'm sure he's an intelligent person, and is certainly eloquent in his speech, however, in this area, he is woefully undereducated, on pretty much every level one can think of. His arguments are full of straw-men, false (and incorrect) assumptions, misunderstanding of concepts and contexts, lack of grasp of key areas, and unverifiable beliefs.
> 
> ...


I am very eager to hear your follow up, but a couple points on what you said.

1. John Danaher is a world renowned authority, expert, author and scholar on Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, he coached George St. Pierre to becoming a hall of fame UFC champion, who is to this day, still considered one of the, if not the best pound for pound MMA fighters in the world. So I am a little bit shocked at your dismissal of him. But like I said, your responses and follow ups are always the ones I look forward to most of all. To put it this way, I have a lot of respect for both you and him, so it's a little jarring to see two; in my eyes, titans of martial art knowledge, be at odds with each other. My point here to consider, is to perhaps give some weight and consideration to his background and reputation in writing your follow up. Not to say that you are wrong at all in any of your remarks, but I think your follow-up will be much more comprehensive and interesting, and perhaps even more convincing with this context in mind. 

2. I have some background in Judo, nobody is going to tell me that Judo isn't a ferocious martial art. The Judo instructors I trained with in Nagasaki were devastating fighters. One of them easily tore my rotator cuff during randori, and I understand injuries happen in sports, but he did it so skillfully, effortlessly, and effectively, that I simply can't accept the statement that Judo isn't a martial art. Simply put, I would not want to fight a Judo black belt- ever, period.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 4, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> I don't think anything created in the 20th century could be considered "traditional" but that's just my take on it.


Well, that would eliminate the vast majority of currently practiced martial arts, including a large percentage of those commonly referred to as “traditional martial arts.”

if you further eliminate the martial arts which were technically founded prior to the 20th century but which have significantly altered their training methods or curriculum since then, then you are left with a very small pool of arts.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> I don't think anything created in the 20th century could be considered "traditional" but that's just my take on it.


So, no karate?  Huh.  Okay.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 4, 2022)

honestly sounds like fun!


_Simon_ said:


> I'm peggin this'll be yet another 54 page thread. Buckle up y'all!h


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> honestly sounds like fun!


It's gonna be a little like this:


----------



## Hanshi (Apr 4, 2022)

As far as I know all martial arts were originally created with combat being the reason .  Yes I understand some schools focus on the "sport" aspect (whatever that is) while others teach training tactics from "how to keep from being injured by others" all the way to the "hairy chested he-man take no prisoners" thing.  There is a very large overlap of sport vs combat.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the "overlap" is larger than what ever differences they may project.  

In the Marines rifle marksmanship is drilled by having targets posted with the troops taking up positions on a firing line to shoot at them.  The rifle is a tool and nobody can go into combat without having the skills to use it effectively.  What we train in the martial arts is how to develop and build effectiveness with _those_ tools.  The tools being hand strikes, kicks and "grappling type" techniques.  Most martial arts can be edited to remove questionable techniques or at least adapt them to make them *relatively* safe for competition.  Let's face it, survival for the trained martial artist (or anyone for that matter) is not so much a matter of skill as it is of *will*.  The "fight" comes from within and not from without.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, that would eliminate the vast majority of currently practiced martial arts, including a large percentage of those commonly referred to as “traditional martial arts.”
> 
> if you further eliminate the martial arts which were technically founded prior to the 20th century but which have significantly altered their training methods or curriculum since then, then you are left with a very small pool of arts.


I don't believe there are any major change in wrestling, Chinese wrestling, Judo during the 20th century.

Some ground skill may be new, but all stand up throwing skill are all ancient.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 4, 2022)

Hanshi said:


> Let's face it, survival for the trained martial artist (or anyone for that matter) is not so much a matter of skill as it is of *will*. The "fight" comes from within and not from without.


This is part of Danaher’s argument, that combat sports develop this fighting spirit more than martial arts which do not include a sparring or competitive aspect.

Honestly, this is also a major reason for the existence of systems such as Army Combatives or the Marine Corp Martial Arts Program. Unarmed combat really isn’t a significant portion of the mission of a modern soldier, but the military believes that the training is useful for “building soldiers‘ personal courage, confidence, and resiliency.”


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

Hanshi said:


> As far as I know all martial arts were originally created with combat being the reason .  Yes I understand some schools focus on the "sport" aspect ...


I have learned 2 different ways to execute a hip throw. When you throw your opponent over your back,

- The sport way is to pull his body upward (so your opponent *won't* get hurt).
- The combat way is to smash his head straight down to the ground (so your opponent *will* get hurt).

Some training are not for sport.


----------



## Damien (Apr 4, 2022)

I'd say I actually agree with pretty much everything the guy said in that video, the only problem is with the terminology. Sports vs theoretical (or traditional) is potentially the wrong distinction, because you can spar and do resisting drills without having a sport that you can compete in.

The real distinction should be active pressure testing (in multiple forms) vs not. That was really the point he was trying to make; if you practice against a resisting opponent then you're more likely to be successful in a self defence situation. The problem is that a lot of "traditional martial artists" however we define that term, don't do this. It's a very widely held opinion (outside those that practice traditional martial arts) that combat sports are the future and traditional martial arts are useless for self defence/combat. You see the idea pop up everywhere.

The silly thing is, many of these arts were made for self defence and/or warfare, but the practice and focus of them has changed over time. War, banditry, rivalries, challenge matches etc. were not uncommon and the older styles got used in, and developed out of, these situations.  It's all about how you train, and a blend of traditional martial arts and modern approaches is, in my opinion, the optimum. I posted this in another thread already, but as it directly pertains to this discussion:






Now I will say that if you are interested in fighting, picking a combat sport will get you better at fighting faster, because you spend more time on it. But traditional martial arts tend to have a more wholistic approach which I think has broader benefits for the mind and body, and if we want to be healthy individuals into old age, I think this is the way to go. With the absence of specific rules, you can make your training more reflective of a live self defence situation and not have to worry about overcoming built in reactions, like the boxer punching someone in the head and breaking their hand. 

As @Tony Dismukes was saying the key issue for arts without a sport is building something which allows them to train safely and not lose the elements that separate it from kickboxing etc. This could be a new sport (the point about wider competition is spot on), this could be plenty of protection, it could be very well done resisted drills, probably all of the above. You want to train to fight in a way that matches the reflexes and tendencies your art builds in you.

Back when I had a school in the UK I was thinking of starting up an inter-club competition which encouraged participants to make use of their styles, to compete without the brutality we sometimes see in MMA (not everyone can go into work with a mashed up face...) and with a focus on a self defence style situation- light open gloves (to allow any hand techniques), helmets (so you can partake even if you need to remain mostly bruise free), a ring with one wall (representative of most streets where something), points for takedowns but only limited time to act on the ground (to avoid the dreaded head stomp from friends).

Unfortunately I never had the time to get it off the ground before Covid and I moved, but maybe one day.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 4, 2022)

While establishing clear definitions of terminology is very important, it does slightly distract from the question at hand about the differences and practicality of martial arts with sparring vs those without. We can continue discussing how we define "self defense" or "traditional martial arts", and other concepts, but I would encourage everyone to keep the original context of the post in mind- which is, what will better prepare you for actual physical combat? Is a combination the best approach? And other such questions.


----------



## Hanshi (Apr 4, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is part of Danaher’s argument, that combat sports develop this fighting spirit more than martial arts which do not include a sparring or competitive aspect.
> 
> Honestly, this is also a major reason for the existence of systems such as Army Combatives or the Marine Corp Martial Arts Program. Unarmed combat really isn’t a significant portion of the mission of a modern soldier, but the military believes that the training is useful for “building soldiers‘ personal courage, confidence, and resiliency.”





It's sorta like the old saying: "It's not the size of the dog in a fight but rather the size of the fight in the dog".  As the Duke stated in his movie "The Shootist" after Ron Howard's character fired almost as good a group as the Duke had fired; "it's not so much how tight you can shoot but how willing you are to shoot and I've always been willing".  But MA training is still needed.  My apologizes for any confusion.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2022)

Damien said:


> The real distinction should be active pressure testing (in multiple forms) vs not. That was really the point he was trying to make; if you practice against a resisting opponent then you're more likely to be successful in a self defence situation. The problem is that a lot of "traditional martial artists" however we define that term, don't do this. It's a very widely held opinion (outside those that practice traditional martial arts) that combat sports are the future and traditional martial arts are useless for self defence/combat. You see the idea pop up everywhere.



Not so much. Without competition you get this faux resistance training happening. Which looks like resistance training but is in fact garbage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

Damien said:


> if you practice against a resisting opponent then you're more likely to be successful in a self defence situation. The problem is that a lot of "traditional martial artists" however we define that term, don't do this.


I don't think we should talk about that part of the "traditional martial artists".

Some people train MA for combat. Some people train MA for health. I just hate to mix both discussions together.

One day when I asked my long fist brother to spar and he expressed no interest, I stopped asking him after that.

To me, if you train MA, and I also train MA, when we meet, we should spar.


----------



## Damien (Apr 4, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Not so much. Without competition you get this faux resistance training happening. Which looks like resistance training but is in fact garbage.


I think you could put faux resistance training in with those that don't do it. You could say the same with competition when it looks like karate point sparring- it's not reflective on an actual self defence situation. It teaches certain skills certainly, but completely ignores others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 4, 2022)

Steve said:


> depends on how you define self defense.  Doesn't it?  And we know there are a LOT of different definitions of that term.


Which really just makes it all the less likely no art has ever been developed with that intent.


----------



## Damien (Apr 4, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't think we should talk about that part of the "traditional martial artists".
> 
> Some people train MA for combat. Some people train MA for health. I just hate to mix both discussions together.
> 
> ...


I think its fine to train just for health or for interest, but you need to be honest with yourself and others about what you are doing. 

My main interest in training is health and interest, it just so happens that one of my interests is the application behind things, and that requires training with resistance. I don't ever intend to use any of this stuff, and really hope I never have to, but it is there if I do. Going back to some earlier points, the soft skills of avoid, diffuse and run away are far more effective for avoiding getting hurt.

When entire styles fall into the only health and interest approach though it is a shame, as the why behind the art gets lost. I think schools should try and teach something practical including resisted drills and then have specific classes where they spar (even combat sports clubs do this kind of thing since throwing complete beginners into sparring is generally a disaster from a technical perspective). That way if you're not interested you can just not go to those classes.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is part of Danaher’s argument, that combat sports develop this fighting spirit more than martial arts which do not include a sparring or competitive aspect.
> 
> Honestly, this is also a major reason for the existence of systems such as Army Combatives or the Marine Corp Martial Arts Program. Unarmed combat really isn’t a significant portion of the mission of a modern soldier, but the military believes that the training is useful for “building soldiers‘ personal courage, confidence, and resiliency.”


This is something that sport in general instills, not just combat sports.  If we are just talking about fighting spirit, ninja warrior competition training is excellent.  Or rugby. 



Gerry Seymour said:


> Which really just makes it all the less likely no art has ever been developed with that intent.


Well, sure, someone’s definition.  It’s like the multiverse thing that’s so hot right now.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

Damien said:


> the soft skills of avoid, diffuse and run away are far more effective for avoiding getting hurt.


Agree everything that you have said except this.

The *hard* skill is far more effective if you want to hurt your opponent.

We all try to develop some of those hard skills. But we all hope that we never have to use it.


----------



## Damien (Apr 4, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree everything that you have said except this.
> 
> The *hard* skill is far more effective if you want to hurt your opponent.
> 
> We all try to develop some of those hard skills. But we all hope that we never have to use it.


Certainly if you want to hurt someone its better to learn how to effectively strike etc. Whilst anger might make you want to hurt someone, my general outlook on life is that it's best not to hurt anyone if at all possible.

But if you want to not get hurt at all yourself, better to never be in the fight; you can never completely reduce the change of being hurt if you get into a fight. Don't go to the bad part of town, don't wander down dark alleys, don't approach that dodgy looking guy, don't rise to the bait of some idiot in a bar....

I'm not saying don't learn/practice self defence, but very much keep it as a last resort. Better to take the longer way home, or lose some face than get in a fight, even if you're confident of the outcome.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2022)

Damien said:


> Certainly if you want to hurt someone its better to learn how to effectively strike etc. Whilst anger might make you want to hurt someone, my general outlook on life is that it's best not to hurt anyone if at all possible.
> 
> But if you want to not get hurt at all yourself, better to never be in the fight; you can never completely reduce the change of being hurt if you get into a fight. Don't go to the bad part of town, don't wander down dark alleys, don't approach that dodgy looking guy, don't rise to the bait of some idiot in a bar....
> 
> I'm not saying don't learn/practice self defence, but very much keep it as a last resort. Better to take the longer way home, or lose some face than get in a fight, even if you're confident of the outcome.


Since street fight can cause so much problems, we can now see the value of the sport.

In sport, you can take down your opponent 5 times today. Tomorrow he will still be your wrestling partner.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree everything that you have said except this.
> 
> The *hard* skill is far more effective if you want to hurt your opponent.
> 
> We all try to develop some of those hard skills. But we all hope that we never have to use it.



The hard skill is also super important if you don't want to hurt people.

If say you just want to hold guys down for a bit. You still need to have done that at flat knacker in training.

Soft skills work from Mount more effectively.


----------



## jergar (Apr 5, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> According to John Danaher, in the following video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi I agree with what he's saying about training in sport arts, you have to get used to punches and kicks coming at you and have your mind and body trained to deal with various situations. MMA fighters are conditioned to take a beating and keep on fighting, but they are expecting their opponent to fight in a similar way to them .One good eye jab puts them out in about two seconds as we have all seen at one time or another. When he says a boxer will have to change his fighting technique to basically become a kick boxer he forgets that if a person has trained to box for any length of time he will not stray to far from his training ,having fought a few boxers i can attest to that! I don't deviate from my training very much after 31 yrs. If your training is only form or katas sure you'll get your clock cleaned by an seasoned full contact fighter. You really need hands on training to be a good fighter. What he's not doing is thinking about a trained traditional martial artist that's trained in knife,sticks,staff,sword ,what he thinks is a jab may be a knife thrust to the throat or body then it's game over. That is the difference between us. Peace!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 5, 2022)

jergar said:


> Hi I agree with what he's saying about training in sport arts, you have to get used to punches and kicks coming at you and have your mind and body trained to deal with various situations. MMA fighters are conditioned to take a beating and keep on fighting, but they are expecting their opponent to fight in a similar way to them .One good eye jab puts them out in about two seconds as we have all seen at one time or another. When he says a boxer will have to change his fighting technique to basically become a kick boxer he forgets that if a person has trained to box for any length of time he will not stray to far from his training ,having fought a few boxers i can attest to that! I don't deviate from my training very much after 31 yrs. If your training is only form or katas sure you'll get your clock cleaned by an seasoned full contact fighter. You really need hands on training to be a good fighter. What he's not doing is thinking about a trained traditional martial artist that's trained in knife,sticks,staff,sword ,what he thinks is a jab may be a knife thrust to the throat or body then it's game over. That is the difference between us. Peace!


MMA fighters don’t react badly to eye poles because of some false expectation. I imagine they r would be much harder to poke a gods MMA fighter or boxer in the eye than folks not practiced at avoiding being hit in the face. I also imagine they would be much better at poking eyes than someone not practiced at hitting a defending target in the face.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 5, 2022)

Well first of all I don't agree with Shuhari (shin-gyo-so) 守破離.  To me it's Shu (習) to study or learn something Ren (練) to practice it (repeatedly) Ko (工) to work/figure out and improve on what you studied based on feedback from practicing. After the ko process you then go back to Shu and repeat.

Secondly its "all" practice. Even MMA has rules. In a real life situation if your life was in danger? There are areas of the body one would attack that are not allowed in everyday practice. Is one better than the other? A favorite subject of mine doing Budo to a Kodansha level and Koryu to a licensed level. In both the epitome of what we do is based on defense. Budo has me sparring as we also attack. But still the ultimate technique is dealing with a person that has already committed to an attack is Sen. Budo has taught me (and still learning) is to deal with unexpected situations. The Koryu has brought me as close as possible to a real life situation of dealing with a situation or get hospitalized. For both I need a fighting spirit. One Koryu I do is based 100% on Sen. To see an already attempted attack and deal with it. We actually don't do anything else but Sen. In other words if we are not attacked we can both go home. The few real situations I have ended up in? Koryu was triggered devoid of any rules.


----------



## jergar (Apr 5, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Well first of all I don't agree with Shuhari (shin-gyo-so) 守破離.  To me it's Shu (習) to study or learn something Ren (練) to practice it (repeatedly) Ko (工) to work/figure out and improve on what you studied based on feedback from practicing. After the ko process you then go back to Shu and repeat.
> 
> Secondly its "all" practice. Even MMA has rules. In a real life situation if your life was in danger? There are areas of the body one would attack that are not allowed in everyday practice. Is one better than the other? A favorite subject of mine doing Budo to a Kodansha level and Koryu to a licensed level. In both the epitome of what we do is based on defense. Budo has me sparring as we also attack. But still the ultimate technique is dealing with a person that has already committed to an attack is Sen. Budo has taught me (and still learning) is to deal with unexpected situations. The Koryu has brought me as close as possible to a real life situation of dealing with a situation or get hospitalized. For both I need a fighting spirit. One Koryu I do is based 100% on Sen. To see an already attempted attack and deal with it. We actually don't do anything else but Sen. In other words if we are not attacked we can both go home. The few real situations I have ended up in? Koryu was triggered devoid of any rules.


Absolutely and as it should be ! Self defense has no rules. Salute!


----------



## jergar (Apr 5, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> MMA fighters don’t react badly to eye poles because of some false expectation. I imagine they r would be much harder to poke a gods MMA fighter or boxer in the eye than folks not practiced at avoiding being hit in the face. I also imagine they would be much better at poking eyes than someone not practiced at hitting a defending target in the face.


No they react to getting poked in the eye as anyone would do. What i'm getting at is they are trained to fight a certain way,they do their thing, the other person may have a different idea .


----------



## drop bear (Apr 5, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> MMA fighters don’t react badly to eye poles because of some false expectation. I imagine they r would be much harder to poke a gods MMA fighter or boxer in the eye than folks not practiced at avoiding being hit in the face. I also imagine they would be much better at poking eyes than someone not practiced at hitting a defending target in the face.



MMA fighters also deal with eye pokes all the time. Luke actual you can't see out of that eye issues.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> According to John Danaher, in the following video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


According to him.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

jergar said:


> No they react to getting poked in the eye as anyone would do. What i'm getting at is they are trained to fight a certain way,they do their thing, the other person may have a different idea .



Good sport strikers are going to be better at eye gouging. And better at defending eye gouges. Than a system that focuses on eye gouges specifically.

The mechanic of good striking is the best method to defend eye attacks.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.

If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.

Now, let's say you train for self defense only; targeting the knees, eyes, etc. These tactics are of little use if you do not know how to engage your attacker(s) (knowing how to fight). This is where a sparring partner(s) comes in. This is where you engage in "sport" martial arts in order to learn how to get past your attacker's guard, get your attacker off balance, or how to spot various targets, and how to position yourself if you have two attackers, i.e. not being in between them.

Having said all of that, martial sport can be a useful tool. You just have to throw the rule book out. After all, if you train only for competition, you'll defend yourself like you're trying not to get disqualified and win a match. If you train to save you life or a loved one's life, you'll fight like it.

