# Combat Jiu-Jitsu with Matt Bryers



## Matt Bryers

This is one of the styles (Kobukai Ju-Jitsu) I teach at my school: The Jiu-Jitsu and Strength Academy


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Nice Matt!


----------



## MJS

Good stuff! Nice to see you on the forum Matt!

Mike


----------



## Chris Parker

Matt Bryers said:


> This is one of the styles (Kobukai Ju-Jitsu) I teach at my school: The Jiu-Jitsu and Strength Academy



Hey Matt,

Nice video. I do have a few questions about Kobukai Ju-Jitsu, though… I haven't been able to find much about the history of the system, other than that it was founded in 1993 by some guys who were ex-Army and "had black belts in jujitsu and other martial arts"… but nothing about which arts in particular. There's a heavy rhetoric of the system being "traditional jujitsu"… but I haven't seen anything that looks particularly traditional in anything I've found so far. The name also intrigues me… do you know the kanji for it? What is the translation of the name?

All in all, it looks like a good, very solid modern system… so I'm a little confused by the claims of "traditional" (I've also seen it referenced as "Japanese Jujutsu"… which doesn't seem accurate either… but that was by a junior student, so I'm not sure they were up to speed on the history).

Thanks.


----------



## kuniggety

From what I can see, it was founded by a Mr. Russ St. Hilaire who got his training in ZenBudo Ryu created by a Raymond "Duke" Moore who "studied and received senior black belt ranks in Kyokushin Karate from Mas Oyama, Judo from George Yoshida, Danzan-Ryu Jujutsu from Ray Law and Bud Estes, Kempo Karate and Aikijutsu from Richard Kim, and Jujutsu from Kiyose Nakae." I didn't go searching beyond that.


----------



## Chris Parker

So… it's a modern, Western system, based in a modern, Western system, based in largely Judo (George Yoshida, Kiyose Nakae - who, for the record, was really teaching Judo… he's associated with teaching Kito Ryu Jujutsu, but it was most likely from all accounts simply the Kito Ryu methods contained within Judo itself), some fairly modern Western takes on Aiki systems (Danzan Ryu and Richard Kim's material), and some karate and karate-style systems.

Yeah, again, not quite what I'd class as traditional, Japanese, or similar… and, again, this isn't a bad thing or a criticism, just a comment on the description of the system itself.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Hey all,

No worries about the questions!  You have done your history research well!  So I don't need to go into that!  But, I will explain the training concepts of Kobukai Ju-Jitsu or at least the approach I take.  I cannot speak for how other instructors train their students, because we're all unique and have our own methods.

KJJ like other Japanese Ju-Jitsu styles have their core set of techniques that are broken into sections.  Ours are broken into: Atemi Waza, Nage Waza, Jujutsu, Aikijutsu, Ne Waza and Weapons Defense.

We have white belt, yellow belt, blue belt, brown, and black.  Typically it takes about 6-7 years to achieve your black belt.  

Myself, some of my black belts, and top students also have deep experience in other fighting arts, including: wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Boxing, Kickboxing, Kyokushin, Defence Lab..... and more.  We have a solid group of martial artists who have a deep experience in many different martial arts.  I also have a 2x World BJJ Champion (Rafael 'Formiga' Barbosa) who is also an instructor at my school.

Due to all this knowledge, our Kobukai Classes and the techniques we teach have evolved.  Our curriculum / charts becomes a tool or a guidebook.  They're not "set in stone".  They are ever evolving due to the experiences of our instructors and by the way we train (lots of sparring).

Our striking techniques aren't just basic kicks, blocks, and punches.  We teach our students to be very proficient in defending against multiple strikes and attacks, and work to close the distance and attack with elbows, knees, headbutts, etc and use their Jujutsu or Aiki-jutsu techniques.

Our Ne Waza has evolved greatly by our experience in BJJ.  I am a brown belt under Formiga (training with him for ~6 years), one of my other instructors is a very high level BJJ brown belt and former pro-MMA fighter (Oz Pariser), and another instructor is also a black belt in BJJ.

Lastly, we have an instructor who is also a judo black belt, and another who is an Olympic Level Wrestling Coach who just retired from Trinity College as their wrestling coach.  You can only imagine how our takedowns and throws have evolved with these two around.