That's my opinion.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
> Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.
> 
> If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.
> ...


It's a valid opinion, sure, but it's also not as cut and dried as you make it sound. Because it presumes that not targeting the eyes/groin/whatever in sparring means you cannot/willnot do so in a self-defense scenario. 
I don't have to break students knees to be capable of it. Nor do I have to gouge out their eyes. Or fracture their larynx. 
I can spar by targeting targets that won't do severe, long term damage. And when it's not sparring, I can target other parts. Because, you know, I'm thinking while I fight in both cases. Certainly SOME people may react in the limited manner your describe. But it's equally certain that it is far, far, from universally true.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
> Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.
> 
> If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.
> ...


the real problem with this is that many martial artists never fight.  More concerning, many martial arts instructors never fight (and some have never even been in a fight).  As a result, they aren't learning to fight at all, much less fight dirty.  They're having fun, though.  Maybe getting a little exercise.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 6, 2022)

I think it is safe to say that everyone on this board has a passion for martial arts regardless of the art/style/program we choose to follow.  Although some of us have an opinion as to which 'art' will prepare you 'better' for a SD situation, I suspect there are very few people that have actually been put to the test.  In all honestly, why would you want to be ?   In my mind, the intent of having to use SD techniques is because someone wishes to do bodily harm to us.   They may or may not have any control or concern for the consequences to either one of us.   I am not necessarily that concerned to see if my training will make me successful in that type of situation because I do not want to risk being permanently maimed or even killed just to 'test' my training.  

Hopefully my training will give me enough knowledge and practice for me to survive an encounter but I would rather use other methods to keep me out of that type of situation.   If I have no choice, I will react however I will react but I wonder how much of my training will actually assist me at that point.  So why do I practice martial arts at all ?   It's like insurance, I pay for the coverage hoping I never have to use it.  That being said, if I need it I want it to be the best I can afford to cover my needs.   In my case, I picked a style of MA that has as much real contact as I can afford to take but still get up in the morning to do my job.  Does it cover me in all cases ?  No probably not but it does cover me for the majority of situations that I may find myself in and it gives me pretty cool knuckles too boot.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's a valid opinion, sure, but it's also not as cut and dried as you make it sound. Because it presumes that not targeting the eyes/groin/whatever in sparring means you cannot/willnot do so in a self-defense scenario.
> I don't have to break students knees to be capable of it. Nor do I have to gouge out their eyes. Or fracture their larynx.
> I can spar by targeting targets that won't do severe, long term damage. And when it's not sparring, I can target other parts. Because, you know, I'm thinking while I fight in both cases. Certainly SOME people may react in the limited manner your describe. But it's equally certain that it is far, far, from universally true.


I see what your saying. And I was not in any way intending to imply that I suggest people engage in full contact sparring in order to learn to defend themselves. I should, however, elaborate on what I posted. 

One thing I address with people is that, when in a hostile situation, there is a threshold beyond which a victim may reach a state of panic. When this happens, people often do not think straight and their body may resort to auto-pilot, whether it is freezing up, fainting, or deploying a series of pre-programmed punches without thinking about it.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.

So, my point in comparing sport with combat type training is that training does affect what your body does in a high stressed situation. That's the reason our military trains a certain way. It's why firefighters train the way they do; so they will most likely do what is needed in a high stressed scenario.

This doesn't mean that some people aren't better natural fighters than others. It simply means that how we train ourselves to respond to different kinds of aggression affects how we will respond to those stimuli. This is why our soldiers participate in sport combat with one another but train in self defense combat; they do not train for sport, they train for combat. They use sport to practice engaging a real opponent.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> the real problem with this is that many martial artists never fight.  More concerning, many martial arts instructors never fight (and some have never even been in a fight).  As a result, they aren't learning to fight at all, much less fight dirty.  They're having fun, though.  Maybe getting a little exercise.


You are correct. That's one of the first things I tell students. You can learn any martial art technique you want, but if you don't know how to actually use it (know how to fight with it), your not getting much.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
> Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.


I would be very interested to read more about this incident.  You say it really happened... were you there when it did?  I hear stories like this and it makes me very curious.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> You are correct. That's one of the first things I tell students. You can learn any martial art technique you want, but if you don't know how to actually use it (know how to fight with it), your not getting much.


That's not quite the same thing, though.  Is it?  I didn't say "know how to fight with it".  I know how to distill liquor, but I've never done it.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> I would be very interested to read more about this incident.  You say it really happened... were you there when it did?  I hear stories like this and it makes me very curious.


I heard of this (I think it was back in 2018) when I attended a siminar on dealing with an active shooter situation. The SWAT instructor who was doing the presentation used this as an object lesson. If I'm not mistaken, it happened in LA, CA with the Sheriff's Dept.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> That's not quite the same thing, though.  Is it?  I didn't say "know how to fight with it".  I know how to distill liquor, but I've never done it.


I was trying to make the point that if one is going to learn self defense, one needs to learn how to fight. It's like having a side arm for defense. You can "know" how to operate it. But simply "knowing" and actually being able to use it proficiently are two different things.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> I was trying to make the point that if one is going to learn self defense, one needs to learn how to fight. It's like having a side arm for defense. You can "know" how to operate it. But simply "knowing" and actually being able to use it proficiently are two different things.


This is a big debate that never seems to end, some people say self defense is everything leading up to a fight and if you fight you've already failed at SD, others claim all that stuff is fine and dandy theory that doesn't mean much if you can't handle yourself in a scuffle.

But I agree, there's a lot of talk talk talk done in SD circles by people without a clue in the world about what it's like to be physically assaulted, let alone be able to defend yourself from that.

Unfortunately we live in an era of many relatively weak, unhealthy, and physically unfit people who don't even have the willpower to fight back against anything, especially their love of greasy fried food and soda pop.

One thing combat sports always has over many traditional programs is that to do well, you can't gorge all day on junk food and sit on your butt.  But anybody like that will be perfectly comfy (in the bad sense) in many if not most "self defense" classes.

Personally to me, SD is 99% mental, because that's the part you need to master before you'll ever become physically adept at fighting art.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> I heard of this (I think it was back in 2018) when I attended a siminar on dealing with an active shooter situation. The SWAT instructor who was doing the presentation used this as an object lesson. If I'm not mistaken, it happened in LA, CA with the Sheriff's Dept.


I've heard that story from many people over the years, including several times on this forum from different folks.  I would put that story into the same category as stories about the kung fu guy who could knock people out with his chi.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This is a big debate that never seems to end, some people say self defense is everything leading up to a fight and if you fight you've already failed at SD, others claim all that stuff is fine and dandy theory that doesn't mean much if you can't handle yourself in a scuffle.
> 
> But I agree, there's a lot of talk talk talk done in SD circles by people without a clue in the world about what it's like to be physically assaulted, let alone be able to defend yourself from that.
> 
> ...


Your post reminds me of one of the requirements I have of my students: they must engage in fitness training at least once a week, unless they want to join me in what I do. I also encourage a healthy diet.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> I've heard that story from many people over the years, including several times on this forum from different folks.  I would put that story into the same category as stories about the kung fu guy who could knock people out with his chi.


Interesting. I've only heard it once. Even if it isn't true, it does illustrate the effects of specific repetative traing.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Interesting. I've only heard it once. Even if it isn't true, it does illustrate the effects of specific repetative traing.



If it isn't true. It doesn't illustrate that at all.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

drop bear said:


> If it isn't true. It doesn't illustrate that at all.


If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Interesting. I've only heard it once. Even if it isn't true, it does illustrate the effects of specific repetative traing.


I don't agree with this.  If it's not true, it's what is referred to as apocryphal, and is basically useless to illustrate anything.  In fact, it's a good idea to be skeptical of apocryphal stories, as they are often shared to manipulate people.  

There was another recent thread in which we chatted a little about conventional wisdom, which can be complete garbage.  

I'm just suggesting that you apply some critical thought to things, and be open to the idea that just because it feels right (i.e., it reinforces what you already believe to be true) doesn't mean it is right.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.


I once heard a story from a guy about a dude who ate an entire stick of butter every night before bed.  He was super healthy, with great cholesterol and blood sugar.  Helped him sleep, and kept his metabolism working at night, which basically allowed his body to burn fat while he slept.  Goes to show you that you can never have enough butter in your diet.  

Of course, that's all complete BS.  But if you were inclined to believe it anyway... say you were looking for an easy way to lose weight, or a good reason to eat more butter (because why not?), you might buy it hook, line, and sinker, and then share it with your friends as fact.  

This is how folks get sucked into all kinds of silly stuff and no one is immune from it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
> Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.


I've heard this story a lot of times. I've never seen any news report or anything to back up that it really happened though. Even if it was stated in a seminar, that doesn't always mean it's factual. Kind of like the X% of fights always end up on the ground that people claim is true, but the number ranges from 70-95%, and IIRC is based on a pretty limited 'study'.

Edit: for this story I've also heard a lot of variations. Some say it was after a throw, some after a regular disarm. Sometimes it's a knife instead of a gun. Sometimes he gets shot, and other times a buddy comes around and saves him before the criminal realizes what happened. That's not to say that there wasn't a true story that got distorted at some point, but it does give more questions.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.


Only if that is a true issue (that cops are handing back weapons from bad training). If not, then it's teaching a lesson to a problem that doesn't exist, and might result in the wrong kind of overcompensation. In this instance-the overcompensation could be a delay in technique practice to ensure you don't get into the habit of handing the gun over, resulting in less reps being practiced, or more time being spent on that one portion of training then needed, both which could be problematic.

Also, if you can't say if it is or isn't true, I'd avoid starting a story with the statement that it is true. Just as an fyi for the future.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 6, 2022)

RTKDCMB said:


> According to him.


he just so happens to be a world-renowned expert.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.



Not really.

It is a fictitious account. Because nobody can prove it.  It is not" I can't say it is or isn't." No evidence of it ever having happened in layman's terms equals fictitious.

Think fairies. I can't prove they exist. But you can't prove they don't.

And what this fictitious account illustrates is the large gaping hole in training that relies on fictitious accounts to support a claim.

Theoretical martial arts.

The whole point of sport is that you can do what is claimed. Under pressure you can incapacitate an attacker (or you can't) in exactly the circumstances that you are training.

So if a person wanted to rob me. And for some insane reason I had 10 Oz gloves on and only punched. I still have the tools necessary to defend myself. I am still capable of rendering that attacker unconscious.(or again not, depending on how good I am)

With that kernel of truth I can base a plan to defend myself.

And look. That is a super common story. And a common trap we fall into processing self defence. This idea that something works. Just not here. Just not under these conditions.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
> Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.


Japanese sword practitioners would disagree with you. No need to fight dirty. With a blade you either kill them or you don't. It depends upon Satsujinken (killing sword) or Katsujinken (life giving sword). I could go into detail but you only have to watch a few movies to understand. The hero usually only deals with attackers. It's very much a matter of pride for Japanese as in the past the sword has been used for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 6, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> he just so happens to be a world-renowned expert.


Never heard of him.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Only if that is a true issue (that cops are handing back weapons from bad training). If not, then it's teaching a lesson to a problem that doesn't exist, and might result in the wrong kind of overcompensation. In this instance-the overcompensation could be a delay in technique practice to ensure you don't get into the habit of handing the gun over, resulting in less reps being practiced, or more time being spent on that one portion of training then needed, both which could be problematic.
> 
> Also, if you can't say if it is or isn't true, I'd avoid starting a story with the statement that it is true. Just as an fyi for the future.



Technically to get fast reps in. You would disarm. Then he disarms. And there is no gun handing.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Never heard of him.


I didn’t know who Lewis Urry was either.  Until someone told me he invented both the alkaline and lithium battery.  Notoriety and expertise are not related.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> I didn’t know who Lewis Urry was either.  Until someone told me he invented both the alkaline and lithium battery.  Notoriety and expertise are not related.



That works both ways though. World renowned self defence expert doesn't automatically translate to good either.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> I don't agree with this.  If it's not true, it's what is referred to as apocryphal, and is basically useless to illustrate anything.  In fact, it's a good idea to be skeptical of apocryphal stories, as they are often shared to manipulate people.
> 
> There was another recent thread in which we chatted a little about conventional wisdom, which can be complete garbage.
> 
> I'm just suggesting that you apply some critical thought to things, and be open to the idea that just because it feels right (i.e., it reinforces what you already believe to be true) doesn't mean it is right.


I under that you don't think this "apocryphal" story (weather true or not) illustrates a poor training practice, which your thoughts are justified. But, do you think the kind of repetitive training, the point being made, affects the outcome of an SD situation? My whole point was that incorrect training potentially leads to undesired results.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> I under that you don't think this "apocryphal" story (weather true or not) illustrates a poor training practice, which your thoughts are justified. But, do you think the kind of repetitive training, the point being made, affects the outcome of an SD situation? My whole point was that incorrect training potentially leads to undesired results.


I think that it does illustrate a great point, which is that you really can’t evaluate good or bad training without good data based on measurable outcomes.  

Which leads back to the video in the OP.  Sport training demonstrates reliable, predictable, and repeatable outcomes.  It’s independent of apocryphal stories and conventional wisdom.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Your post reminds me of one of the requirements I have of my students: they must engage in fitness training at least once a week, unless they want to join me in what I do. I also encourage a healthy diet.


I honestly find people who eschew daily fitness but still walk around with their "martial artist" cap on a little annoying.  For some reason it seems to be the rule not the exception.

Depending on the art, some have general fitness and strength training built in, others seem to skip it.  Supplementing whatever you're leaning with "roadwork" is good for stepping up whatever your game is.  

Some training methods (looking at you Tiger Crane!) are aerobic widowmakers compared to say, jumping jacks or pushups at the start of class. So many times I dabbled with heat exhaustion when I first started learning kung fu.  But I got very, very fit after just the first year.  Then I lost it.  Then got it back again.  And so on.

Right now I'm reasonably fit because I've gotten good at knowing when and where I've gotten weak.  Lots of people seem to think they learned something once, they can still do it.  They miss the point that finding training balance, and maintaining it, are two different composite skills.


----------



## jergar (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
> Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.
> 
> If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.
> ...


Yes I agree all martial arts were at one time for self defense.There was no concept of dirty fighting because they were fighting for their life not for sport. Fighting more than one opponent was probably the norm also. These days some people train for exercise some for sport if your training for self defense you should be learning all of the above ,getting around your opponents attack or  defense depending on what art you are learning. When i had boxers coming in to the school of course their punching skills were great but we had to teach them how to kick,grab,sweep etc. We move on triangles, boxers move in circles so they had to learn that also some did some didn't . It still comes down to how you train. Peace!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 6, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> I see what your saying. And I was not in any way intending to imply that I suggest people engage in full contact sparring in order to learn to defend themselves. I should, however, elaborate on what I posted.
> 
> One thing I address with people is that, when in a hostile situation, there is a threshold beyond which a victim may reach a state of panic. When this happens, people often do not think straight and their body may resort to auto-pilot, whether it is freezing up, fainting, or deploying a series of pre-programmed punches without thinking about it.


Maybe might kinda sorta possibly. What actual evidence is there to support the theory, and what evidence is there that this would be a training issue rather than, say, a personality issue?


Ji Yuu said:


> Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
> Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.


Yeah yeah, we've all heard this story and others. Have you heard the one about the MMA fighter who released his assailant when he tapped out? 
Problem is, anecdotes are not evidence. And Urban Myth is a real thing. So... any actual evidence that this has happened, and with enough regularity to concern us?
I have actually seen students resort to this sort of reflex-based fighting in tournaments. But I have never seen it in an actual confrontation. Not even once. And I am willing to bet I've been involved in more physical conflicts than most.
But if we're relying on anecdotes, then it would seem, based on my experiences, that giving up thinking is more an issue with sparring than with real fighting. And in some ways, that makes perfect sense. Because you KNOW the fight is real. Which can sharpen your focus.


----------



## Buka (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> the real problem with this is that many martial artists never fight.  More concerning, many martial arts instructors never fight (and some have never even been in a fight).  As a result, they aren't learning to fight at all, much less fight dirty.  They're having fun, though.  Maybe getting a little exercise.


There are Instructors who have never even witnessed a fight. (Outside of schoolboy fights)


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve said:


> I once heard a story from a guy about a dude who ate an entire stick of butter every night before bed.  He was super healthy, with great cholesterol and blood sugar.  Helped him sleep, and kept his metabolism working at night, which basically allowed his body to burn fat while he slept.  Goes to show you that you can never have enough butter in your diet.
> 
> Of course, that's all complete BS.  But if you were inclined to believe it anyway... say you were looking for an easy way to lose weight, or a good reason to eat more butter (because why not?), you might buy it hook, line, and sinker, and then share it with your friends as fact.
> 
> This is how folks get sucked into all kinds of silly stuff and no one is immune from it.



Actually keto.

But yeah your point still stands. 


Ji Yuu said:


> So, my point in comparing sport with combat type training is that training does affect what your body does in a high stressed situation.



I have found it is really similar.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Japanese sword practitioners would disagree with you. No need to fight dirty. With a blade you either kill them or you don't. It depends upon Satsujinken (killing sword) or Katsujinken (life giving sword). I could go into detail but you only have to watch a few movies to understand. The hero usually only deals with attackers. It's very much a matter of pride for Japanese as in the past the sword has been used for all the wrong reasons.



In general you want to use the safest technique. Not the dirtiest.

And there is quite often a difference between the two.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2022)

Buka said:


> There are Instructors who have never even witnessed a fight. (Outside of schoolboy fights)



Not really. I think the issue is one of culture rather than ignorance.

Self defence quite often come from a poor instructional culture because or the places it takes it's expertise from.

You look at military/law enforcement/industry systems. If captain boss on top of you believes a thing. You have to accept it. So they can be teaching any old thing and never get pulled up on it. 

Where for example when Lachlan guiles sells a system. He rolls with everyone on the mat. He says a thing. And at some point you say screw you. Let's find out.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 7, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Only if that is a true issue (that cops are handing back weapons from bad training). If not, then it's teaching a lesson to a problem that doesn't exist, and might result in the wrong kind of overcompensation. In this instance-the overcompensation could be a delay in technique practice to ensure you don't get into the habit of handing the gun over, resulting in less reps being practiced, or more time being spent on that one portion of training then needed, both which could be problematic.
> 
> Also, if you can't say if it is or isn't true, I'd avoid starting a story with the statement that it is true. Just as an fyi for the future.


Well, I presumed it to be true when I heard it from the one who presented the scenario. He claimed to have worked with the said Sheriff's Dept after the event. I agree that the guy could have been making it up.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 7, 2022)

Ji Yuu said:


> Well, I presumed it to be true when I heard it from the one who presented the scenario. He claimed to have worked with the said Sheriff's Dept after the event. I agree that the guy could have been making it up.











						Killed after handing gun back... -  		 		Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com
					

Looking for advice? Is there something you always wanted to ask a cop?  Only LEOs should answer questions. Please see posting guidelines.



					forum.officer.com
				




It is a common story. But nobody can actually pin the story down to a true one. 

It is indicative of self defence training that people make stuff up. It is weird. I don't know why people do it. But they just do.

I have even seen it happen when sports fighters teach self defence. And they should know better.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 7, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> he just so happens to be a world-renowned expert.


But not in everything. World renowned experts can be wrong about things.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 8, 2022)

Okay, I might come back to various comments in the thread in due time, but to begin with, I think I'll start to illustrate why my reaction was as it was by, as mentioned, breaking down the entire video itself first. Bear with me, this might take a bit... 

Just before I get to that, though, @Nobufusa, I'm quite aware of who John Danaher is, and his reputation and pedigree. What I was saying is that, in this area, he is woefully undereducated (something that, to be blunt, pervades this entire thread... but we'll come back to that). His BJJ skills and knowledge aren't in question... just his ability to speak authoritatively (or accurately) in this case (non-BJJ). Right, let's get to it.

We start with Lex asking John about the "fourth facet" of BJJ, referred to as "Self Defence". Lex then queries why it's called self defence ("I don't know why it's called self defence, it's called "street fighting", okay, it's called "fighting"... maybe you can contest that terminology", to which John replies "it's non-sport fighting"), before rephrasing his question as "What is the best martial art for street fighting?". Now, if he'd left it here, it may have been okay, but Lex continues to add what he feels is meaningful context seemingly, by rephrasing (again) the question as asking for advice for a BJJ white belt, a new grappling student, what is the best set of techniques for street fighting, then again, what is the best martial art for street fighting. John comments that Lex has asked some "truly fascinating questions here"... no, he hasn't. He's asked some rather ignorant ones, and in a very messy way.

To begin this whole thing, we need to understand a number of things. Firstly, and most importantly, is that self defence and street fighting are far from the same thing. In fact, one could argue they're almost entirely opposite of each other... but that's getting ahead of ourselves. By conflating them, even by saying that "self defence (should be better described as) street fighting", we already begin with a questioner who doesn't understand his own question. Lex further solidifies this idea by bringing in his fictional white belt, and asking about the best techniques, as well as the best martial art for his imagined "street fighting" (before we've even come close to figuring out what that means in the first place), seemingly thinking that they are one and the same. They're not. A martial art is not a set of techniques, although it can (and almost always) does include such. It is, really, a set of ideas and principles, some of which are technical, some are focused on training methodology and pedagogy, some can be philosophical, political, or spiritual, and so on. The techniques are then an outward expression of those principles. In other words, you can't have a set of techniques that are "best" without it being intrinsic to the art in question... and you can't have a "best" art and then separate set of "best" techniques that aren't a part of the art in question. Simply put, the question already suggests it's own answer is BJJ, and is more about what techniques in BJJ are best for this imagined "street fight"... which, being a BJJ podcast, with a BJJ practitioner interviewing another BJJ practitioner, is hardly surprising, but is also a bias present from the beginning that needs to be accounted for.

The next thing to look at is whether John is in any place to discuss arts other than BJJ, and his perception of it's suitability to their imagined context ("non-sport fighting"/"street fighting"/"self defence"). And, from the entire clip, the answer to that is a resounding "no". He demonstrates over and again that he doesn't have any actual knowledge, experience, understanding, or appreciation of other arts other than his pre-determined ideas (again, not an uncommon thing), but still feels able to assess and adjudicate other approaches suitability for an imagined context that is ill-defined at best, and thoroughly meaningless at worst. So, let's look at that context.

We'll stick with the idea of "street fighting" as suggested by Lex. John makes a cute joke about "what if it's on the grass in the playground, is that not 'street' fighting anymore (as you're not on the 'street')?", because semantics (out of context and proper place) are funny. Cool. So, let's get a working definition. We can look at the concepts of "street fighting" in three parts; first, what is meant by "street", then, what is meant by "fighting", and finally, what is meant with the two terms together as a single construct. This, like the concept of "self defence", might seem obvious to many, however, it's important to be able to distinguish between what's obvious because you already have a preconceived perception, and what is actually meant or implied divorced from your own personal interpretation. In other words, just because you think you have an idea based on what you believe it to be doesn't mean that you actually know what it actually is.

Right, so, "street". Let's be a little pedantic, and point out that this doesn't mean literally a road-way in an urban area... instead, "street" is used here as a catch-all for an environment that is not specifically designed for or utilised as an area of conflict or violence. Moreover, the implication is that it's also away from any form of sanctuary, such as a home or workplace (not that violence cannot, or does not occur there, but I doubt anyone would state that they got in a "street fight" with their spouse or family members). Now that we've established environment, let's look at the action in the phrase; "fighting". What we need to be careful of is assuming that any kind of violent encounter is a "fight". Most of the time, they're not. They're assaults. They're muggings. They're ambushes. They're domestic violence. They're threats from one to another. It becomes a "fight" when both parties willingly engage in conflict against each other. If it's one person attempting to inflict their will on the other, and the other doesn't respond by attempting to do the same to the first person, and instead responds by complying, by escaping, by engaging in a violent act only so as to gain an opportunity to escape, and so on, that's not a "fight".

So, what we have is a situation where two (or more) persons engage in a violent encounter, with each aiming to inflict their will upon the other (to "beat" them, as it were... to "win", in whatever way that manifests itself) that occurs outside of a sanctioned arena or environment. Simply by having both sides engage (willingly, even if not at first), we are now not talking about self defence at all, in a tactical, moral, or legal sense. But, again, we'll get there. For now, it would seem we've come up with a reasonable definition of "street fighting" (or "non-sport fighting", for John). There is, however, a major problem that needs to be addressed first, and that is the cultural side of things.

Regardless of our feelings on the matter, violence is a cultural endeavour. It has particular rules, expectations, rituals, societal roles, and more... all of which change depending on the culture we're talking about. The idea of a "street fight" in Brazil is very different to one in the US... or Australia... or Japan... or the Philippines. What types of violence you're likely to encounter changes... how likely you are to encounter it also changes... as does the environments you're more likely to encounter it in. So, before John starts talking about what's best for "street fighting", he really needs to ask "what do you mean by 'street fighting'?" Of course, he doesn't, because he, like many experienced martial artists, thinks that he knows already... except, frankly, he doesn't. He only knows what he imagines it to be, based on personal experience, media, stories, and his training background, which has taught him to think a certain way about violence.

Okay, that's one minute in, and, so far, we have only had Lex ask his question... I'll continue the breakdown in my next post...


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 8, 2022)

Part 2.

So, John starts off by saying that these types of questions tend to trap the askee into only giving bad answers, and, well, let's see how he goes...

"Don't get too bogged down in... people are always going to ask, 'is this martial art better, or is this martial art better', and the truth is, uh... there's only one way to say this; Combat Sports are your best option for self defence."

Well, you gotta admire the fact that he didn't try to give a more safe "every art has something to offer" answer... let's see how he justifies this idea. You may note, of course, that, even though the beginning of the interview was setting up the idea of this being about "street fighting", John has immediately gone back to discussing applicability and usability for "self defence"... and that's going to be a problem for him, as, like the vast majority of martial artists who do little more than pay lip-service to the ideas and concepts, I don't think John really has any idea what the concept of "self defence" actually entails.

"There are many martial arts, and they fall into a rough divide between the two; those that fall into combat sports, and those that fall into non sporting (shrug) martial arts, where there's no... uh... competitive, live-sparring element, where most of the knowledge is theoretical knowledge, re-inforced by passive drilling."

Yeah, dude has no idea what he's talking about. His assessment of the "rough divide" between martial arts tells me that his awareness of the scope of martial systems is deeply lacking, his belief in how non-sporting arts operate, train, drill, and are structured is so incredibly off-base that I hardly know where to start ("most of the knowledge is theoretical"?!?!? What? I can think of exactly one martial approach that is theoretical, and that is JKD... who test their theories constantly in non-sporting sparring... as for "passive drilling", that's a complete misunderstanding of the structure of such training approaches... there's little to nothing "passive" about such drills, unless your teacher doesn't understand them either... what they are, and I'm talking koryu kata here [paired exercises with an attacking side and a performing side], is a safe training method where you can skirt closer to the edge of actual combat than any sparring allows for... but, even there, the context needs to be understood, because who you're intending to face is a big part of it all as well). This isn't even getting into the myriad of forms of sparring (in different approaches, with their own aims and sets of context) that non-sporting arts engage in.

The point is, John is creating a false argument by not actually presenting two different approaches, but by presenting a simplified single side, and an imagined, false, and vilified "other" approach, when there is no real base for his comments. Probably the worst of all of this, though, is the idea of "theoretical knowledge"... if we're talking classical arts (and that's the context of the OP, really), then the knowledge is absolutely not "theoretical". In fact, it's codified knowledge based in experience... the reason we don't need to spar to test is that it's all already been tested... to be blunt, the reason sparring is required is precisely because the knowledge is theoretical, and needs to be tested... so, if he's going to aim that accusation somewhere, he's looking in exactly the wrong direction (don't believe me? Look at the way BJJ techniques develop... someone comes up with an idea for an escape, or a choke, drills it a bit, and then tries to employ in in rolling... they start with a theory, try it out, then test it in sparring... the primary reason for sparring is to test theoretical knowledge...).

"If you have a choice between a combat sport, and a non-sporting art based around theoretical knowledge and passive drilling, go with the combat sport". So, if you have a choice between something that is vague, but exists in a range of forms, and something that's made up as a sport arts type of boogeyman, go with the one that exists? Great. But does this mean all combat sports are equal, and equally effective? Sure, John will have great things to say about BJJ, but what about Olympic TKD? They're about as far from each other as you can get in unarmed combat sports, so they're both as good as each other? Is there something better suited than Olympic TKD that isn't a combat sport? How would he know?

"Nothing will prepare for the intensity of a genuine altercation better than combat sports." Really? Nothing? Well, it's a good thing we insist that all security guards have at least a few years in a sports art, then! What? We don't? How about the military? Police? No? Hmm... what do they use as primary training and teaching methods? Pre-arranged drills and scenario training? You don't say?

You know what prepares you to handle an intense situation like an assault? An intense situation that simulates an assault as close as possible while maintaining safety. You know how to do that? By starting with a pre-determined attack and defence sequence, then upping the intensity until it's at full speed and power. By being pre-determined, both sides know what to expect, so can perform at a high intensity without risking unexpected actions (which lead to injuries or worse)... after a while these drills can be mixed and matched... put into scenarios... all without any kind of competitive sparring or sports aspect. 

"Many people, as I say these words, are probably horrified to hear me say this, and immediately go to rebut, saying 'no, combat sports is exactly the wrong thing for you to do, because they have safety rules, etc etc, which can be easily exploited in a real fight, and if I fought a world champion boxer, I'd just poke him in the eye, or kick him in the groin, etc, etc', you've heard these arguments a thousand times."

Okay, I'm not about to say those arguments aren't made, but they are made by people who have no clue what they're talking about either... they're living in the same kind of fantasy world that John is creating for his "non-sporting" arts, where internal beliefs, based on no experience, are the guiding factor. There are certainly reasons that combat sports can be sub-optimal for self defence (street fighting is a slightly different situation... and we may note that John has gone back to describing "a real fight", not self defence here... again, there's no consistency in what he's discussing, as, simply, he is ignorant of the actual distinctions), but we'll get to that in a bit.

"Yes, there is SOME validity to these arguments, but, as a general rule, if you asked me to bet, in any form of 'street fight', call it what you will, between a combat sport adherent, versus someone who simply trains with drills, and talks in theories in terms of what they would do in a fight, then I'm going to go with the combat sports guy Every. Single. Time." 

Yeah... so, to take this piece by piece, no, there's little validity to the "I'd just poke them in the eye" argument... next, it's not a case of "whatever you want to call it", we're talking about two very different types of encounters and situations... if it's self defence, that's one thing, if it's a street fight, that's something else... lastly, yeah, I'd go with the combat sports guy, as the other one is typically a beginner (or rather inexperienced in the world of violence, to say the least), and is filled with fantasy and ego... but that's not the same as saying they're just not a combat sports person. The scariest people I've met are all non-combat sports people... and the combat sports ones? Yeah, not so much...  typically speaking, the serious non-sporting ones tend to be the ones who understand violence a lot more....

More to follow...


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 8, 2022)

Part 3.

"Now, all that being said, combat sports need to be modified for the use of self defence, street fighting, we haven't agreed on a term yet, we'll figure it out later."

Again, we get the conflation of the two terms as being commensurate, when, as discussed, they're simply not. Self defence is protecting yourself against unexpected violence (in which the physical altercation and application of violence is the last resort, and indicates failure on numerous levels already), and a street fight is a violent engagement willingly partaken in by both parties, with the aim to prevail over the opponent, but in a particular environment as previously discussed. Yes, self defence situations can become street fights, but you have now left behind the idea of self defence. You literally cannot be engaging in both at the same time. As for the modification, let's see what John has to say there...

"What is this modification? Well, some of it's technical... for example, a boxer now has to punch without wrapped or gloved hands, and that's problematic. Your hands aren't really designed for heavy, extended us of clubbing hard objects" He then goes on to detail the story of Mike Tyson breaking his hand in a street fight in 1988 against Mitch Green, crucially leaving out a number of key details that lead to the injury... but that's a side-note, really. "So, the boxer would need to modify their  technique... they could throw with open hands, or elbows... so, with only a small modification in technique, they can overcome that problem."

Yeah... so, about his idea of what our hands are actually designed for... Fine hands, fists of fury: Our hands evolved for punching, not just dexterity

As for the rest, sure, a boxer could make a technical alteration, but would they? I mean, they spend all their time working on developing potentially knock-out power with a fist, refining the mechanics of a closed-fist punch, understanding the distancing, targeting, and so forth, and then would have to fight that trained instinct to do a different mechanic in the heat of a sudden, violent encounter, because John thinks it's a "simple modification"? Consciously, sure... but it needs to be trained for it to be able to come out when needed... in other words, the training itself needs to have the modification, as relying on the individual to modify successfully in the moment without prior exposure is just unrealistic.

"So, what you'll find is that the general physical, mental conditioning and skill development that comes from combat sports, allied with technical modifications, and then, the most important of all, tactical modifications, will provide your best hope in dealing with altercations outside of sports, in the street, or wherever you find yourself."

So, firstly, is John suggesting that combat sports are the only types of systems that give physical conditioning, mental conditioning, and skill development? Does he think other arts don't do that? I get that there's an argument to be made for the physical conditioning of combat sports practitioners (and it's probably to be expected, as the aim is to engage in a sporting contest, whatever small edge you can give yourself can be the difference... additionally, a combat sports practitioner is more likely to need to be physically conditioned to be ready for their next competition, where a non-sports practitioner isn't working on the same timeline), but you have to look at what type of conditioning is required, what is desired, and how it is to be achieved. Sports arts have a different physical demand due to the frequent competition... and, hey, someone says they're main goal in martial arts is to get fit, combat sports are the first thing I'll suggest... but to suggest that they're the only option, or the only way to achieve such a goal is conceited at the very least, deeply ignorant at worst.

As far as mental conditioning, I really don't get where sports guys get the idea that their mental "toughness" is anything more than other martial artists... in fact, I would posit that most sports guys wouldn't hack a genuine classical martial arts class purely on a mental level. The mental pressures of combat sports are quite pedestrian by comparison. And, looking at the idea of "skill development", again, this is so vague as to be meaningless... the implication is that the skills developed in sports training are better suited or better developed than in non-sports arts, which is again simply a complete misunderstanding of both situations. For one thing, the skills being developed aren't even necessarily close to the same, and, in the cases where they are the same (or similar enough), often both simply have different ways of developing (and measuring) such skills. Once again, this is John describing things as they exist in his head, not in any form of reality.

What's most intriguing to me, though, is that he actually touches on the most important distinction between sports arts and non-sports arts, especially in relation to self defence (or street fights, although, again, a different thing entirely), and that is tactical. Yes, the tactical side of things is where the modification actually needs to be applied... but, as John offers exactly zero follow up to this, I can only surmise that he doesn't actually have any idea what that modification would need to be, or why.

"The least effective approaches to self defence that I have observed in my life, have been those where, as I said, people talked theory, drilled on passive opponents, and generally had no engagement in live competition or sparring in their training programs."

I'd be interested to know exactly what and who he observed "in his life" like that... I will say that, depending on the class itself, you can certainly get that impression from the outside... take my classes, for example. I will often explain the reasoning behind what we are doing in a technique (from both the attacker and defender points of view), and it can look like the techniques are being done on a fairly passive training partner... we also don't have any kind of free-sparring methods in the regular (traditional) side of things (our street work has a fair amount of scenario-based training, which begins simply, and builds up to a largely free-form practice). But here's the thing... the "theory" isn't something untested... it's also not something just made up... it's codified into the art, and comes from experience. The "passive drills" only ever start like that... the way they're trained, the attacking side gradually ups the intensity and pace, as well as the appropriate resistance (note: not the same thing as what you would get in sparring, for a range of tactical reasons) to enable the defending side to be able to perform at a full pace and intensity.

As far as "no engagement in live competition or sparring", yep. We don't want to. Mainly as it doesn't work for our aims... which are to be as accurate to the skills and lessons we're practicing as possible. The techniques are designed with the idea that both partners are skilled and aware... in a way, there's a real "fake it till you make it" concept going on... by inhabiting the actions of someone who knows what they're doing, and has skill in the area, you gradually take on those traits yourself. This cannot happen with any kind of reliability if we just "do whatever" in a free-form sparring situation, so we don't do it. We want consistency and reliability in our approach, not random, haphazard chance based as much on a persons natural talent as anything else.

Again, the point is that John's observations are from an incredibly limited understanding... it's entirely likely that he simply didn't understand what he was seeing in the other arts (not uncommon), so came away with a rather incorrect understanding of them. That doesn't make his comments valid, however. Just uninformed.

"The most effective... by a landslide... were those who put a heavy emphasis on live sparring, and sporting competition, modified, both technically and tactically, for the circumstances in which they found themselves."

Now, this sounds good, except, again, there is no follow up to the tactical modifications required, but, more tellingly, there is no indication of the sample size that John is talking about. His martial career is almost exclusively combat sports; starting with kickboxing and karate before moving onto BJJ (where he started getting serious about martial arts) around 1990 with Renzo Gracie. Couple that with the relatively low odds of there being any large number of self defence or street fight encounters he could have potentially witnessed, especially from very specific martial backgrounds, and knowing exactly what went into the success or lack in each situation, means that this entire argument is based in his imaginings of what he thinks is the most effective, as there's no way at all for him to have any actual data to corroborate such a claim.

Oh, and for the record, the most effective systems for self defence... by a landslide... are systems that are designed for that situation from the ground up. They have training exercises and drills specific to the situation, they have an awareness of the context beyond most, and they require little to no modification at all. Oh, and they aren't martial arts... they're RBSD systems.

"People talk, for example, about how, you know, hmm... and, with some validity, that weapons with change everything in a street fight, there's absolute truth to that."

Yes. Yes, there is. Hence some kind of weapon training being high beneficial to anyone thinking of training in self defence (or "street fighting"). You know who does weapon training? Those traditional, non-sparring, non-competitive martial arts... (oh, don't start bringing up Kendo or fencing... they're as related to the weapons in combative usage as the air craft carriers are in Battleship).

"But this extends into weapons as well. The most effective forms of knife fighting that you'll see, will be those that come from a background in fencing, because it has sparring, and a competitive sporting aspect to it."

Yeah... this is why I said he's an idiot.

The most effective forms of knife fighting are those that come from a culture where fighting with blades is prominent. The Philippines. South Africa. Prisons. Not fencing. Idiot. Might as well say that the best tennis players come from people who do ten-pin bowling.

"But would purge fencing be the appropriate thing? Of course not, you'd have to modify it. But the reflexes, endurance, physical mobility that you get from the sport of fencing could easily be modified to bladecraft in a fight situation."

Idiot.