So............ the answer to your question is that we are a Traditional Martial Art Style that has deep roots in JJJ.  But due to the level of martial artists at my school, our training has evolved.

We also spend A LOT of time rolling and sparring, at least 45 minutes every class.  My firm philosophy is that if you want to know how to defend yourself and fight, then you have to fight.  Since many of our students cross-train in jiu-jitsu or DL - DNA, the level of rolling is greatly increased.  We have wars on the mat every night.  But the students have a ton of respect for each other and love training hard.

I hope that answers your question(s) about Kobukai Ju-Jitsu and what I offer.  If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Matt


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Just to clarify where Chris is coming from with his question - when he says "traditional Japanese jujutsu", he is pretty much referring to koryu systems, which your art certainly isn't. From his perspective, Judo and Aikido would be _modern_ Japanese systems. Danzan Ryu would be a modern American (Japanese-American?) system. Kobukai Jiu-Jitsu would be an even more modern American system.

This isn't to deny that your system has a family tree which connects back (in part) to older Japanese jujutsu systems (which is what I presume _you_ mean by traditional). Rather it's that your art does not have the same sort of technical, pedagogical, or cultural foundation that is characteristic of pre-Meiji restoration Japanese arts (which is what I believe _Chris_ means by traditional in this context.)


----------



## Matt Bryers

Ahhhh I see.  Then no, we are definitely not traditional.

I have respect for the history and where my art came from.  But I care more about my ability to fight / defend myself and my family.  And I care about my students ability to fight and defend themselves.

That being said, my instructor Shihan Russ St Hilaire is very interested in the history and has even written a book on American Ju-Jitsu:
Pioneers of American JuJitsu kobukaijujitsu.com


----------



## Chris Parker

Matt Bryers said:


> Hey all,
> 
> No worries about the questions!  You have done your history research well!  So I don't need to go into that!  But, I will explain the training concepts of Kobukai Ju-Jitsu or at least the approach I take.  I cannot speak for how other instructors train their students, because we're all unique and have our own methods.
> 
> KJJ like other Japanese Ju-Jitsu styles have their core set of techniques that are broken into sections.  Ours are broken into: Atemi Waza, Nage Waza, Jujutsu, Aikijutsu, Ne Waza and Weapons Defense.
> 
> We have white belt, yellow belt, blue belt, brown, and black.  Typically it takes about 6-7 years to achieve your black belt.
> 
> Myself, some of my black belts, and top students also have deep experience in other fighting arts, including: wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Boxing, Kickboxing, Kyokushin, Defence Lab..... and more.  We have a solid group of martial artists who have a deep experience in many different martial arts.  I also have a 2x World BJJ Champion (Rafael 'Formiga' Barbosa) who is also an instructor at my school.
> 
> Due to all this knowledge, our Kobukai Classes and the techniques we teach have evolved.  Our curriculum / charts becomes a tool or a guidebook.  They're not "set in stone".  They are ever evolving due to the experiences of our instructors and by the way we train (lots of sparring).
> 
> Our striking techniques aren't just basic kicks, blocks, and punches.  We teach our students to be very proficient in defending against multiple strikes and attacks, and work to close the distance and attack with elbows, knees, headbutts, etc and use their Jujutsu or Aiki-jutsu techniques.
> 
> Our Ne Waza has evolved greatly by our experience in BJJ.  I am a brown belt under Formiga (training with him for ~6 years), one of my other instructors is a very high level BJJ brown belt and former pro-MMA fighter (Oz Pariser), and another instructor is also a black belt in BJJ.
> 
> Lastly, we have an instructor who is also a judo black belt, and another who is an Olympic Level Wrestling Coach who just retired from Trinity College as their wrestling coach.  You can only imagine how our takedowns and throws have evolved with these two around.
> 
> So............ the answer to your question is that we are a Traditional Martial Art Style that has deep roots in JJJ.  But due to the level of martial artists at my school, our training has evolved.
> 
> We also spend A LOT of time rolling and sparring, at least 45 minutes every class.  My firm philosophy is that if you want to know how to defend yourself and fight, then you have to fight.  Since many of our students cross-train in jiu-jitsu or DL - DNA, the level of rolling is greatly increased.  We have wars on the mat every night.  But the students have a ton of respect for each other and love training hard.
> 
> I hope that answers your question(s) about Kobukai Ju-Jitsu and what I offer.  If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
> 
> Matt



Hmm… thanks for the response, Matt, but honestly, no, it doesn't answer anything I asked at all… 

What I was asking was really what makes your art a "traditional Jujutsu system", or a "Japanese Jujutsu system", as it has no traits of either at all. It's a modern, eclectic, Western system, based in very few Japanese systems, and no traditional Japanese Jujutsu systems at all. I also  asked about the name, which you haven't answered either.