Look, one of the reasons to train in specific weapons is it gets you used to specific distances, angles of attack, and a raised level of threat. Thinking that, just because fencing is ostensibly related to using a long blade, therefore it's applicable to a small concealed folding knife is to completely and utterly misunderstand the whole point of weapons training from a combative perspective. You'll also notice that John has brought up a couple of areas, only to completely disengage from discussing them, as he doesn't have the knowledge or experience to do so... he did it by bringing up "tactical modification" without anything about what that modification would need to entail, and here, he brings up the fact that weapons (and their introduction) can change a fight enormously, only to immediately turn around and say "weapon sports arts are also good, so you don't have to worry about weapons changing things!" without the first clue about how weapons change an encounter, what the benefits of weapons training is, how it is applied, and, well, everything else. 

"What you want to look for, with regards (to) street and self defence, if not 'okay, which style should I choose, should I choose Taekwon Do, should I choose karate, should I choose this variation of kung fu?', no, focus on the most important thing; does it have a sport aspect to it?"

Not "is it designed to actually help me in this situation", then?

"Then, once you've made sufficient progress in the sport side of that martial art, start asking yourself, what are the requisite modifications in technique and tactics that I have to use, or that I have to input, to make it effective for street situations? That's always the advice that I give."

So... the biggest problem here is that there's no way to tell if the student, having gone through a sport art, with a sport emphasis, in a sport context, with sports techniques, sports tactics, would have any clue about street or self defence application, and therefore be in any position to know what would need to be done in the first place.

Look, here's the reality. Self defence is often used as a driver for martial arts students, but no martial art is designed for it, as they deal with an area (and style) of violence that is wholy separate from the aspects of self defence itself... however, this has most martial artists thinking that they understand self defence, street violence and other aspects of conflict and conflict resolution. Simply put, very few do. And those that do typically recognise that, and teach their self defence separate to the martial art side of things... or leave the martial art side entirely to focus on the self defence/street violence management. Simply being a martial artist is no qualification to discuss modern violence and it's management, as it's a qualification in something else entirely. This area is a separate study, and needs to be approached as such.

If I get a chance, I'll come back to look at the other posts...


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> "Nothing will prepare for the intensity of a genuine altercation better than combat sports." Really? Nothing? Well, it's a good thing we insist that all security guards have at least a few years in a sports art, then! What? We don't? How about the military? Police? No? Hmm... what do they use as primary training and teaching methods? Pre-arranged drills and scenario training? You don't say?



Yeah. But that doesn't work very well. Either the guy can fight. Or he can't. That sort of training doesn't change that.

It is mostly a liability exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> The scariest people I've met are all non-combat sports people... and the combat sports ones? Yeah, not so much... typically speaking, the serious non-sporting ones tend to be the ones who understand violence a lot more....



That isn't really accurate either. There is as much street violence experience in sports as any other martial arts.

So for example. Danaher has real violence experience.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and for the record, the most effective systems for self defence... by a landslide... are systems that are designed for that situation from the ground up. They have training exercises and drills specific to the situation, they have an awareness of the context beyond most, and they require little to no modification at all. Oh, and they aren't martial arts... they're RBSD systems.



That's incorrect.

If they were designed well. Then possibly. But because it mostly doesn't matter. They are mostly designed terribly. 

So say we are back to not insisting security or cops or whatever have some full contact fighting under their belt. Isn't because It is not beneficial to have that.

It's because nobody really cares. If you train a security guard or a cop. And he can't fight. Then it is a case of tough cookies. Either deal with it or get hospitalised. 

The training does not get scrutinised if these guys are getting hurt or going off script and hurting people. The individual does.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> We want consistency and reliability in our approach, not random, haphazard chance based as much on



This isn't accurate. And it moves on to the most important skills needed to develop for fighting. And the consensus is less about technique and more about timing, and distance management. 

And it is not just a natural ability thing. It is able to be developed through training. 

So the consistency are trying to achieve doesn't really fast track fighting ability.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> As far as mental conditioning, I really don't get where sports guys get the idea that their mental "toughness" is anything more than other martial artists... in fact, I would posit that most sports guys wouldn't hack a genuine classical martial arts class purely on a mental level. The mental pressures of combat sports are quite pedestrian by comparison.



The sports argument would be that you might engage in a dog fight with another guy who is doing everything they can to stop you and hurt you. And so your willpower has to be greater than theirs to win.

And therefore the training is designed to develop that.

So as an example I will put a weight cut up against any martial program you have.


----------



## Damien (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Parker said:


> the primary reason for sparring is to test theoretical knowledge...


I agree with most of what you said, but not this. You talk a lot about responding to certain situations, and yes, you do need to do that, but you also need to be mentally prepared for not knowing what the hell is going to happen Sparring is useful for getting used to this uncertainty, it's useful for feeling what it is like when someone is going to do whatever they can to hit you in the face. It's also really useful for understanding moving around with both individuals acting and reacting. That's very hard to do with pre-arranged sequences. I agree they do have their place, but sparring definitely does too.

Sparring also helps you understand what works for you, take the strategies from your martial art and apply them to yourself. You may find that X doesn't work well for you because you're short, or Y is really good for you because you're quick on your feet so even when someone tries to get away they can't.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Japanese sword practitioners would disagree with you. No need to fight dirty. With a blade you either kill them or you don't. It depends upon Satsujinken (killing sword) or Katsujinken (life giving sword). I could go into detail but you only have to watch a few movies to understand. The hero usually only deals with attackers. It's very much a matter of pride for Japanese as in the past the sword has been used for all the wrong reasons.


The history of Japanese warfare is replete with examples of "fighting dirty" sneak attacks, spying, guerilla warfare, deception, killing children, killing civilians, etc.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Never heard of him.


with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.


----------



## dunc (Apr 8, 2022)

I don't know John personally, but he and my BJJ teacher are close and there are a lot of shared insights and approaches
Worth noting that John is a high level coach for BJJ, Striking and MMA. He also worked the doors in New York during a time when it was pretty rough so he has an unusually rounded set of experiences
John also has a good academic pedigree and I like the way that he applies intellectual thought and rigour to combat sports. This makes him a pretty unique / unusual 
More than that he's proven his approach to be highly effective by having a profound effect on the sport of BJJ (& to a lesser extent MMA) and in my view this alone should earn him the respect to carefully consider what he's saying 
I tend to agree with his point that:
- Combat sports are a very good way to teach you how to deal with the intensity of an altercation
- In order to apply your techniques in a live resisting situation you need to train under resistance and pressure (in my experience this is a general point and not necessarily required for an individual technique)
- There are technical and tactical adjustments needed to convert from a sporting/sparring context to a "street fight" / SD situation or however you define it

Where I tend to diverge from the way he presents his thinking is the degree of adjustments needed and how much influence that has on fundamental techniques. As he says a cross/hook can break your hand, but this represents the vast majority of a boxer's training focus. Many foundational throws can take yourself to the floor, an unguarded side control can put your face into your opponent's hands etc etc. This is even more pronounced with weapons: seionage will get your throat cut, a slip can do the same and so on. The risk of a mistake goes up exponentially so the distancing and trade offs to ensure 100% control of the weapon are very different

So I believe IF you want to study for "the street" then you have to go beyond "some simple adjustments" and delete into first principles and figure out how to get the benefits from both sides of the debate 
In my view the best way to do this is by developing a deep understanding of both combat sports and well preserved, complete traditional arts, then find the balance


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

dunc said:


> So I believe IF you want to study for "the street" then you have to go beyond "some simple adjustments" and delete into first principles and figure out how to get the benefits from both sides of the debate
> In my view the best way to do this is by developing a deep understanding of both combat sports and well preserved, complete traditional arts, then find the balance


I think this is a great point.  But to know what you need, you need to know what you have.


drop bear said:


> That isn't really accurate either. There is as much street violence experience in sports as any other martial arts.
> 
> So for example. Danaher has real violence experience.


Not to mention the number of cops, soldiers, bouncers, and security guards who also train in combat sports.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 8, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.


Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 8, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.


I also have never heard of him.  But that is not surprising as I don’t pay attention to competition martial arts nor BJJ in general.  That’s just me.  Ones mileage may vary.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.


It's also a logical fallacy to avoid discussing the merits of an argument because you don't know the person involved, or know them but they don't have sufficient credentials to make the argument.  Saying, "Never heard of him," is a good example of the _credentials fallacy_, implying that if his opinion were worth knowing, he would have heard of him.  It's like the other side of the appeal to authority.  

I think the most constructive path here is to discuss the actual argument and not on who knows or doesn't know the dudes in the video.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 8, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.


Bingo.  People make the mistake of believing that everyone is interested in, and paying attention to, the same thing.  But they aren’t.  We all have a slice of the universe in which we are interested, and the rest of it goes unnoticed. 

I am sure all of us could name some people who we feel are outstanding authorities within the slice of the universe that we pay attention to, who very few others here in the forums would recognize.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Bingo.  People make the mistake of believing that everyone is interested in, and paying attention to, the same thing.  But they aren’t.  We all have a slice of the universe in which we are interested, and the rest of it goes unnoticed.
> 
> I am sure all of us could name some people who we feel are outstanding authorities within the slice of the universe that we pay attention to, who very few others here in the forums would recognize.


Okay.  But is this thread about credentials or a discussion about the points raised in the OP?  Do you disagree with the actual points raised in the video?  If so, which ones, and why?


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I also have never heard of him.  But that is not surprising as I don’t pay attention to competition martial arts nor BJJ in general.  That’s just me.  Ones mileage may vary.


It's okay to not have heard of him, it's even okay to totally disagree with what he is saying, but it's not okay to dismiss his argument based solely on the premise of your own gloating ignorance of who he is.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.


nope, it's that person's problem. John Danaher is a respected and well known expert and authority in his field, regardless of that person's being out of the loop. See my reply to "Flying Crane".


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> It's also a logical fallacy to avoid discussing the merits of an argument because you don't know the person involved, or know them but they don't have sufficient credentials to make the argument.  Saying, "Never heard of him," is a good example of the _credentials fallacy_, implying that if his opinion were worth knowing, he would have heard of him.  It's like the other side of the appeal to authority.
> 
> I think the most constructive path here is to discuss the actual argument and not on who knows or doesn't know the dudes in the video.


Exactly. Attack the argument, not the person, but keeping in the mind that the argument is made from a position of relative authority and expertise. (I know Chris might yell at me for saying that)


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 8, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> It's okay to not have heard of him, it's even okay to totally disagree with what he is saying, but it's not okay to dismiss his argument based solely on the premise of your own gloating ignorance of who he is.


I haven’t dismissed his argument.  I haven’t even watched the video.  I merely state that I’ve never heard of him.  If I were inclined to debate the issue, you simply holding him up as an expert and therefor I ought to believe him would not be convincing to me.  Before I would be inclined to believe him, I would need some further context to establish his credibility as an expert.

Just because you follow him and believe in him does not make him an expert and does not guarantee that others see him as such. 

But hey, I don’t care what he says one way or the other, because I’m not interested in the debate.  

Carry on.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I haven’t dismissed his argument.  I haven’t even watched the video.  I merely state that I’ve never heard of him.  If I were inclined to debate the issue, you simply holding him up as an expert and therefor I ought to believe him would not be convincing to me.  Before I would be inclined to believe him, I would need some further context to establish his credibility as an expert.
> 
> Just because you follow him and believe in him does not make him an expert and does not guarantee that others see him as such.
> 
> ...


1. You didn't, the other guy who you supported, did. When I said "your" I wasn't specifically referring to you, but generically, to anyone who would use "lack of Knowledge" as an actual debate point. I understand you didn't, but the guy you supported DID.

2. If you aren't interested in participating in the discussion, why are you commenting here?

3. He is an expert and authority regardless of whether or not you believe it, or know it. And if you don't believe me, the Google bar is there at your service and free of charge.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 8, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> 1. You didn't, the other guy who you supported, did. When I said "your" I wasn't specifically referring to you, but generically, to anyone who would use "lack of Knowledge" as an actual debate point. I understand you didn't, but the guy you supported DID.
> 
> 2. If you aren't interested in participating in the discussion, why are you commenting here?
> 
> 3. He is an expert and authority regardless of whether or not you believe it, or know it. And if you don't believe me, the Google bar is there at your service and free of charge.


1. Ok
2. Because I wanted to, that’s how a public and open discussion forum works
3. No, if you hold him up as an authority, you need to be prepared to support that claim for those who may not be familiar with him.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I haven’t dismissed his argument.  I haven’t even watched the video.  I merely state that I’ve never heard of him.  If I were inclined to debate the issue, you simply holding him up as an expert and therefor I ought to believe him would not be convincing to me.  Before I would be inclined to believe him, I would need some further context to establish his credibility as an expert.
> 
> Just because you follow him and believe in him does not make him an expert and does not guarantee that others see him as such.
> 
> ...


Oh boy.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> 1. Ok
> 2. Because I wanted to, that’s how a public and open discussion forum works
> 3. No, if you hold him up as an authority, you need to be prepared to support that claim for those who may not be familiar with him.


He is a bona fide expert, whether you know him or not.  His credential are easily verified, if you're actually interested and not just disrupting the thread.  And they aren't really all that relevant, if you're interested in talking about the substance of his argument (for or against).

But you can't discuss his argument, because you haven't watched the video.  So far, all you've done is admitted you aren't even interested enough in the topic to take a few minutes to educate yourself about the topic at hand and engage in the discussion.  That's about as intellectually lazy as it gets.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 8, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> 1. You didn't, the other guy who you supported, did. When I said "your" I wasn't specifically referring to you, but generically, to anyone who would use "lack of Knowledge" as an actual debate point. I understand you didn't, but the guy you supported DID.
> 
> 2. If you aren't interested in participating in the discussion, why are you commenting here?
> 
> 3. He is an expert and authority regardless of whether or not you believe it, or know it. And if you don't believe me, the Google bar is there at your service and free of charge.


None of the people you've responded to have actually argued with the point. The closest you got was someone saying "According to him" when you posted the original video. Others have debated the context, but the ones you are replying to (about the appeal to authority) aren't. They're just stating that's one person's viewpoint, and then following up with they're not familiar with the guy.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Alright, to try and reset the discussion a little bit, for those who haven't taken the time to watch the video, the tl;dr version of the argument being made in the video can be boiled down to this:

*Some preliminary statements: *

Self defense is defined as altercations outside of competition.  We can discuss other definitions, but this is how they define it in the video.


Don't worry about style.  What you train is less important than how you train.


Combat sports are styles that include live sparring, competition, and active drilling.

Other styles focus on theoretical knowledge reinforced by passive drills and do not include competition or live sparring.

*Assertion:*
The general mental and physical skills development that comes from combat sports, allied with technical and tactical modifications are your best option for self defense.

That's pretty much it.  

I happen to agree, for what it's worth.  I think how @Tony Dismukes describes his own training is a good working example of what is described above.  And this is consistent with how we learn to do things in every other example.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Apr 8, 2022)

As I lay here trying to get some sort of base tan, I was wondering why it is that grapplers always get their expertise questioned, but dudes who claim to be ninjas or heralds of a thousand year old art get a pass from their students.

Don't mind me, I started vacation mode a day early.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

dunc said:


> I don't know John personally, but he and my BJJ teacher are close and there are a lot of shared insights and approaches
> Worth noting that John is a high level coach for BJJ, Striking and MMA. He also worked the doors in New York during a time when it was pretty rough so he has an unusually rounded set of experiences
> John also has a good academic pedigree and I like the way that he applies intellectual thought and rigour to combat sports. This makes him a pretty unique / unusual
> More than that he's proven his approach to be highly effective by having a profound effect on the sport of BJJ (& to a lesser extent MMA) and in my view this alone should earn him the respect to carefully consider what he's saying
> ...



Yeah. He is very bjj in his outlook. 

Which is kind of to be expected I suppose.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> As I lay here trying to get some sort of base tan, I was wondering why it is that grapplers always get their expertise questioned, but dudes who claim to be ninjas or heralds of a thousand year old art get a pass from their students.
> 
> Don't mind me, I started vacation mode a day early.
> 
> View attachment 28326



Because the system sets that up. In grappling you are supposed to challenge held beliefs. 

Your cool guy instructor isn't infallible. He might get beaten by an opposing hypothesis.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

As I see it, there are a few key points here.  

First is an assertion that it is easier to adapt a well developed, reliable skill set to another context, than to rely solely on simulation.  Combat sports, like all sports, are very reliable and predictable.  If you do them, you will improve.  And even if you don't have a lot of natural talent or raw ability, you receive direct, immediate feedback, both positive and negative, and can become proficient.  If you keep at it, you will continue to improve.  Doesn't matter which combat sport.

There's room to debate whether non-sport styles can manage this, sure.  To be clear, non-sport styles build skills... but not necessarily fighting skills.   But I don't think it can be argued that 100% of combat sports do this.   You get better at doing what you actually do.  If you don't fight, you aren't learning to fight.  If you only fight in a grappling competition, you aren't getting good at striking.  Seems obvious, I know, but that simple connection gets lost when we talk about self defense.  

Second, working as a bouncer, cop, etc, is also a way to apply (and therefore build) skills and ability.  So, he suggests by omission that combat sports are better than these other forms of application.  There's room for debate here.  I think combat sports have one real advantage over other types of application.  It's a function of reps.  If you do something infrequently, you will simply not have as much opportunity to apply the skills than if you do it more often.  People who compete have a lot of opportunity to train for and apply skills in context.  And if you're a cop, security guard, or bouncer, who trains in a combat sport, more's the better.

Third, he highlights that no matter how you train, any self defense situation involves transferring your learning from training to that situation.  This is true whether you are training in a combat sport or in whatever self defense program you choose.  So, another question is whether it is more reliable to train in a combat sport and then supplement that skillset, or to train in a non-sport, self defense focused program hoping that it will be close enough for you to bridge the gap (should you need to).

Lastly, I will propose that when we think about "self defense" training, we should not consider elite athletes, nor should we include cops, soldiers, or the guys who work in The Double Deuce.  I think that's a red herring.  Instead, we should consider what is best for the software developer who is interested in self defense, or the burger flipper, or the civil servant.  Picture someone who may or may not be well coordinated, who has a fairly sedentary, non-violent job, and who wants to learn "self defense".   What is the most efficient, effective way to teach that person?


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> He is a bona fide expert, whether you know him or not.  His credential are easily verified, if you're actually interested and not just disrupting the thread.  And they aren't really all that relevant, if you're interested in talking about the substance of his argument (for or against).
> 
> But you can't discuss his argument, because you haven't watched the video.  So far, all you've done is admitted you aren't even interested enough in the topic to take a few minutes to educate yourself about the topic at hand and engage in the discussion.  That's about as intellectually lazy as it gets.


Thank you for writing this, saved me the hassle.


----------



## Damien (Apr 8, 2022)

I think the big problem here is everyone is talking at cross purposes about what counts as a combat sport. Some seem to have the opinion that if it's not a combat sport you aren't doing sparring, or if it is a combat sport it relates directly to fighting where you actually want to hurt the other person, or dissuade them enough that they don't hurt you (depending on how far we go down the self defence vs street fight discussion).

The problem is, this isn't the case. 

Do combat sports have a sparring focus, yes. Does that sparring directly translate to being good in a fight- not necessarily. It's already been raised, but Olympic style TKD, or point sparring karate, doesn't exactly reflect a situation where someone want to hurt you. There's modification needed. In this case a lot more than say, Muay Thai or boxing, or MMA.

On the flip side plenty of styles which are by very definition not sports, include sparring. This might be hard knock the other guy out sparring (or close to it), or it might be point tapping. Why are they not sports, because a sport by definition is: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"

I think you could argue dropping the entertainment bit. I mean who watches darts right?  You could potentially replace that with a focus on the idea of competing; each person is trying to win, with the expectation of gaining something at the end of it. Importantly though, all combat sports have sparring where no one is trying to win, they are trying to learn, to improve, to put the reps in. It's only on occasion that you go into a full spar where you actively try to win for the purpose of getting something a the end. Does this shift in focus really have that dramatic effect on the skill outcome? I think not. Sure the pressure is higher, but sports do try to prepare fighters for this in training, no reason why you can't have this preparation outside of sports.

Now I'm not saying all non sport arts follow such a structure, just that they can, and some do. The distinction is not sport or not sport- that's just whether you get a trophy or belt at the end of it, or whether people are watching you for entertainment. It's putting skills to the test against a dynamically resisting opponent in a stressful situation. If you're at risk of being punched in the face whilst trying to do the same to someone else, you're probably (roughly) on the right track, within reason of course.


----------



## Damien (Apr 8, 2022)

Oh and it goes without saying that if you've got a crappy instructor who has no idea what he is talking about it all falls down. But there are combat sports coaches out there like that too.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> I think the big problem here is everyone is talking at cross purposes about what counts as a combat sport. Some seem to have the opinion that if it's not a combat sport you aren't doing sparring, or if it is a combat sport it relates directly to fighting where you actually want to hurt the other person, or dissuade them enough that they don't hurt you (depending on how far we go down the self defence vs street fight discussion).
> 
> The problem is, this isn't the case.
> 
> ...


I would say a bigger problem is that a lot of people seem to treat this as a zero-sum game.  If what I do works and you do something different, then by definition, what you do cannot possibly work.  It’s a completely flawed mindset and is often impossible to have a meaningful discussion.  

People gotta find what works well for them and what they find interesting. That may well be something different from what the next guy is doing.  And that is perfectly ok.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I would say a bigger problem is that a lot of people seem to treat this as a zero-sum game.  If what I do works and you do something different, then by definition, what you do cannot possibly work.  It’s a completely flawed mindset and is often impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
> 
> People gotta find what works well for them and what they find interesting. That may well be something different from what the next guy is doing.  And that is perfectly ok.


You watch the video yet?  I think that might be part of your problem.    😅


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> Lastly, I will propose that when we think about "self defense" training, we should not consider elite athletes, nor should we include cops, soldiers, or the guys who work in The Double Deuce. I think that's a red herring. Instead, we should consider what is best for the software developer who is interested in self defense, or the burger flipper, or the civil servant. Picture someone who may or may not be well coordinated, who has a fairly sedentary, non-violent job, and who wants to learn "self defense". What is the most efficient, effective way to teach that person?



At what level are we cutting off elite athletes?

For example we take people from their sedentary jobs and train them to fight full contact.

At which point they are a lot fitter tougher and better mentally equipped than your average person.

So they are kind of both.

And I would suggest it is probably one of the more efficient systems to prepare someone for self defence because it develops those elite athlete/ bouncer attributes.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I would say a bigger problem is that a lot of people seem to treat this as a zero-sum game.  If what I do works and you do something different, then by definition, what you do cannot possibly work.  It’s a completely flawed mindset and is often impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
> 
> People gotta find what works well for them and what they find interesting. That may well be something different from what the next guy is doing.  And that is perfectly ok.



If you can build a case for a system then go for it. 

I think it is where there is no evidence for that system that it gets dismissed.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> I think the big problem here is everyone is talking at cross purposes about what counts as a combat sport. Some seem to have the opinion that if it's not a combat sport you aren't doing sparring, or if it is a combat sport it relates directly to fighting where you actually want to hurt the other person, or dissuade them enough that they don't hurt you (depending on how far we go down the self defence vs street fight discussion).
> 
> The problem is, this isn't the case.
> 
> ...


You get good at what you actually do.  Olympic style TKD folks have some real skill.  I’ve seen some TKD guys (and karateka) make the transition to MMA.  It takes some time. Just like a pure grappler would have some work to do.  But that’s all layering skill onto skill. 

What does a ninja get good at?  What do they do?


drop bear said:


> At what level are we cutting off elite athletes?
> 
> For example we take people from their sedentary jobs and train them to fight full contact.
> 
> ...


good point.  I had in mind where adults just staring out.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> You get good at what you actually do.  Olympic style TKD folks have some real skill.  I’ve seen some TKD guys (and karateka) make the transition to MMA.  It takes some time. Just like a pure grappler would have some work to do.  But that’s all layering skill onto skill.
> 
> What does a ninja get good at?  What do they do?
> 
> good point.  I had in mind where adults just staring out.



Yeah. The thing is that normal guy idea seems to bleed in to this idea of acceptable compromise. And while I get people have priorities.

And your level of ability doesn't care about your bad day.

So we go from the question of what is the best way to develop someone to fight self defence.

To

What is the best way for someone who really doesn't want to put the time or effort in.

I want to train bouncers. But we only have two weeks kind of garbage attitude.

The half drawn horse.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2022)

So here is the big issue with theoretical martial arts for self defence.





Now this is a really real security company training people to handle situations they actually might have to face 

And five foot girl is never going to make this move work where100 plus kilo guy might. But even then who knows.(I rewatched this and they are trying to catch a punch. So almost never work for anyone.)

So he tells her with confidence that this is her go to move. Teaches that and actually sends her off to fight real bad guys.

It is a training culture that is inherently open to failure and to compound that is a culture that disguises that failure with false results and stories.

It is like they are just saying screw the consequences. And absolutely enrages me as a martial artist.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. The thing is that normal guy idea seems to bleed in to this idea of acceptable compromise. And while I get people have priorities.
> 
> And your level of ability doesn't care about your bad day.
> 
> ...


Let me say it like this. Because who doesn’t love analogy?  Amiright?

 How does a regular guy get good at playing the guitar?  He plays a lot of guitar.  If he takes lessons, he’ll probably see faster progress and may get better than he would on his own.  If he has a really good teacher, maybe even faster.  If he’s already really good at playing the banjo, even faster yet.  And in time, with effort, he could get really good, even if he doesn’t have “talent.”

But you can’t shortcut on the playing guitar part.  Not uncommon for people to teach themselves to play, but step one is to get a guitar.

And if he learns to play classical guitar, it may take some time to pick up rock guitar… maybe a little longer than if he were already a competent blues guitarist.  But either way, he’s much closer than a guy who plays rock band on the PS2 (even though that has a guitar like object and involves a strumming motion and a fingering motion).


----------



## dunc (Apr 9, 2022)

I’d also just throw in that there is a constant stream of videos showing BJJ being used effectively in self defence situations

I don’t think that invalidates the efficacy of other less widespread arts and there are BJJ fails out there, but it’s pretty hard for anyone to trawl through YouTube etc and conclude that BJJ does not work for some fairly common “street altercations“


----------



## drop bear (Apr 9, 2022)

dunc said:


> I’d also just throw in that there is a constant stream of videos showing BJJ being used effectively in self defence situations
> 
> I don’t think that invalidates the efficacy of other less widespread arts and there are BJJ fails out there, but it’s pretty hard for anyone to trawl through YouTube etc and conclude that BJJ does not work for some fairly common “street altercations“



And to add to this. It looks like BJJ when they do it. Rather than training one method and then doing another in a fight.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 9, 2022)

Ostensibly : a Ninja gets good at infiltrating a gaurded position, retrieving information, and escaping without being detected.


Steve said:


> You get good at what you actually do.  Olympic style TKD folks have some real skill.  I’ve seen some TKD guys (and karateka) make the transition to MMA.  It takes some time. Just like a pure grappler would have some work to do.  But that’s all layering skill onto skill.
> 
> What does a ninja get good at?  What do they do?
> 
> good point.  I had in mind where adults just staring out.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 9, 2022)

The whole idea of letting people do what they like leads to people being misinformed and falling into cult martial arts, and wasting decades in styles or systems that get them killed or injured in an actual altercation or survival scenario. There has to be some sort of standard of truth or reality to measure ourselves against.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> The whole idea of letting people do what they like


Yes, terrible thing, that. 


> leads to people being misinformed and falling into cult martial arts, and wasting decades in styles or systems that get them killed or injured in an actual altercation or survival scenario.


Or…it doesn’t.


> There has to be some sort of standard of truth or reality to measure ourselves against.


What is that truth?  Who gets to dictate where the lines are drawn.  You?  HA!!!


----------



## drop bear (Apr 9, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, terrible thing, that.
> 
> Or…it doesn’t.
> 
> What is that truth?  Who gets to dictate where the lines are drawn.  You?  HA!!!


See if someone did woo woo magic.  We would test it like this.






And most people would understand the outcome.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 9, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, terrible thing, that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Flying Crane said:


> Yes, terrible thing, that.



It can be, especially if someone likes engage in harmful behavior like gambling, drugs, cults, or fake martial arts. Sometimes, they need someone to help open their eyes.



Flying Crane said:


> Or…it doesn’t.


Or it actually does and you don't know what you're talking about.



Flying Crane said:


> What is that truth?  Who gets to dictate where the lines are drawn.  You?  HA!!!



I never claimed to know the truth. What I do know is that you are a toxic bad faith actor and you aren't here to even engage the original discussion but to troll. But to answer your question is that the truth is obtained through various methods, including discussion, questioning and testing. The entire point of posting here was to obtain some measure of truth from people more experienced than myself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> It can be, especially if someone likes engage in harmful behavior like gambling, drugs, cults, or fake martial arts. Sometimes, they need someone to help open their eyes.


Mea culpa.  I didn’t realize we were discussing gambling, drugs, or cults.   Like all those BJJ cultists.  Bunch of zealots, those fellows.  Nobody should be allowed to do what they want, if I have decided it’s unhealthy or unwise or simply not what I like. 


> Or it actually does and you don't know what you're talking about.


Or it actually doesn’t.



> I never claimed to know the truth.


At last, some honesty around here.


> What I do know is that you are a toxic bad faith actor and you aren't here to even engage the original discussion but to troll.


Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.


> But to answer your question is that the truth is obtained through various methods, including discussion, questioning and testing. The entire point of posting here was to obtain some measure of truth from people more experienced than myself.


Except that you have already decided what you want the truth to be.  You aren’t here to learn anything.  You are here to tell everyone what you think they need to do.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 9, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Mea culpa.  I didn’t realize we were discussing gambling, drugs, or cults.   Like all those BJJ cultists.  Bunch of zealots, those fellows.  Nobody should be allowed to do what they want, if I have decided it’s unhealthy or unwise or simply not what I like.


According to your logic, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, even when it includes hurting themselves or otherwise. (FYI: some martial arts are cults)



Flying Crane said:


> Or it actually doesn’t.


Actually It does, if I did what I liked, I would still be doing a fake martial art, only thanks to Chris's guidance was I better informed in order to make the decision of leaving that Martial Art and pursuing another. Not everyone is as lucky as me to have encountered the guidance and wisdom of someone like Chris. And if it wasn't for Chris, I would likely have ended up like the guys who do fake martial arts for decades or their entire life- simply because I didn't know any better and I thought I liked it.



Flying Crane said:


> At last, some honesty around here.


When haven't I been honest? Will need proof.



Flying Crane said:


> Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.


Sounds like a toxic case of projection. I am the OP of this thread, I posted a video to discuss (which you haven't watched) and have done little else besides respond to people's comments. So how exactly am I trolling? You yourself admitted to not having any interesting in engaging the actual topic of the thread, or watching the video we are discussing, which means you are simply here to troll and derail.



Flying Crane said:


> Except that you have already decided what you want the truth to be.  You aren’t here to learn anything.  You are here to tell everyone what you think they need to do.



What truth did I decide? What did I tell everyone? It sounds like you are offended by John Danaher's claims (Which is strange considering you haven't watched the video, so I guess you are offended by what you assume he said), and have confused him and his comments with mine. I did not say that I necessarily agree with John Danaher, I asked what people's thoughts were on his comments in the video I presented. Hope that clears up your confusion. Maybe you won't be so confused if you watched the video and engaged the thread honestly instead of coming here to troll and mentally defecate while derailing the discussion board.


----------



## Steve (Apr 9, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Ostensibly : a Ninja gets good at infiltrating a gaurded position, retrieving information, and escaping without being detected.


I’ll take your word for it.  How much of that do they actually do?


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 9, 2022)

Steve said:


> I’ll take your word for it.  How much of that do they actually do?


Ok this is totally off topic, but this has actually been proven with indisputable historical primary sources beyond any shred of a doubt.

the Portuguese-Japanese Jesuit dictionary- published in 1603, which is the first dictionary that translates Japanese to a European language, defines a Xinobi (original word for Ninja) as a spy who infiltrates castles to collection information (paraphrased because I do not have the exact definition on hand).









						Nippo Jisho - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




anyone who states Ninja aren't real or is some sort of fantasy is absolutely full of crap, or they are attacking a Hollywood image strawman that has no relevance to history.

Ninja (Shinobi) were real, they did exist, they are found in authentic primary sources, and they did the sort of missions that are normally associated with them- as per the AUTHENTIC primary sources that they are mentioned in.

Antony Cummins demonstrates the source here, and yes, I know everyone hates Antony Cummins but the source itself has already been published by Stephen Turnbull, and isn't disputed by anybody.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Apr 9, 2022)

Back to the topic, if I may.  To be sure, there are many variables and overlaps in the self defense efficacy of this or that martial art, and their approach in training.  Sparring (sport) has been said to be the only, or at least the best, way to prepare oneself for real combat.  I think it is very useful in developing tactical thinking, reaction speed, ability to somewhat handle stress and resistance, and in getting used to bodily contact, all without killing the opponent. That said, it is not the full solution.

Sparring is by definition a back-and-forth affair, with rule, point, and time constraints.  In this respect, it can be called a game.  Some rules are in place, not only to protect the fighters, but to encourage entertainment value.  TKD scoring, for example, puts higher value on spinning jump kicks to the head.  But those are riskier moves one may not want to attempt in actual combat.  They are impressive to watch, though.  Not so true of a close range upward elbow which may  hard to see in the flurry of combat.  Such a move can be devastating and be of more practical use, like a stomp to the knee which is not even allowed in sport.

We can contrast sport sparring with two person drills.  The latter were the main method of training before MA was sport, designed solely to prepare oneself for actual combat.  We should remember those early karate men whose vocation was security agents against bandits and pirates, law enforcement, or royal bodyguards.  Quick incapacitation of the opponent was the only goal.  

Two approaches with their own tactics, two desired outcomes, although as I mentioned, there is overlap.  Each has its good points.  Can you be victorious in real combat just training one or the other.  I think, yes, but neither is guaranteed.  These days, IMO, it is practical to combine the two training methods, along with all the other types of training like strength, cardio, body hardening, de-escalation, etc.  The ratio of time spent in these several areas depends on the person's goals in training MA, as well as their individual natural attributes.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 9, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Back to the topic, if I may.  To be sure, there are many variables and overlaps in the self defense efficacy of this or that martial art, and their approach in training.  Sparring (sport) has been said to be the only, or at least the best, way to prepare oneself for real combat.  I think it is very useful in developing tactical thinking, reaction speed, ability to somewhat handle stress and resistance, and in getting used to bodily contact, all without killing the opponent. That said, it is not the full solution.
> 
> Sparring is by definition a back-and-forth affair, with rule, point, and time constraints.  In this respect, it can be called a game.  Some rules are in place, not only to protect the fighters, but to encourage entertainment value.  TKD scoring, for example, puts higher value on spinning jump kicks to the head.  But those are riskier moves one may not want to attempt in actual combat.  They are impressive to watch, though.  Not so true of a close range upward elbow which may  hard to see in the flurry of combat.  Such a move can be devastating and be of more practical use, like a stomp to the knee which is not even allowed in sport.
> 
> ...


I think your answer is very reasonable, sound and well made.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> According to your logic, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, even when it includes hurting themselves or otherwise. (FYI: some martial arts are cults)


Where did I say this?  Show me.  I will say that that is a different debate that does not need to be had here. 

I did take issue with your statement that seemed to suggest people shouldn’t be free to do as they wish which, in the context of this discussion is to train what martial art they wish, in a manner that they find satisfying.  Your earlier statement suggested you feel they should not be allowed to.  Perhaps some higher authority should dictate what and how people ought to train?  That is the message I got from your comment.  If you wish to clarify the intention of your meaning, please do. 

I don’t know where you live, but I will remind you that a founding principle of the United States (where I live) is the idea that people are free to do as they wish, so long as it does not injure others, and is otherwise within the constraints of established law.  Maybe you come from somewhere where that isn’t allowed, I dunno. 

If you have taken guidance from Chris Parker, I would say that is probably advice well taken. 

The rest of your post doesn’t need comment.  I still don’t care about the actual debate, but simply felt that your suggestion that people should not be allowed to make their own training decisions, needed to be challenged.


----------



## Steve (Apr 9, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Ok this is totally off topic, but this has actually been proven with indisputable historical primary sources beyond any shred of a doubt.
> 
> the Portuguese-Japanese Jesuit dictionary- published in 1603, which is the first dictionary that translates Japanese to a European language, defines a Xinobi (original word for Ninja) as a spy who infiltrates castles to collection information (paraphrased because I do not have the exact definition on hand).
> 
> ...


Okay. But I mean the guys who train it now?  How much of it do they do? I’m guessing not much.


----------



## Buka (Apr 11, 2022)

On the discussion of "letting people do what they like"......depends on the context.

I teach people how to fight. But I can't teach all people the same way. To me, that's nuts, it doesn't work. Show them every possible way, all tried against resistance, let them learn what works for them, for their particular size, shape, fitness level, personality etc. Yes, you guide them every step of the way, but they're the ones taking those steps. They're also taking the punches, kicks, takedowns, chokes, etc.

I know of a lot of places where once you spar with one guy, everybody else is pretty much the same. Like programmed robots.

To me, that just ain't right.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 11, 2022)

Buka said:


> On the discussion of "letting people do what they like"......depends on the context.
> 
> I teach people how to fight. But I can't teach all people the same way. To me, that's nuts, it doesn't work. Show them every possible way, all tried against resistance, let them learn what works for them, for their particular size, shape, fitness level, personality etc. Yes, you guide them every step of the way, but they're the ones taking those steps. They're also taking the punches, kicks, takedowns, chokes, etc.
> 
> ...



The problem with just "letting people do what they like" is that that's how people wind up in fake martial arts and cult martial arts without realizing it, simply because they didn't know any better. They do something they think they like, not realizing that they are learning and training in nonsense, and then get hurt in the street or elsewhere trying to apply techniques or moves that don't work because nobody told them any better.  I know this because that was me, only thankfully I didn't have to learn the hard-way that what I was learning was only deluding my own perception of my abilities.


----------



## Buka (Apr 11, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> The problem with just "letting people do what they like" is that that's how people wind up in fake martial arts and cult martial arts without realizing it, simply because they didn't know any better. They do something they think they like, not realizing that they are learning and training in nonsense, and then get hurt in the street or elsewhere trying to apply techniques or moves that don't work because nobody told them any better.  I know this because that was me, only thankfully I didn't have to learn the hard-way that what I was learning was only deluding my own perception of my abilities.


True. 