Importantly, you state in your answer that your system is "a Traditional Martial Art Style that has deep roots in JJJ"… yet none of the make-up or history, either found by myself and others, or presented by yourself, show any roots in "JJJ", deep or otherwise, and none of your post shows any traditional aspects, base, mentality, methodology, or anything similar.

Once more, none of this is a bad thing… unless you're claiming it to be something it's not.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to clarify where Chris is coming from with his question - when he says "traditional Japanese jujutsu", he is pretty much referring to koryu systems, which your art certainly isn't. From his perspective, Judo and Aikido would be _modern_ Japanese systems. Danzan Ryu would be a modern American (Japanese-American?) system. Kobukai Jiu-Jitsu would be an even more modern American system.
> 
> This isn't to deny that your system has a family tree which connects back (in part) to older Japanese jujutsu systems (which is what I presume _you_ mean by traditional). Rather it's that your art does not have the same sort of technical, pedagogical, or cultural foundation that is characteristic of pre-Meiji restoration Japanese arts (which is what I believe _Chris_ means by traditional in this context.)



Well, Koryu would be the extreme of "traditional", yeah… as well as being the extreme of "Japanese"…  but I wasn't requiring anything of that level. 



Matt Bryers said:


> Ahhhh I see.  Then no, we are definitely not traditional.



Okay. Again, though, I wasn't requiring anything to the degree of being Koryu… but I do agree, you are definitely not traditional.



Matt Bryers said:


> I have respect for the history and where my art came from.  But I care more about my ability to fight / defend myself and my family.  And I care about my students ability to fight and defend themselves.



Yeah, that's all good and well, but really doesn't have any relevance to being traditional or Japanese… other than the idea that, as the concepts aren't that related, it shows that you probably wouldn't like an actual Japanese or traditional system.



Matt Bryers said:


> That being said, my instructor Shihan Russ St Hilaire is very interested in the history and has even written a book on American Ju-Jitsu:
> Pioneers of American JuJitsu kobukaijujitsu.com



Okay… again, not much to do with the actual questions I was asking… but I might check the book out. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Matt Bryers

To be blunt, this is what bothers me about some martial arts these days. People are so concerned about lineage or other ****, that they forget the true essence of martial arts - training to defend yourself, your family, your property, your home, etc.

I have no idea actually what you are looking for, that I haven't already provided.

But here's a some details:

Kobukai means "Ancient Warrior Group (Clan)".

Kobukai Ju-Jitsu / Matt Bryers lineage:​
ZenBudo: Tanaka > Okazaki > Ray Law > Duke Moore > Jerry Kunzman > Daniel Ustie > Russ St. Hilaire > Matt Bryers
Danzan: Tanaka > Okazaki > Lono Ancho/Sig Kufferath > Doug Kiehl > Russ St. Hilaire. > Matt Bryers
Aikijutsu: Takeda > Yamada > Lovret > Leavens > Russ St. Hilaire > Matt Bryers
BJJ: Mitsuyo Maeda > Carlos Gracie > Helio Gracie > Carlson Gracie > Ricardo Libório > André Almeida > Rafael Barbosa > Matt Bryers
All I "claim" is that the systems I train / study / teach: Work.

One of the systems I teach, KJJ, has a background is in Japanese Ju-Jitsu..... that's it.  The other styles / systems I teach are BJJ or they have background in FMA and JKD (Defence Lab).  But I've never been concerned where Andy Norman (founder of DL) has his background.  I found out just by talking with him about his old training days, but never cared; because once I trained with him I was thoroughly impressed and convinced at it's effectiveness.  

I've also done Kyokushin, Boxing, Kickboxing and MMA.  I don't know the history of those (besides Kyoksuhin)... but don't really care either.  

Basically, I don't really care too much about the history.  I have studied it, it's an important "reference" - but honestly - what makes it so important?  History gives us a framework, concepts, something to work with, etc.  But, it's up to me and others to test them and evolve.

We all end up developing our own "personal style".  And my goal when teaching my students is to give them a framework and all the information that I can, but allow them to explore and develop their own "style".  In the end, we're all doing Jiu-Jitsu or Martial Arts, but the way I fight and the way my students fight are adapted to fit our own body style, movement, and flow. 

Martial arts, at is core, is about fighting.  Once you put something else first: History, adherence to strict technique, forms, labels, titles, etc - then you lose the true meaning of martial arts.  

Thanks for your reply, but again, these things aren't my focus.  Based upon your responses, you know more about JJJ history than I do.  Cool.... but not my thing. 

I mean no disrespect.  The original goal of this video was to allow others to see some of the training I offer and to discuss our training (if people are interested).  Thank you again for your questions!  But, I rather discuss training, than history


----------



## drop bear

Sorry about Chris. He can get a bit fixated on these things.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Matt.

First, I'd like to point out that there's no need to get so defensive… I haven't attacked yourself, your system, or anything else. What I have done is to ask about your system… that's it. But, of course, if you want to continue in this direction… 



Matt Bryers said:


> To be blunt, this is what bothers me about some martial arts these days. People are so concerned about lineage or other ****, that they forget the true essence of martial arts - training to defend yourself, your family, your property, your home, etc.



Okay, then, you want to know what bothers me about martial arts these days? The complete lack of understanding of history, the lack of awareness of the scope of different methodologies and mentalities, the idea that "if it works, that's all that matters" is in any way universal, or even important in all arts, and people who have such a basic, small understanding of martial arts thinking that's what they're actually about.

What bothers me is when people make claims about their art that are patently false, either through ignorance of wilful deceit, when teachers are disingenuous about what they are giving, either because they don't have the education themselves, and just believed what they were told, or because they think it'll market themselves better, and when asked to explain, retort with "what does it matter, what I do works". Sure… but whether or not it works isn't the claim being questioned.

If we're going to be blunt, that is.

Oh, and no, that's not what the "true essence of martial arts" is about… by a long shot.



Matt Bryers said:


> I have no idea actually what you are looking for, that I haven't already provided.



Well… I asked about the history of this supposed "traditional, Japanese Jujitsu (sic)" system you teach… not what your current class make-up is, not where your other methods come from, not what your personal beliefs on what is important was, nothing about the BJJ, the Judo, the "DL" thing… so what you provided meant absolutely nothing in regards to my actual questions. It was like I asked you where your recipe for a cake came from, and you answered that you drive a cadillac when you go to the shops.



Matt Bryers said:


> But here's a some details:
> 
> Kobukai means "Ancient Warrior Group (Clan)".
> 
> Kobukai Ju-Jitsu / Matt Bryers lineage:​
> ZenBudo: Tanaka > Okazaki > Ray Law > Duke Moore > Jerry Kunzman > Daniel Ustie > Russ St. Hilaire > Matt Bryers
> Danzan: Tanaka > Okazaki > Lono Ancho/Sig Kufferath > Doug Kiehl > Russ St. Hilaire. > Matt Bryers
> Aikijutsu: Takeda > Yamada > Lovret > Leavens > Russ St. Hilaire > Matt Bryers
> BJJ: Mitsuyo Maeda > Carlos Gracie > Helio Gracie > Carlson Gracie > Ricardo Libório > André Almeida > Rafael Barbosa > Matt Bryers




Okay… that's how I thought you may have meant the name (the kanji would then be: 古武会)… so let's look at that first.

That's not what it means, other than very loosely. The actual translation of that would be along the lines of "Old Martial Arts Society", with "ko" meaning "old", "bu" referring to military or martial matters, and "kai" meaning "a society, or meeting". "Clan" would be "kumi" (組) (becoming "gumi" when used as a suffix to mean "group/clan")… "warrior" would be "bushi" (武士), or potentially "samurai" (侍)… as Japanese tends to not use subjects in it's sentence structures, an argument can be made to have it imply "warrior" (martial person), but dominantly, it would imply martial aspects/studies (martial arts). "Ko (old)" is right, though… although, as your art isn't old (nor really based in any old arts, and minimalist directly Japanese ones), it can be seen as rather disingenuous.