But choosing what you like against honest resistance tends to straighten itself out rather quickly. When you choose wrongly and repeatedly get smacked in the face it tends to have you rethink your choice  very quickly. (with the input of the instructors, of course)

Again, it's a matter of context. Doing whatever you like against no resistance has absolutely no consequences, other than looking bad to people who are experienced.

Doing what you like against legitimate, experienced fighters is a feedback machine that points out the error of your ways.

Allowing students, any student, to be deluded about their abilities is so wrong it should be a criminal offense. And, yeah, I was there, too with my first Instructor. To this day, the biggest bullshipper  I've met in the Arts. But as it usually does, Karma got him BIG TIME.


----------



## Martial D (Apr 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> depends on how you define self defense.  Doesn't it?  And we know there are a LOT of different definitions of that term.


So true.

The BEST self defense style is 'shut-in Ryu hermit do.'

If you never leave your home you should be safe for the most part.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> The problem with just "letting people do what they like" is that that's how people wind up in fake martial arts and cult martial arts without realizing it, simply because they didn't know any better. They do something they think they like, not realizing that they are learning and training in nonsense, and then get hurt in the street or elsewhere trying to apply techniques or moves that don't work because nobody told them any better.  I know this because that was me, only thankfully I didn't have to learn the hard-way that what I was learning was only deluding my own perception of my abilities.


Ok, so, YOU ended up in a school training nonsense.  That does not mean everyone else is.  

I fully agree that a lot of schools are teaching garbage.  That is pretty obvious.  But what you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is a central “authority” who dictates what and how everyone must train.  Good luck with that. 

What it seems to me that you don’t understand is that there is more than one single way to train that produces quality results.  If you have found something that is good for you, by all means keep doing it.  Others need to do the same and that may well be different from what you do.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so, YOU ended up in a school training nonsense.  That does not mean everyone else is.


Except that I am far from the only one, and if nobody told me any better, I would still be doing it to my own detriment. That is why "letting me do what I want" wasn't in my best interest, which means it probably isn't in the best interests of many people.



Flying Crane said:


> I fully agree that a lot of schools are teaching garbage.  That is pretty obvious.  But what you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is a central “authority” who dictates what and how everyone must train.  Good luck with that.


Not dictate, but inform so that people can make informed decisions and not fall into self-delusion. Multiple times in life I had to look myself in the mirror and acknowledge that what I was doing before wasn't as good as what I found later. The only value of this experience was in understanding the difference between low quality and high quality. The important thing is to not remain in low-quality training. 




Flying Crane said:


> What it seems to me that you don’t understand is that there is more than one single way to train that produces quality results.  If you have found something that is good for you, by all means keep doing it.  Others need to do the same and that may well be different from what you do.



Totally incorrect interpretation of what I am asking. I completely agree that there is more than one single way to train that produces quality results.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Except that I am far from the only one, and if nobody told me any better, I would still be doing it to my own detriment. That is why "letting me do what I want" wasn't in my best interest, which means it probably isn't in the best interests of many people.
> 
> 
> Not dictate, but inform so that people can make informed decisions and not fall into self-delusion. Multiple times in life I had to look myself in the mirror and acknowledge that what I was doing before wasn't as good as what I found later. The only value of this experience was in understanding the difference between low quality and high quality. The important thing is to not remain in low-quality training.
> ...


Ok, so what are you advocating?  Because what I am reading here is “people need to be told what to do.”

If you have a teacher, then of course you need to follow his instructions.  But I choose what I will study, and under whom (assuming that person is willing to have me as a student).  Are you suggesting I should not be allowed that choice?  I mean, you did say “the problem with allowing people to do what they want…”. I have no interest in competition.  Should I be disallowed from training because I am unwilling to compete?


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so what are you advocating?  Because what I am reading here is “people need to be told what to do.”
> 
> If you have a teacher, then of course you need to follow his instructions.  But I choose what I will study, and under whom (assuming that person is willing to have me as a student).  Are you suggesting I should not be allowed that choice?  I mean, you did say “the problem with allowing people to do what they want…”. I have no interest in competition.  Should I be disallowed from training because I am unwilling to compete?



I am advocating not participating in discussion boards unless you watched the video being discussed and are here to discuss the topic at hand.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so what are you advocating?  Because what I am reading here is “people need to be told what to do.”
> 
> If you have a teacher, then of course you need to follow his instructions.  But I choose what I will study, and under whom (assuming that person is willing to have me as a student).  Are you suggesting I should not be allowed that choice?  I mean, you did say “the problem with allowing people to do what they want…”. I have no interest in competition.  Should I be disallowed from training because I am unwilling to compete?


To humor you though, people often do need to be told what to do because most of the time they don't know what's best for them anyways. Read up on Han Fei Tzi.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> I am advocating not participating in discussion boards unless you watched the video being discussed and are here to discuss the topic at hand.


A public forum invites participation from all members.  You don’t get to dictate participation.  

For what it’s worth, I did watch it a couple days ago and I am unimpressed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> To humor you though, people often do need to be told what to do because most of the time they don't know what's best for them anyways. Read up on Han Fei Tzi.


Ok, so I have two students.  We don’t have any interest in competition.  Should I be banned from teaching?


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> A public forum invites participation from all members.  You don’t get to dictate participation.
> 
> For what it’s worth, I did watch it a couple days ago and I am unimpressed.


You are aren't participating (you are actually trolling and derailing) if you aren't here to discuss the original topic and video, in fact, there should be a rule against it.

as far as being impressed or not goes, far more people are impressed with John Danaher than are impressed with you. Frankly, I am not impressed with any of your comments, and I doubt anyone else here is either.

For what it's worth, you haven't produced any tangible argument against John Danaher or his position, so your lack of "being impressed" isn't worth much.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so I have two students.  We don’t have any interest in competition.  Should I be banned from teaching?


I think you should be banned from teaching based on your behavior on this forum, notwithstanding anything else.

FYI I never said whether or not competition styles are superior or not, I asked a question because I myself don't know the answer.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> You should be banned from teaching based on your behavior on this forum, notwithstanding anything else.


Ok, let’s entertain this thought.  Who enforces this ban?  How?
Who tells my students that they are no longer allowed to attend my classes?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> You are aren't participating (you are actually trolling and derailing) if you aren't here to discuss the original topic and video, in fact, there should be a rule against it.
> 
> as far as being impressed or not goes, far more people are impressed with John Danaher than are impressed with you. Frankly, I am not impressed with any of your comments, and I doubt anyone else here is either.
> 
> For what it's worth, you haven't produced any tangible argument against John Danaher, so your lack of "being impressed" isn't worth much.


I never claimed to be impressive. 
As for my arguments against this fellow, I would say @Chris Parker has a pretty good bead on it.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, let’s entertain this thought.  Who enforces this ban?  How?
> Who tells my students that they are no longer allowed to attend my classes?


Ban yourself from teaching if you have any integrity. Tell your students you aren't qualified to teach for a while until after you do some years of introspection and reflection on your behavior.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I never claimed to be impressive.
> As for my arguments against this fellow, I would say @Chris Parker has a pretty good bead on it.


Neither did John Danaher.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Ban yourself from teaching if you have any integrity. Tell your students you aren't qualified to teach for a while until after you do some years of introspection and reflection on your behavior.


Ok this has simply taken a silly turn.

So let’s go back to my initial thought:  I have no interest in competition.  Neither do my students. So we definitely do not train for competition. Should I be banned from teaching?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Neither did John Danaher.


You held him out as an expert.  And he did go on a podcast and share his ideas.  That invites feedback.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> You held him out as an expert.  And he did go on a podcast and share his ideas.  That invites feedback.


Unlike Chris, you haven't provided any meaningful or genuine feedback.


----------



## Nobufusa (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok this has simply taken a silly turn.
> 
> So let’s go back to my initial thought:  I have no interest in competition.  Neither do my students. So we definitely do not train for competition. Should I be banned from teaching?


Every time you post without actually responding to the contents of the video, or the discussion itself, is in and of itself a silly turn. 

In all honesty, I should know better than to feed your demand for attention.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Unlike Chris, you haven't provided any meaningful or genuine feedback.


You are right, I haven’t.  The benefit of having Chris here is that he does a very thorough job of breaking things down and addressing the minutia.  Then I don’t need to do that work.  I often find his posts to be intelligently presented and well thought-out.  I didn’t agree with everything he said, but overall I agree with what he said.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> Every time you post without actually responding to the contents of the video, or the discussion itself, is in and of itself a silly turn.
> 
> In all honesty, I should know better than to feed your demand for attention.


Well you are the one who said (in effect) people should not be allowed to train how they like.  I am trying to dig deeper and understand just what you mean by that, because it has some pretty heavy implications that I am not sure you have really thought about. 

I may have come on a bit strong, I can acknowledge that.  But I am genuinely trying to understand what your position on this is.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Apr 12, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Japanese sword practitioners would disagree with you. No need to fight dirty. With a blade you either kill them or you don't. It depends upon Satsujinken (killing sword) or Katsujinken (life giving sword). I could go into detail but you only have to watch a few movies to understand. The hero usually only deals with attackers. It's very much a matter of pride for Japanese as in the past the sword has been used for all the wrong reasons.


I was referring to hand-to-hand arts only. You are correct regarding the sword practitioners.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 12, 2022)




----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so, YOU ended up in a school training nonsense.  That does not mean everyone else is.
> 
> I fully agree that a lot of schools are teaching garbage.  That is pretty obvious.  But what you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is a central “authority” who dictates what and how everyone must train.  Good luck with that.
> 
> What it seems to me that you don’t understand is that there is more than one single way to train that produces quality results.  If you have found something that is good for you, by all means keep doing it.  Others need to do the same and that may well be different from what you do.



There is a standard way to tell whether the school is nonsense or good and that is sport.

Otherwise there is a lot of talk and hypothesis to disguise a nonsense school. And that is generally where we get this everyone has their own version of good exists.

It is quite simply the difference between a system that produces results and one that doesn't.

It is not a rule. You can teach whatever you want. But if you don't produce results. Then you are not teaching anything of substance.

So if someone is looking for substance then this is a very basic roadmap to work from. That way we can ignore the long justifications that explain why nothing is something and focus on what is going to produce something with a real result.

This would be the same as if I just claimed to teach a style. I can do it. I can even spend pages justifying it. A person would be sensible to check for evidence before they commit time and money.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> According to John Danaher, in the following video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Several things stand out to me here. I know john is skilled. As usual, we don’t know how much actual street fight experience people have when engaging in these types of purely hypothetical discussion. Three things always come to mind when this argument comes up. First, we humans are incredibly fragile creatures.  It does not take an mma champion to seriously injure us, most of us can be undone by a mere misstep or fall.  Second, the complete unknown variable are the persons in the fight. Not a single one of us is the same as any other, we all have differing strengths and weakness regardless of training type or intensity.  These individual differences are in a constant state of flux in our daily lives, no one gets to “get ready“ for street violence, it just happens. Third, one cannot control the environmental factors of a street altercation, such as darkness, space, weather, etc. I feel these three factors combined are easily as important as what training is done by the individual involved. I believe it’s also important to recognize that most of us will never be attacked in public. Most of us that ARE attacked will not be attacked by skilled martial artists (they are busy training and recovering). The last major point I would like to make is that it’s never just technique, it’s the person performing the technique. This last one has the most unknowable, and arguably, the most variable effect on outcomes. These reasons are just my personal take on why these arguments are always just hypothetical and can never really bear fruit. Anecdotes about this guy and that guy are exactly that. No street fight can ever be a repeatable situation due to the enormous amount of variables involved. With no exactly identical or repeatable situation, one cannot have a theory at all. So again, as usual, we will all spout our opinion of what does or doesn’t work.  With little or no actual experiences to base our opinions on, we are left with “what worked for me this one time” or this expert said “XYZ”. There are many expert debaters here, so I don’t have belabor the idea that basing your training on this sort of evidence is not very scientific nor is it likely to produce meaningful results, especially in light of the exceeding rarity of actually being assaulted in public.  If you are being regularly attacked in public, consider what YOU might be doing wrong. Lastly, if your reason for training is because you fear being attacked in public, there are far more expedient ways of defending oneself than spending decades in a gym, a one armed guy in a wheelchair with a .45 automatic can still defeat sport combat tactics.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Apr 12, 2022)

drop bear said:


> There is a standard way to tell whether the school is nonsense or good and that is sport.
> 
> Otherwise there is a lot of talk and hypothesis to disguise a nonsense school. And that is generally where we get this everyone has their own version of good exists.
> 
> ...


Ok what constitutes ”results” as you see it? Substance? These are broad terms so I am just asking for clarity here. Do you mean that results equate to trophy? Do your students compete against each other? In tournaments against similar people with similar skill And size? Do they pressure test it in the street? I’m not sure that any of these would constitute substance or results in my book. If everyone in your gym competes, do all of them win consistently? If not, how come? Is it them? Your style? The teacher? I’m not picking on you, I really want to understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I honestly find people who eschew daily fitness but still walk around with their "martial artist" cap on a little annoying.  For some reason it seems to be the rule not the exception.


I would eschew anyone that has to rely upon fitness to do their art. Of course we have to be fit but not to extremes. It's the timing of things and not expending energy on useless movement and skill that had me standing in a dojo almost every day opposite around fifty-five skilled students to fight and beat and teach as many as I could in an hour.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Ok what constitutes ”results” as you see it? Substance? These are broad terms so I am just asking for clarity here. Do you mean that results equate to trophy? Do your students compete against each other? In tournaments against similar people with similar skill And size? Do they pressure test it in the street? I’m not sure that any of these would constitute substance or results in my book. If everyone in your gym competes, do all of them win consistently? If not, how come? Is it them? Your style? The teacher? I’m not picking on you, I really want to understand where you are coming from.



Pretty much trophies. And the reason for that is they are verifiable and consistent. 

So yes our students compete against each other. Yes they pressure test in the street and in competition against other people of equal size and preparation. 

Not everyone competes and not everyone wins. But the ones who do are generally better than the ones who don't. 

There are exemptions but you can test that as well. If John Dannaher doesn't compete but is creating champions and manhandling everyone in the gym. Then he is also probably pretty good. If John Danaher also pressure tested in the street. We have this verifiable line of evidence. 

Once we see that people who are capable in the gym. Capable in sport and capable on the street. 

But people who are capable in the street are not capable in sport or the gym. 

We can start to make a logical road map as to what makes someone capable. 

There will be outliers. There will be guys who have never trained in the gym who are great street fighters. But if we can't determine a cause. Then that isn't helpful.

Because what we are looking for is a consistent result. And sport provides that.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 12, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.


Well that fine with me. As headmaster of one ryu and the previous manager of another I have always shunned publicity, disallowed YouTubes and tried to avoid TV Channels that tried to do documentaries about me.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Ok what constitutes ”results” as you see it? Substance? These are broad terms so I am just asking for clarity here. Do you mean that results equate to trophy? Do your students compete against each other? In tournaments against similar people with similar skill And size? Do they pressure test it in the street? I’m not sure that any of these would constitute substance or results in my book. If everyone in your gym competes, do all of them win consistently? If not, how come? Is it them? Your style? The teacher? I’m not picking on you, I really want to understand where you are coming from.



There was a guy here a while back who demanded we prove 2+2=4 and was like "HA. Nothing is provable".

But this question led to one of the better analogies for how sport is proven.

2+2=4 because. 1+1=2. And 1+1+1+1=4 and so on and so forth. If all the parts add up and it all works then we have proved the equation.

So with sport we can prove the method. Or the parts. We can get better in the gym. If we do the things good sports fighters do. We can get better at sports the same way.  Maybe not as good as that sports man. But consistant improvement.

So to take that to street fighting. We have an issue in that we probably don't want to do it to test it. So we test what we can test consistently and make an assumption from there.

1+1+1+?=4

Now I don't compete. And I don't train like someone who does. But I am still doing some of those components that will make me a capable martial artists.

So I might be 1+1+1=3. So it is still consistant. The components still work. I am just not employing all of them.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 12, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Now I don't compete. And I don't train like someone who does. But I am still doing some of those components that will make me a capable martial artists.


I "used to compete" But it's far from making me less competent. Now its the new and rising competitors that have to fight me to try and become strong.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 12, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> I "used to compete" But it's far from making me less competent. Now its the new and rising competitors that have to fight me to try and become strong.



Yeah. But you still have a viable line that stretches from you to someone succeeding at something. A lot of instructors skip that part. But will still forward that argument.


----------



## Steve (Apr 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> You are right, I haven’t.  The benefit of having Chris here is that he does a very thorough job of breaking things down and addressing the minutia.  Then I don’t need to do that work.  I often find his posts to be intelligently presented and well thought-out.  I didn’t agree with everything he said, but overall I agree with what he said.


like what?  I’m very interested to hear what he wrote that you disagree with.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 12, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But you still have a viable line that stretches from you to someone succeeding at something. A lot of instructors skip that part. But will still forward that argument.


Fortunately I already have people that instruct here and in other countries to a high level. This has been my main purpose. My headmaster/shihan taught me so that I could hand it on. I teach instructors. On the sport-like side I am a qualified professional teacher under Monbusho (Japanese education authority). Trained teams and individuals to win the All Japan Championships "twice". In Japan nobody makes any big money from this except the those that have gone into MMA. There is a debate about which is best here but it all boils down to what I have said a few times before. We watch the kids come up through the ranks who eventually hit the top. They are already born fighters regardless of what they do. Meet these guys on the street? They have opponents figured out before those opponents even know what they are going to do themselves.


----------



## dunc (Apr 13, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> I would eschew anyone that has to rely upon fitness to do their art. Of course we have to be fit but not to extremes. It's the timing of things and not expending energy on useless movement and skill that had me standing in a dojo almost every day opposite around fifty-five skilled students to fight and beat and teach as many as I could in an hour.


Then with respect either your students are terrible or they are (consciously or subconsciously) letting you beat them easily
I believe any contest (as broadly defined as you like) in martial arts is always a combination of skill, heart/guts and physical characteristics
So in order to beat many people without expending much energy you must have a gap in skill, guts, size, strength etc etc and if this gap is so wide with your students that you can do beat as many of them as possible for an hour without requiring an incredible amount of cardio fitness then you're not teaching them much or they are letting you win easily or there is no contest


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 13, 2022)

dunc said:


> Then with respect either your students are terrible or they are (consciously or subconsciously) letting you beat them easily
> I believe any contest (as broadly defined as you like) in martial arts is always a combination of skill, heart/guts and physical characteristics
> So in order to beat many people without expending much energy you must have a gap in skill, guts, size, strength etc etc and if this gap is so wide with your students that you can do beat as many of them as possible for an hour without requiring an incredible amount of cardio fitness then you're not teaching them much or they are letting you win easily or there is no contest


This is possibly true, but I will posit that in weapon arts like Kendo the effects of physical attributes compared to those from skill and experience are somewhat mitigated, at least compared to grappling or MMA or kickboxing. The weapon acts as a force multiplier, which means that strength differential is less important. Matches can be won within a couple of quick exchanges, and action is paused when a point is called, which means physical endurance and cardio is less crucial. Speed still matters, but timing and experience can help compensate for that.

From my personal experience, at the age of 57 I am no longer competing in BJJ tournaments, because I just don’t have the conditioning to keep up with guys who are at my rank but 30 years younger. (I still roll every week in class, but the guys at my skill level are focusing on technique rather than using all their physical attributes and the guys who are using all their physical attributes usually are less skilled.) However I have started competing in HEMA fencing tournaments where my conditioning is more adequate. Not to say that athleticism isn’t important in that arena, but the relative impact of skill vs athleticism is higher.