The BJJ lineage isn't any part of what I was asking about, for the record… the first two are modern, Western arts who have a claimed lineage from Japanese arts… the third… well… fraud busting isn't really allowed here, but I wouldn't advertise any connection in any circles that have any knowledge of actual Japanese arts… 



Matt Bryers said:


> All I "claim" is that the systems I train / study / teach: Work.



Actually, no, you don't.

Your websites imply a direct connection between what you do and historical Japanese arts ("Jiu-jitsu [sic] is regarded as one of the most effective self-defence arts. It was originally used on the battlefields of Japan by the Samurai. It has since evolved into many different styles of jiu-jitsu [sic] including evolving into other styles such as Judo and Aikido."). Then, in your post above, you directly state: "KJJ, like other Japanese Ju-jitsu (sic) styles…" and "So............ the answer to your question is that we are a Traditional Martial Art Style that has deep roots in JJJ.".

That's what I was questioning. Not whether or not what you did "worked".



Matt Bryers said:


> One of the systems I teach, KJJ, has a background is in Japanese Ju-Jitsu..... that's it.



Well… not according to the lineage you posted… it has a claimed lineage at least four steps (note: not four generations, three derivations) removed from anything close to a potential actual Japanese art… and even then, it's a bit iffy, honestly.



Matt Bryers said:


> The other styles / systems I teach are BJJ or they have background in FMA and JKD (Defence Lab).  But I've never been concerned where Andy Norman (founder of DL) has his background.  I found out just by talking with him about his old training days, but never cared; because once I trained with him I was thoroughly impressed and convinced at it's effectiveness.



I feel we would differ greatly in our assessment of what Andy has done… he's a real natural talent, and has a good background through Inosanto, but Keysi and now this "Defence Labs" thing? Honestly, the idea of "trainer to the stars" as a marketing angle, especially when it's not really him training them, so much as him being brought in to help with fight scenes in movies (nothing at all to do with any credibility for a combative system, self defence, or anything else… and, much though I like Liam Neeson, I'm hardly about to take his endorsement as meaning a damn thing in this regard)… combine that with his reticence to discuss his background (which would be far more relevant than what Liam thought on the set of Batman Begins, or Tom Cruise thought when doing Jack Reacher), and I don't really have any interest in what he's peddling. Glad that it speaks to you, but… honestly? A bit too much used-car salesman for my taste.

Oh, and none of this is anything to do with what I was asking about. I didn't ask about Andy's latest system, or your BJJ pedigree (I saw the DL link in your signature… frankly, I thought it was odd that you were plugging someone else, but hey, if you want to…).



Matt Bryers said:


> I've also done Kyokushin, Boxing, Kickboxing and MMA.  I don't know the history of those (besides Kyoksuhin)... but don't really care either.



Again, nothing at all to do with what I was asking about… 



Matt Bryers said:


> Basically, I don't really care too much about the history.  I have studied it, it's an important "reference" - but honestly - what makes it so important?  History gives us a framework, concepts, something to work with, etc.  But, it's up to me and others to test them and evolve.



What makes it so important? It gives the art it's context… it enables you to understand it… it teaches the "why"… it gives you the answers to the system… it allows you to understand the questions… without the history, there is nothing to test, and nothing to base it on.



Matt Bryers said:


> We all end up developing our own "personal style".  And my goal when teaching my students is to give them a framework and all the information that I can, but allow them to explore and develop their own "style".  In the end, we're all doing Jiu-Jitsu or Martial Arts, but the way I fight and the way my students fight are adapted to fit our own body style, movement, and flow.



Sure… really not anything to to with my questions, though. Really, Matt, you don't have to justify your training methods… I get it, I know where you're coming from, and I have no problem with what you do. The only issue is in the presentation and claims of a traditional, or traditionally based, Japanese art. Take the blog on the Kobukai main site ("Shihan's Blog")… the majority of posts are linked with Japanese historical, cultural, or traditional concepts (one on Shinto, another on samurai spirituality, another on etiquette in budo, and so on… if I was to be critical, they don't read as if the writer is particularly versed or knowledgable about any of the things he's writing about… it's not that they're particularly wrong in huge ways, just that they're more surface-level and presumptive, rather than any actual insight).



Matt Bryers said:


> Martial arts, at is core, is about fighting.



Yeah… not so much, actually. The wide variety of martial systems include many that aren't, at their core, "about fighting"… they are about personal development, education, refinement of the self, testing oneself through competitive activities, and much more. Even when we look specifically at the "fighting" aspect of different arts, that can cover such a wide variety that the idea of being about "fighting" loses all meaning. The idea that all martial arts are about the same thing, especially that they're all about such a base concept, is honestly a fairly limited understanding, from my perspective.



Matt Bryers said:


> Once you put something else first: History, adherence to strict technique, forms, labels, titles, etc - then you lose the true meaning of martial arts.



Yeah… I don't know where you get your ideas about what traditional arts are about… but it's not a hierarchy in that fashion at all.



Matt Bryers said:


> Thanks for your reply, but again, these things aren't my focus.  Based upon your responses, you know more about JJJ history than I do.  Cool.... but not my thing.



Well… yeah, I'd say I do know a lot more about this subject than you do… as you say, it's not your focus. And I get that… as well as having no issue with that at all… we all have our own focus', as well as what brought us to the arts… but the thing is that you posted your system (a video of it, at least) up to generate questions and conversation… I asked some questions, and you answered something completely different, ending with asking me if I had any more… so, when I continued, getting huffy doesn't help you. You aren't into the history, okay. You are just following what you were told, fine. But don't be surprised when people who have genuine vested interest in traditional Japanese arts question exactly where what you do comes from, when it has a Japanese name, and is dressed up in traditional and Japanese trappings.



Matt Bryers said:


> I mean no disrespect.  The original goal of this video was to allow others to see some of the training I offer and to discuss our training (if people are interested).  Thank you again for your questions!  But, I rather discuss training, than history



Yeah… here's the thing, Matt… you don't get to pick and choose what people ask, or what they choose to ask about. You posted a video saying this was one of the systems you teach… you're listed as one of three locations (and the head instructor at your location) to learn this system… so it's not outside of the realms of possibility that you might have some insight into the history and where the art comes from, I'm sure you'll agree, yeah?

Finally, drop bear.



drop bear said:


> Sorry about Chris. He can get a bit fixated on these things.



I'm going to ask you to not speak for me, and to never apologise for me. You're really not in a position to, nor do you have the requisite knowledge of what I'm actually talking about to say whether or not I'm getting "fixated" on anything. If I say something I feel warrants an apology, I'll issue it myself.


----------



## Matt Bryers

I've posted all I have to say about it. I actually wasn't upset about this at all. But now it's just not worth the effort. 
Our views differ,  and getting into a keyword discussion on why history is important, how I'm wrong or whatever just doesn't interest me. 

Thanks for the response.


----------



## Chris Parker

So, you're just going to ignore the questions, as you either don't know, or don't want to admit the realities?

Okay… if you insist.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Wow you're a persistent one... Lol 

Honestly I got nothing more for you... So, ummm...you win? You know more about... History? Or Tradition? Japanese Martial Arts? 
To me this is interesting, but I just don't care that much.  Sorry... 

Since you have done your Google work, you'll know that I am more into the combatives side of martial arts. And providing excellent instruction to my students. I care about my and my students ability to fight, and defend themselves. I also like the sportive side too. Just fun. 

If you want to talk about techniques, training philosophy, strength training, combatives, psychology of Self-Defense... I'm happy to talk. 

But getting into this... Weird discussion where it seems you're committed to proving me wrong on... Something. Just isn't worth it.

We're just different and don't care about the same things. 

Thanks.


----------



## Steve

An excellent example of de-escalation, Matt.   Nicely done.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## MJS

Me personally, I've trained at Matt's school for a while (not currently) and he's a good guy. He's very passionate about his school, the arts he does, and the quality of his students.  Given the fact that there is A LOT of BS out there, it's nice to actually see some quality stuff being taught!  I'm sure Matt doesn't need me running to his defense as his replies were just fine, however, as a friend, I do feel obligated to say something.  I'd hate to see him get run off the forum, by people harping on small things such as lineage.  He posted that...not sure what more there is to say.

As for the arts core being about fighting....I agree with that.  All of the other stuff, ie: personal development, etc, is all side bar stuff.  It's like saying you train to lose weight.  That's a load of crap.  Join a gym.  Losing weight is a side bar benefit of the actual purpose...to learn how to defend yourself.  