----------



## wolfeyes2323 (Apr 13, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> According to John Danaher, in the following video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The heart/mind govern our training and understanding,   any martial , pugilistic or grappling art can be used for self defense if you are of the right heart/mind.     Karate and traditional MA emphasize Character ,  Discipline,  courtesy ,  training hard and with holding the hands in anger,  we can try and reinvent the wheel by applying the same elements to any training,    Personally I'm rolling with the wheel.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 13, 2022)

wolfeyes2323 said:


> The heart/mind govern our training and understanding,   any martial , pugilistic or grappling art can be used for self defense if you are of the right heart/mind.     Karate and traditional MA emphasize Character ,  Discipline,  courtesy ,  training hard and with holding the hands in anger,  we can try and reinvent the wheel by applying the same elements to any training,    Personally I'm rolling with the wheel.


Great post, hits the mark....plus,   "Big wheels a rolling"....


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2022)

wolfeyes2323 said:


> The heart/mind govern our training and understanding,   any martial , pugilistic or grappling art can be used for self defense if you are of the right heart/mind.     Karate and traditional MA emphasize Character ,  Discipline,  courtesy ,  training hard and with holding the hands in anger,  we can try and reinvent the wheel by applying the same elements to any training,    Personally I'm rolling with the wheel.


My personal experience leads me to believe that there are a lot better ways to develop character than from strip mall martial arts schools.


----------



## dunc (Apr 13, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is possibly true, but I will posit that in weapon arts like Kendo the effects of physical attributes compared to those from skill and experience are somewhat mitigated, at least compared to grappling or MMA or kickboxing. The weapon acts as a force multiplier, which means that strength differential is less important. Matches can be won within a couple of quick exchanges, and action is paused when a point is called, which means physical endurance and cardio is less crucial. Speed still matters, but timing and experience can help compensate for that.
> 
> From my personal experience, at the age of 57 I am no longer competing in BJJ tournaments, because I just don’t have the conditioning to keep up with guys who are at my rank but 30 years younger. (I still roll every week in class, but the guys at my skill level are focusing on technique rather than using all their physical attributes and the guys who are using all their physical attributes usually are less skilled.) However I have started competing in HEMA fencing tournaments where my conditioning is more adequate. Not to say that athleticism isn’t important in that arena, but the relative impact of skill vs athleticism is higher.


Yes that's a fair point
Weapons confer a greater emphasis onto skill than unarmed training - I agree with this
Either way I believe that a teacher should be both working hard to help their students develop as fast as they have the capacity to develop and encouraging those students to push them (ie the teacher) to keep progressing
If you do this over many years then they do/should be able to put sufficient pressure on you to at least tire you out a bit (or more than a bit) especially if you're working your way through many of them one after another - even in weapons based arts


----------



## Damien (Apr 13, 2022)

The direction of this thread makes me think of the law of diminishing returns. Not in terms of the posts 😂

People always have this expectation that masters, instructors, whatever you want to call them need to be almost godlike and untouchable, but the law of diminishing returns applies to pretty much all things. At a certain point, you can only get so much better with practice. Sure someone who has been training for 40 years should be a lot more skilled than someone who has trained 3, and there are always rooms for sudden jumps, but if we imagine skill as a 1-100 scale a martial artists journey might look something like this (as an example not an exact reflection of everyone ever):

Year 0: 1/100
Year 1: 20
Year 2: 38
Year 3: 45
Year 4: 60
Year 5: 68
Year 6: 75
Year 7: 80
Year 8: 83
Year 9: 84
Year 10: 85
Year 11: 85
Year 12: 85
Year 13: 88
Year 14: 88

and so on.

After a certain point, the actual skill gap won't be that huge. Differences will come down mainly to knowledge, understanding and experience. Of course differences in training will matter too.

If your best students are much younger than you, they should be able to beat you. This is a big difference in the mind set of sports vs traditional arts. Boxing knows that a good coach would get battered by their fighters.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 14, 2022)

dunc said:


> Then with respect either your students are terrible or they are (consciously or subconsciously) letting you beat them easily
> I believe any contest (as broadly defined as you like) in martial arts is always a combination of skill, heart/guts and physical characteristics
> So in order to beat many people without expending much energy you must have a gap in skill, guts, size, strength etc etc and if this gap is so wide with your students that you can do beat as many of them as possible for an hour without requiring an incredible amount of cardio fitness then you're not teaching them much or they are letting you win easily or there is no contest


Of course I am talking about weapon arts, not hand to hand. That's probably what attracted me to it in the first place away from karate an jujitsu. All having the same weapon regardless of stature or age. Something that used actual skill and was far less egotistical. I had 40+ years of skill as opposed to their 8 years daily practice to a Nidan level. This level has widened even more over the years. My students won the all Japan championships "twice". I have watched guys move like ballet dancers to beat fellow 7th Dan's. Then they take off armor to reveal a man in his 80s that has reached 8th Dan going 9th.


----------



## dunc (Apr 14, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Of course I am talking about weapon arts, not hand to hand. That's probably what attracted me to it in the first place away from karate an jujitsu. All having the same weapon regardless of stature or age. Something that used actual skill and was far less egotistical. I had 40+ years of skill as opposed to their 8 years daily practice to a Nidan level. This level has widened even more over the years. My students won the all Japan championships "twice". I have watched guys move like ballet dancers to beat fellow 7th Dan's. Then they take off armor to reveal a man in his 80s that has reached 8th Dan going 9th.


Hi
That's amazing and I'd like to understand more about this dynamic
I don't follow arts like kendo or fencing are the high level competitions dominated by older, more experienced folk?
Thanks


----------



## isshinryuronin (Apr 14, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> I have watched guys move like ballet dancers to beat fellow 7th Dan's. Then they take off armor to reveal a man in his 80s that has reached 8th Dan going 9th.


I know this is common in kendo.  This sport, like the art of iaido, is cutting weapon based (though kendo has modified this into touches).  The point is, these weapon types are not power based, but rely more on technique.  It doesn't take much strength to cause injury with razor sharp steel.  More importantly, perception, mental attitude, timing and _intuition_ born of experience play a bigger part.  These qualities do not wane over the years as physical abilities do.  This is true of weaponless TMA as well to a certain extent, compared to more physically based combat arts such as wrestling and boxing, and perhaps muy thai and others as well.  The big advantage to this is that TMA not only offers a lifetime of self-development, but a lifetime of being able to be active and actually do it at a fairly high level, even in advanced years.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 14, 2022)

Steve said:


> *Some preliminary statements: *
> 
> Self defense is defined as altercations outside of competition. We can discuss other definitions, but this is how they define it in the video.
> 
> ...


3 & 4 present a false dichotomy. There's a lot of room between those (namely, no official competition, but using live sparring and active drilling).


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> 3 & 4 present a false dichotomy. There's a lot of room between those (namely, no official competition, but using live sparring and active drilling).


Sure. We can discuss that, but to be clear, I was trying to summarize the points in the video for people too lazy to watch it themselves.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> 3 & 4 present a false dichotomy. There's a lot of room between those (namely, no official competition, but using live sparring and active drilling).


To your point, official is a funny descriptor, but styles that don’t  have some kind of external, objective validation of skill are going to suffer.  Professional training isn’t generally competitive, but instead, the skills are applied in a professional context.  You can incorporate competitive elements, but the validation comes in performance on the job.

Outside of that, competition is a proven, efficient way to build complex skill sets.  A kid who plays soccer by himself is going to have some trouble learning the skills involved in soccer. Introduce competition with his friends  in the street and he now is learning and applying those skills.  But you get him on a team that has a good coach and skilled competition, that child will develop skills faster and to a higher level than if he farts around with his friends.

And that kid will have no idea how good or bad he is until he receives some direct, external feedback.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 14, 2022)

Steve said:


> Sure. We can discuss that, but to be clear, I was trying to summarize the points in the video for people too lazy to watch it themselves.


It's been a while since I watched the video, but I thought that's where they came from. I just wanted to get that point out there, since you'd given the summary to work from.

I think we often get into "sport vs. traditional" as if there were well-defined lines between the two. I think there arent. I teach what most folks in BJJ and MMA would refer to as a "traditional" art (ryuha folks would disagree, but that's a problem we discussed early in this thread). I like a lot of the traditional methods, especially because of the aiki body principle development (which I don't know of a modern approach to). I also just kinda like the "feel" of them. That said, I also find a lot of value in the approaches taken by many sport-oriented arts. So I like sparring, rolling, and randori (Judo-style) much more than other folks in my primary art. Unlike some in my art, I don't have a problem with students wanting to enter a competition, and encourage it where the student has an interest (well, I did encourage it, back before I lost my training space).

I think we (generic "we") often get into debates here that turn into "stand your ground" competitions, because folks are using hard lines between things that aren't separated so cleanly. So both sides (where both are using that approach) are actually making some bad arguments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 14, 2022)

Steve said:


> To your point, official is a funny descriptor, but styles that don’t  have some kind of external, objective validation of skill are going to suffer.  Professional training isn’t generally competitive, but instead, the skills are applied in a professional context.  You can incorporate competitive elements, but the validation comes in performance on the job.
> 
> Outside of that, competition is a proven, efficient way to build complex skill sets.  A kid who plays soccer by himself is going to have some trouble learning the skills involved in soccer. Introduce competition with his friends  in the street and he now is learning and applying those skills.  But you get him on a team that has a good coach and skilled competition, that child will develop skills faster and to a higher level than if he farts around with his friends.
> 
> And that kid will have no idea how good or bad he is until he receives some direct, external feedback.


I only use the word "official" to differentiate between you and me trying to best each other under some ruleset, vs. you and me trying to best each other under that same ruleset in a sanctioned event. I get pretty competitive in some situations, but don't really get into sanctioned events. I think the last "real" competition I entered was in high school, when I played soccer.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I only use the word "official" to differentiate between you and me trying to best each other under some ruleset, vs. you and me trying to best each other under that same ruleset in a sanctioned event. I get pretty competitive in some situations, but don't really get into sanctioned events. I think the last "real" competition I entered was in high school, when I played soccer.


There is a lot of value in sanctioned events.  Not least of which is that it isn’t just you and me, but would be you, me, and random other people we may not ever have met before… who may be a lot better than us.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 14, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I only use the word "official" to differentiate between you and me trying to best each other under some ruleset, vs. you and me trying to best each other under that same ruleset in a sanctioned event. I get pretty competitive in some situations, but don't really get into sanctioned events. I think the last "real" competition I entered was in high school, when I played soccer.


I've done thousands of rounds of BJJ sparring (under a variety of rulesets), but only a handful of official tournaments. The main reason, besides gradually aging out of competitiveness, is that they are usually so darn expensive. It's not uncommon to pay $100+ for entry and then only get a couple of matches.

This is another reason I'm enjoying HEMA. Because it's more of a niche interest, the people putting on events are doing it more for the love of and development of the art. I'm currently training for an event coming up in June. $75 for a 3 day event which includes a couple of workshops and 7 tournaments. (I don't qualify for the invitational or the women's longsword, but I'm signed up for the other 5.) You'll never find a deal like that in the BJJ world.


----------



## Buka (Apr 14, 2022)

Steve said:


> There is a lot of value in sanctioned events.  Not least of which is that it isn’t just you and me, but would be you, me, and random other people we may not ever have met before… who may be a lot better than us.


" who may be a lot better than us" is an eye opener that is not only a very valuable tool, but in many cases, that which lights the fire under our heretofore comfortable, unenlightened asses.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> It's been a while since I watched the video, but I thought that's where they came from. I just wanted to get that point out there, since you'd given the summary to work from.
> 
> I think we often get into "sport vs. traditional" as if there were well-defined lines between the two. I think there arent. I teach what most folks in BJJ and MMA would refer to as a "traditional" art (ryuha folks would disagree, but that's a problem we discussed early in this thread). I like a lot of the traditional methods, especially because of the aiki body principle development (which I don't know of a modern approach to). I also just kinda like the "feel" of them. That said, I also find a lot of value in the approaches taken by many sport-oriented arts. So I like sparring, rolling, and randori (Judo-style) much more than other folks in my primary art. Unlike some in my art, I don't have a problem with students wanting to enter a competition, and encourage it where the student has an interest (well, I did encourage it, back before I lost my training space).
> 
> I think we (generic "we") often get into debates here that turn into "stand your ground" competitions, because folks are using hard lines between things that aren't separated so cleanly. So both sides (where both are using that approach) are actually making some bad arguments.



That is why the distinction is spelled out that way.

So if for example you did Senegalese wrestling. While more traditional than most arts in terms of age. It is still a live viable method trained with resistance.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've done thousands of rounds of BJJ sparring (under a variety of rulesets), but only a handful of official tournaments. The main reason, besides gradually aging out of competitiveness, is that they are usually so darn expensive. It's not uncommon to pay $100+ for entry and then only get a couple of matches.
> 
> This is another reason I'm enjoying HEMA. Because it's more of a niche interest, the people putting on events are doing it more for the love of and development of the art. I'm currently training for an event coming up in June. $75 for a 3 day event which includes a couple of workshops and 7 tournaments. (I don't qualify for the invitational or the women's longsword, but I'm signed up for the other 5.) You'll never find a deal like that in the BJJ world.



Yeah. But I also assume you are not suggesting you are Lachlan Guiles but with different priorities.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But I also assume you are not suggesting you are Lachlan Guiles but with different priorities.


Oh hell no. There are levels to this stuff and Lachlan Giles would dominate me as easily as I dominate white belts. 

I don’t think I’m delusional when I consider myself an above average martial arts practitioner and instructor. But there’s a big difference between “above average” and “world class.”


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Oh hell no. There are levels to this stuff and Lachlan Giles would dominate me as easily as I dominate white belts.
> 
> I don’t think I’m delusional when I consider myself an above average martial arts practitioner and instructor. But there’s a big difference between “above average” and “world class.”


I think this post illustrates the value of competition.  It’s about knowing what you can and cannot do.  You don’t delusions of grandeur in combat sports.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 15, 2022)

dunc said:


> Hi
> That's amazing and I'd like to understand more about this dynamic
> I don't follow arts like kendo or fencing are the high level competitions dominated by older, more experienced folk?
> Thanks


There are school and university competitions. I was on the squad of the Gakko Kyoshi Kendo Renmei. (School Kendo teachers association) Police have competitions and also gekiken type anything goes matches.  

Nationals are usually dominated by a prefectural representative who has already graduated university and is probably in the Police or education. They are usually 5th \6th Dan. Ranks have been revised now by the association with the highest being 8th Dan. Before it was up to 10th. There is a yearly not to be missed 8th Dan competition, with the best in country competing.

Retirement from active organizing is 65 to have younger people step up to do the job. We can split Kendo into age brackets to determine what one is trying to achieve. 20/30 30/40 and so on. With age we are looking for perfection and quality in what we do rather than quantity.

I have to say I was a late starter. I never though I would catch up. Already Dan graded in my 20s but getting the crap beat out of me by police riot squad guys. But ten practices a week brought me up to par and above. Most of all my age had already taught me to use my brain to fight and not expend useless energy.

Below in one of my old high school kendoka Nishimura Ryutaro at the nationals. But the credit goes to both his mother and father who were national champions.

isshinryuronin​Kendo has modified this into touches? I would suggest that you put on the bogu and see how lightly you get "touched" My sensei always told me to cut down to suigetsu. More like pile driving than touching.


----------



## dunc (Apr 15, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> There are school and university competitions. I was on the squad of the Gakko Kyoshi Kendo Renmei. (School Kendo teachers association) Police have competitions and also gekiken type anything goes matches.
> 
> Nationals are usually dominated by a prefectural representative who has already graduated university and is probably in the Police or education. They are usually 5th \6th Dan. Ranks have been revised now by the association with the highest being 8th Dan. Before it was up to 10th. There is a yearly not to be missed 8th Dan competition, with the best in country competing.
> 
> ...


Thanks this is interesting
I totally agree that weapons reduce the emphasis on speed and strength and increase the emphasis on skill and experience - hence I’m sure competitors have a longer “shelf life”
I’m curious to understand how much this dynamic changes things ‘though. Weapon arts still require fast movements of the body, quick reaction times etc all of which decline with age
So for example in kendo do they allow competitions that are open in terms of age and grade (if higher grades require a certain age)? And if so are they dominated by the older folk?
Based on a cursory look at the fencing Olympic medalists it’s clear that folk in their 20s dominate


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 15, 2022)

Steve said:


> There is a lot of value in sanctioned events.  Not least of which is that it isn’t just you and me, but would be you, me, and random other people we may not ever have met before… who may be a lot better than us.


I agree. I wasn't making any judgment one way or the other - just explaining what I meant by the term I used.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've done thousands of rounds of BJJ sparring (under a variety of rulesets), but only a handful of official tournaments. The main reason, besides gradually aging out of competitiveness, is that they are usually so darn expensive. It's not uncommon to pay $100+ for entry and then only get a couple of matches.
> 
> This is another reason I'm enjoying HEMA. Because it's more of a niche interest, the people putting on events are doing it more for the love of and development of the art. I'm currently training for an event coming up in June. $75 for a 3 day event which includes a couple of workshops and 7 tournaments. (I don't qualify for the invitational or the women's longsword, but I'm signed up for the other 5.) You'll never find a deal like that in the BJJ world.


Back when I made more money, I'd probably have been willing to pay that (certainly paid that much for one-day seminars. But I didn't have the interest then, unfortunately.


----------



## dunc (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've done thousands of rounds of BJJ sparring (under a variety of rulesets), but only a handful of official tournaments. The main reason, besides gradually aging out of competitiveness, is that they are usually so darn expensive. It's not uncommon to pay $100+ for entry and then only get a couple of matches.
> 
> This is another reason I'm enjoying HEMA. Because it's more of a niche interest, the people putting on events are doing it more for the love of and development of the art. I'm currently training for an event coming up in June. $75 for a 3 day event which includes a couple of workshops and 7 tournaments. (I don't qualify for the invitational or the women's longsword, but I'm signed up for the other 5.) You'll never find a deal like that in the BJJ world.


Yeah I’ve dabbled in competitions, but feel for me at least
a) it’s more of a young person’s game as they have more people in the categories meaning you have more opportunities to learn for your time/dollar
b) the probability of injury is higher without getting a tougher roll in vs your academy (I’m lucky in that the academy I train in has a lot of people from world class competitors down to hobbyists so I can roll with folk who are at a much higher level than I’ll ever meet in a competition)
c) whilst I did find the unfamiliarity of the situation and the resultant adrenaline dump to be a very valuable experience this diminishes the more you do it so you kinda get the benefit from a “dabbling”, and
d) I’ve had a hip replacement so am a little bit more cautious that I used to be

A lot of people really enjoy competing, it pushes them to develop faster and this is a good thing I feel


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 15, 2022)

dunc said:


> a) it’s more of a young person’s game as they have more people in the categories meaning you have more opportunities to learn for your time/dollar


I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to compete in the "masters" division for older athletes. I started BJJ in my mid 30s, but the sport was new enough in my area that there weren't enough people for a separate division even for white belts.

These days there are enough people for masters divisions at the lower ranks, but not so much at the upper ranks. My last BJJ competition was at brown belt in my late 40s. The only match I won was against the 35-year old. All of my other opponents were in their 20s.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Apr 15, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Kendo has modified this into touches? I would suggest that you put on the bogu and see how lightly you get "touched"


I did not mean to infer that the "touches" are love taps, any more than "no or kiss contact" point karate matches are devoid of painful strikes.  I was just differentiating that the katana in iai-jutsu is designed primarily for _cutting _techniques, as opposed to the more direct impact contact seen kendo, though both arts share the emphasis on skill and allow senior citizens to maintain a good level of activity.

My main point was that in other forms of fighting brute strength can overcome technique.  Not so in kendo or some other weapon arts.  I would be hesitant to face a 250 pound power-lifter in empty handed combat.  I would count myself more his equal if we both had _shinken, _or guns for that matter.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to compete in the "masters" division for older athletes. I started BJJ in my mid 30s, but the sport was new enough in my area that there weren't enough people for a separate division even for white belts.
> 
> These days there are enough people for masters divisions at the lower ranks, but not so much at the upper ranks. My last BJJ competition was at brown belt in my late 40s. The only match I won was against the 35-year old. All of my other opponents were in their 20s.



Boxing on the other hand is massive for the oldies strangely enough.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 15, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Boxing on the other hand is massive for the oldies strangely enough.


I can hang with some of the younger boxers in the gym doing friendly sparring. But I can tell that I wouldn't have the cardio or durability to have a chance against them in a real boxing match if we were going 100%. (I'm talking about the serious competitors here. I could probably take the younger casual hobbyists.)


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can hang with some of the younger boxers in the gym doing friendly sparring. But I can tell that I wouldn't have the cardio or durability to have a chance against them in a real boxing match if we were going 100%. (I'm talking about the serious competitors here. I could probably take the younger casual hobbyists.)


Honestly, this is one thing that has always appealed to me about HEMA/SCA/Etc. You can be competitive even if you're not a 20-something athelete.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can hang with some of the younger boxers in the gym doing friendly sparring. But I can tell that I wouldn't have the cardio or durability to have a chance against them in a real boxing match if we were going 100%. (I'm talking about the serious competitors here. I could probably take the younger casual hobbyists.)



A lot of our competitive boxers are masters. Once we started churning them out. I guess we created a trend or something.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 15, 2022)

drop bear said:


> A lot of our competitive boxers are masters. Once we started churning them out. I guess we created a trend or something.


Honestly, even if I were to massively build up my conditioning to a competitive level I don't think I would want to do more than friendly sparring in the boxing arena at this point in my life. My brain cells are slowing down enough as I get older anyway, I don't need additional head trauma to potentially make it worse.

(I probably end up with more than a healthy number of head collisions in my Sumo practice, but at least those are generally inadvertent.)


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 15, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Honestly, this is one thing that has always appealed to me about HEMA/SCA/Etc. You can be competitive even if you're not a 20-something athelete.


Something I've been curious about with this-and I don't think anyone can actually directly answer it at this point in time-Is HEMA something you can be competitive at an old age because of how the styles themselves are (like kendo is per hyoho), allowing technique to do that great a job of dealing with slowed reflexes/speed/strength, or is it something where there aren't enough people, and not enough athletes at a high enough level of fitness, allowing people that otherwise wouldn't be competitive, competitive

And yes, that is the mother of run-ons. Just finished work and don't feel like going through and fixing it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 15, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Something I've been curious about with this-and I don't think anyone can actually directly answer it at this point in time-Is HEMA something you can be competitive at an old age because of how the styles themselves are (like kendo is per hyoho), allowing technique to do that great a job of dealing with slowed reflexes/speed/strength, or is it something where there aren't enough people, and not enough athletes at a high enough level of fitness, allowing people that otherwise wouldn't be competitive, competitive
> 
> And yes, that is the mother of run-ons. Just finished work and don't feel like going through and fixing it.


In my experience, there are multiple factors (as is usually the case). 
Most of my experience is SCA, so I will use that as an example.
There are multiple combat styles practiced. I am most familiar with two.
What the SCA refers to as heavy weapons is, essentially, medieval warfare-style. Heavily armored combatants using heavy swords, polearms, etc.
Rapier combat is done with armor intended to reduce the chance of injury from a broken blade. Weapons range from modern foils and epee to schlager and other heavier rapier-style blades.
In both styles, technique is, I think, the most important factor, though strength does play a somewhat larger role in the heavy weapons combats. I've known people to be extremely competitive in the heavy weapons combat well into their 50's, and I've seen 60 year olds do well at rapier.
Technique is key, but I also think those years of experience make it easier to bait your opponent into doing what you want, or to anticipate their moves. Which obviously makes it easier to counter.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 15, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Something I've been curious about with this-and I don't think anyone can actually directly answer it at this point in time-Is HEMA something you can be competitive at an old age because of how the styles themselves are (like kendo is per hyoho), allowing technique to do that great a job of dealing with slowed reflexes/speed/strength, or is it something where there aren't enough people, and not enough athletes at a high enough level of fitness, allowing people that otherwise wouldn't be competitive, competitive


The answer is yes.

Yes, the nature of the art and it's sportive competition aspect are such that skill and experience can compensate significantly for athleticism. The weapons act as force multipliers, so that even a small woman can deliver a blow which would be disabling to a large man. Since most HEMA competition (unlike Buhurt) is simulating unarmored dueling, we are hitting just hard enough that we could inflict serious damage with a sharp blade, but not trying to take our opponent's head off. (i.e. Excessive force is disallowed.) This means that strength beyond a certain point gives diminishing returns. Also since most competitions halt the action after each point, cardio endurance isn't as necessary. (Speed is still important.)

But also, yes, the sport is relatively young and a niche interest. We don't have a huge talent pool compared to Boxing or Wrestling or Olympic fencing. Most practitioners are amateur hobbyists, not dedicated athletes. The HEMA community is still in the early decades of technical development and we have a long way to go both in determining the most effective approaches to technique and training. As we develop higher standards of training and knowledge becomes more evenly distributed, then I expect to see athleticism as a greater predictor of success than it is now. That said, I suspect HEMA will offer a longer competitive career than Olympic fencing. This is because something like longsword fencing allows a significantly greater number of techniques than something like foil fencing, giving more value to experience and skill relative to pure speed.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 15, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> What the SCA refers to as heavy weapons is, essentially, medieval warfare-style. Heavily armored combatants using heavy swords, polearms, etc.





Dirty Dog said:


> In both styles, technique is, I think, the most important factor, though strength does play a somewhat larger role in the heavy weapons combats


I think that SCA heavy fighting requires less strength compared to Buhurt or real-life historical armored combat due to the rules. Excessive force is discouraged. Blows are counted that realistically would not penetrate armor if delivered with a sword and there is no advantage given for hitting harder than the local standard (unless you're up against a real rhino-hide, I suppose). Grappling is disallowed.

From the perspective of having a widely accessible recreational sport, I approve of these rules. I just don't think they are a good representation of actual armored combat.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think that SCA heavy fighting requires less strength compared to Buhurt or real-life historical armored combat due to the rules. Excessive force is discouraged. Blows are counted that realistically would not penetrate armor if delivered with a sword and there is no advantage given for hitting harder than the local standard (unless you're up against a real rhino-hide, I suppose). Grappling is disallowed.


Very true. There are a number of rules in place that are intended to make the sport safer. In the heavy weapons, for example, attacks distal to the elbow or knee are not allowed. And regardless of the armor actually worn, everyone is assumed to be wearing light armor, essentially light maile, and fighters are encouraged to control the force delivered. Injuries still happen, but considering you're essentially bashing your friends with a club, they are relatively uncommon.


Tony Dismukes said:


> From the perspective of having a widely accessible recreational sport, I approve of these rules. I just don't think they are a good representation of actual armored combat.


I think they're reasonably good for the assumed armor. But there is an inherent disconnect because you cannot actually fight in the armor you are assumed to be wearing; light maile would never pass.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> From the perspective of having a widely accessible recreational sport, I approve of these rules. I just don't think they are a good representation of actual armored combat.



I read somewhere that a Gambeson is actually quite protective.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 16, 2022)

dunc said:


> Thanks this is interesting
> I totally agree that weapons reduce the emphasis on speed and strength and increase the emphasis on skill and experience - hence I’m sure competitors have a longer “shelf life”
> I’m curious to understand how much this dynamic changes things ‘though. Weapon arts still require fast movements of the body, quick reaction times etc all of which decline with age
> So for example in kendo do they allow competitions that are open in terms of age and grade (if higher grades require a certain age)? And if so are they dominated by the older folk?
> Based on a cursory look at the fencing Olympic medalists it’s clear that folk in their 20s dominate


Well it's allowed but Japanese tend to do everything on a similar age basis. So when you watch certain ages you have specific expectations of what you will see in terms of skill. Older people fight each other but mostly it's them that are judging and organizing. It is the younger ones that tend to do most of the competition.


isshinryuronin said:


> I did not mean to infer that the "touches" are love taps, any more than "no or kiss contact" point karate matches are devoid of painful strikes.  I was just differentiating that the katana in iai-jutsu is designed primarily for _cutting _techniques, as opposed to the more direct impact contact seen kendo, though both arts share the emphasis on skill and allow senior citizens to maintain a good level of activity.
> 
> My main point was that in other forms of fighting brute strength can overcome technique.  Not so in kendo or some other weapon arts.  I would be hesitant to face a 250 pound power-lifter in empty handed combat.  I would count myself more his equal if we both had _shinken, _or guns for that matter.


If we did actually lay it on it would be very bad. So we do pride ourselves on trying to keep contact down a bit. I clearly remember my sensei once hitting me where I was not protected and immediately bowing off in shame. We can get get stuck into each other by mutual consent. Done quite a lot in police dojo.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 16, 2022)

drop bear said:


> I read somewhere that a Gambeson is actually quite protective.


In terms of penetration, sure. But if you don't want your ribs broken and bits shoved into the squishy inside bits... not so much.
And for combat systems using blunted weapons, that's much more the concern.


----------



## Nobufusa (May 29, 2022)

Hi Chris, sorry for taking so long to respond to your comments. Firstly I want to thank you for taking the time to share your extensive knowledge with us. For that I am very grateful, and I always look forward to reading your posts and comments. You wrote a lot to think about, and have profoundly impacted my understanding of the marital arts in general, and it wouldn't be the first time you have done that either. So without further ado, I would like to comment on some of your points, I don't disagree with any of them, but some of your comments incite further inquiry from me. I hope you won't mind.



Chris Parker said:


> \
> 
> The point is, John is creating a false argument by not actually presenting two different approaches, but by presenting a simplified single side, and an imagined, false, and vilified "other" approach, when there is no real base for his comments. Probably the worst of all of this, though, is the idea of "theoretical knowledge"... if we're talking classical arts (and that's the context of the OP, really), then the knowledge is absolutely not "theoretical". In fact, it's codified knowledge based in experience... the reason we don't need to spar to test is that it's all already been tested...


Yes, precisely, I was asking in the context of classical arts. In The Book of 5 Rings, Miyamoto Musashi wrote that many styles in Japan at the time had devolved into, to paraphrase him, useless theatrics, showmanship, and over stylization. Those weren't the words he used, but as I don't have a copy with me at the moment, I am paraphrasing. This leads me to the conclusion, that it is very likely that the styles that he criticized but did not openly name in his wind chapter, were, at least, some of the Koryu that still exist today. We don't know precisely which Ryu he was talking about, but it's perhaps anybody's guess that he was talking about Ryu which survived to the modern day. This would mean that, if those styles still exist, they are likely to be no more useful, than they were in Musashi's day when he criticized them, as there have been no recent significant pressures in Japanese history to reaffirm the the practicality of the styles.



Chris Parker said:


> "Nothing will prepare for the intensity of a genuine altercation better than combat sports." Really? Nothing? Well, it's a good thing we insist that all security guards have at least a few years in a sports art, then! What? We don't? How about the military? Police? No? Hmm... what do they use as primary training and teaching methods? Pre-arranged drills and scenario training? You don't say?



A lot of security guards are fat and out of shape, I am not sure if I would look to them as a model for training. As far as the military goes, the military is a very broad description of various jobs and specialties. Their training is diverse as the people are. Jocko Wilink, who is one of the world's foremost public figures with special operations background, and real combat experience is a staunch advocate of Brazilian JiuJitsu. He expresses a similar sentiment here and in other videos.






His consistent message is that any grappling style is the best place to begin martial arts training, followed by sports striking like Muay Thai and Boxing. Again, since we are talking about the military, Jocko Wilink would probably the premier example of pinnacle military training with real world experience.


----------



## drop bear (May 29, 2022)

Nobufusa said:


> A lot of security guards are fat and out of shape, I am not sure if I would look to them as a model for training. As far as the military goes, the military is a very broad description of various jobs and specialties.



I did a meme that is my view on security guards and martial arts.


----------



## _Simon_ (May 30, 2022)

_Simon_ said:


> I'm peggin this'll be yet another 54 page thread. Buckle up y'all!


Hmmm... we're still not there yet... come on! Keep it goin! Perseverance pays off!


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 8, 2022)

If you can fight, unarmed, in _any_ way, then you’re probably better able to defend yourself than if you are totally untrained (or practise Iaido)!

OK, we can close this thread now😑


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> If you can fight, unarmed, in _any_ way, then you’re probably better able to defend yourself than if you are totally untrained (or practise Iaido)!
> 
> OK, we can close this thread now😑


I wish I could "like" and "haha" the same comment.


----------



## The Gray (Hair) Man (Nov 8, 2022)

In my opinion, self-defense involves a whole host of things that do not involve fighting at all. Some would argue, including me, that the ultimate self defense is to not engage in fighting.

So to me, what sets self defense apart from sport/fighting/traditional martial arts are:


An emphasis on situational awareness, where you identify potential threats and avoid them before there's an issue.
Evasion - knowing how to get out of an area once you identify a threat without calling attention to yourself.
De-escalation - if you can't avoid a situation, talk your way out of it.
Mindset - what is the predator mindset? What do they want? What are they looking for in a target? How do they distract you? Where might they hide to gain an advantage? What are some pre-contact cues? Under what circumstances do I strike first?
So I should be aware of threats, avoiding threats, evading threats, and talking my way out of threats. This should be successful the vast majority of the time.

If ALL those things fail, now I need to fight. In that case, I prefer gross (vs. fine) motor movements as my brain will be flooded with adrenaline and I'll have a very difficult time remembering any complex techniques. One of my favorite combinations I learned from a Kelly McCann video where you gouge/claw with one hand, then hit them with a hammerfist, then claw/rake/hold with one hand and continue beating them down with the hammerfist. I think McCann refers to it as a "rake and cycle" technique. And if I can place a tool I'm carrying or improvised weapon in the grip of that hammerfist, all the better.  It won't be pretty, and it may not work as expected, but you keep going until you can get away or stop the threat. 

When I train in this kind of "fighting," it's called a "scramble." I don't know what my partner is going to do, and therefore I don't know what I'm going to do,. I have to figure it out and deal with whatever the situation is until I can stop the threat or get away. We don't go hard with gear, but that may be something we do more of in the future. I've had a bloody lip and nose and host of bruises from scrambling, so you do learn to take some punishment - which is a whole other skill.

After the confrontation, you have to be ready to talk to the police. You may get involved in a lawsuit. Or you may have some guys looking for you out for revenge (another reason to avoid conflict to begin with). Did they get a look at my vehicle when I got away? Are they local guys I might see again? Do I need to avoid places I didn't need to avoid before? Do I have proper home security just in case? There's a whole host of other issues there.


----------



## Steve (Nov 8, 2022)

The Gray (Hair) Man said:


> In my opinion, self-defense involves a whole host of things that do not involve fighting at all. Some would argue, including me, that the ultimate self defense is to not engage in fighting.
> 
> So to me, what sets self defense apart from sport/fighting/traditional martial arts are:
> 
> ...


Welcome to the forum.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2022)

The Gray (Hair) Man said:


> In my opinion, self-defense involves a whole host of things that do not involve fighting at all. Some would argue, including me, that the ultimate self defense is to not engage in fighting.
> 
> So to me, what sets self defense apart from sport/fighting/traditional martial arts are:
> 
> ...



Are sports better or worse for that though?

I mean you can get your head kicked in at a sports club if you lack social skills and awareness.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 9, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are sports better or worse for that though?
> 
> I mean you can get your head kicked in at a sports club if you lack social skills and awareness.


I think this is at the core of the whole duality dilemma between fighting and self defense.  It's a union of both.

Yeah, the best overall self defense is to be really aware and adaptable in situations, trained and all that, AND be as physically and mentally fresh as possible, which is something sports provides and combat sports most definitely.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 9, 2022)

The Gray (Hair) Man said:


> my brain will be flooded with adrenaline


So, no.

Respectfully.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> So, no.
> 
> Respectfully.



Yeah. It's a tricky one that.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 9, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. It's a tricky one that.


Well I don't need to tell you this, but adrenaline improves mental focus, it doesn't cloud it, unless you're poorly trained.  Otherwise it would be pretty useless for fight or flight response.  It's our Danger Zone hormone.

He said _"my brain will be flooded with adrenaline and I'll have a very difficult time remembering any complex techniques"_

If anything, adrenaline is (if you are trained well) focus your vision into the moment and you're going to not care about remembering complex anything, you're going to be in the zone, controlling your breathing, and allowing your (well trained) animal instincts to take over.

What SUCKS is the dump, that's not the adrenaline flooding your brain, it's the adrenaline dropping in your overall body after the rush.  Combat athletes like you and I are prepared for this, many people will just collapse, hurl, or both. 

Birds don't just fly, they also fall down and get up.


----------



## The Gray (Hair) Man (Nov 9, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are sports better or worse for that though?
> 
> I mean you can get your head kicked in at a sports club if you lack social skills and awareness.


Sports can be good. Facing off against a real person, experiencing getting hit or submitted, trying to make a technique work under duress and against an unwilling opponent are all good things. If it's you against a single opponent, it's likely a lot of that will transfer and you'll do well. But if you face an armed opponent, or multiple opponents, or multiple armed opponents, even if you're great at your sport, things are going to get really difficult. So it depends on the situation.


----------



## The Gray (Hair) Man (Nov 9, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well I don't need to tell you this, but adrenaline improves mental focus, it doesn't cloud it, unless you're poorly trained.  Otherwise it would be pretty useless for fight or flight response.  It's our Danger Zone hormone.
> 
> He said _"my brain will be flooded with adrenaline and I'll have a very difficult time remembering any complex techniques"_
> 
> ...


I agree to a certain extent. Your vision is focused because you get tunnel vision. If your opponent is in front of you, that isn't an issue. If there are people outside that tunnel vision coming at you, it's going to be challenging. You're going to have a hard time hearing things, which may or may not be important, depending on the situation. Breathing is definitely necessary, but if you have 2 or 3 guys coming at you at once, it could be tough to control. You will absolutely fight using instinct, and a trained person should do better than an untrained person under the same circumstances.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 9, 2022)

The Gray (Hair) Man said:


> I agree to a certain extent. Your vision is focused because you get tunnel vision. If your opponent is in front of you, that isn't an issue. If there are people outside that tunnel vision coming at you, it's going to be challenging. You're going to have a hard time hearing things, which may or may not be important, depending on the situation. Breathing is definitely necessary, but if you have 2 or 3 guys coming at you at once, it could be tough to control. You will absolutely fight using instinct, and a trained person should do better than an untrained person under the same circumstances.


Adrenaline is what your body produces if you need to kill something, escape something, love something, hate something.

How martial artists handle adrenaline is so fundamental, and primeval...


----------