Hang in there Matt.  Despite stuff like this, this forum really is a good place. 

Mike


----------



## Transk53

Matt Bryers said:


> This is one of the styles (Kobukai Ju-Jitsu) I teach at my school: The Jiu-Jitsu and Strength Academy



You know what, that has just blown me away, and the aggressive use of elbows. Yeah, I don't know what superlative to add here, but, that s### is just so cool. Thanks for posting, and keep em coming please


----------



## Matt Bryers

Hey Mike!! Good to hear from you! And now chatting with you on Facebook lol.

Thanks transk53! That video is a little old, but it shows the essence of what I teach.  I find that mixing the ballistic striking with combative takedown and throws really enhance the ability to "fight". 

I have another video somewhere showing some of the sparring we do. It shoes another aspect. When I find it, I'll post it. 

FYI - we're hosting a seminar on Feb 28th.  I haven't announced it yet, but if you live near CT, please join us!


----------



## Transk53

Matt Bryers said:


> Hey Mike!! Good to hear from you! And now chatting with you on Facebook lol.
> 
> Thanks transk53! That video is a little old, but it shows the essence of what I teach.  I find that mixing the ballistic striking with combative takedown and throws really enhance the ability to "fight".
> 
> I have another video somewhere showing some of the sparring we do. It shoes another aspect. When I find it, I'll post it.
> 
> FYI - we're hosting a seminar on Feb 28th.  I haven't announced it yet, but if you live near CT, please join us!



Wish I could join, but I am in the UK, got to get a new passport lol. At some point this year, probably late summer, maybe in to Autumn, I want a proper holiday this year, I reckon the seminar would be a good holiday, with some keen interest too!


----------



## kuniggety

Martial - pertaining to war/combat/struggle. Art - human expression or skill not otherwise designated as a science. People come to various "martial arts" for a variety of reasons but let's not confuse what martial arts are. If someone implies martial arts are anything different than what they are then maybe they're using the wrong choice of words. What Matt here is doing is doing, ie his school is doing, is synthesizing a variety of martial arts in effort to create an effective modern combat system. That sounds like it fits the bill to me.

I have to question anytime someone states matter of factly what is traditional Japanese. My first question is always how much time they've actually lived in Japan and not just read books/watched movies on them. Traditions in Japan last just as long as they do in the US, UK, etc. Ie until someone decides to change them. The "traditional Japanese arts" are just as muddled, cross-bred, and morphed as any "modern" art.


----------



## drop bear

kuniggety said:


> Martial - pertaining to war/combat/struggle. Art - human expression or skill not otherwise designated as a science. People come to various "martial arts" for a variety of reasons but let's not confuse what martial arts are. If someone implies martial arts are anything different than what they are then maybe they're using the wrong choice of words. What Matt here is doing is doing, ie his school is doing, is synthesizing a variety of martial arts in effort to create an effective modern combat system. That sounds like it fits the bill to me.
> 
> I have to question anytime someone states matter of factly what is traditional Japanese. My first question is always how much time they've actually lived in Japan and not just read books/watched movies on them. Traditions in Japan last just as long as they do in the US, UK, etc. Ie until someone decides to change them. The "traditional Japanese arts" are just as muddled, cross-bred, and morphed as any "modern" art.



You will probably want to start a new thread on that.


----------



## drop bear

So matt you promised sparring videos.


----------



## Chris Parker

Matt Bryers said:


> Wow you're a persistent one… Lol



Ha, you have no idea… honestly, I've been rather gentle and subtle so far… well… for me, anyway… 



Matt Bryers said:


> Honestly I got nothing more for you... So, ummm...you win? You know more about... History? Or Tradition? Japanese Martial Arts?
> To me this is interesting, but I just don't care that much.  Sorry…



Honestly, Matt, I think we got off on the wrong foot, for a few reasons. One being that either I'm not expressing myself properly, or that you're simply not getting what I'm actually asking… this is really a case in point here.

You teach an art that is promoted as "traditional", and "Japanese jujitsu"… but you don't care much about Japanese arts? Or traditional ones? Or history? To the point that you can't even get the relevance, or understand when, or why, you're being asked about them? It's not about knowing more about such aspects… it's that they are integral parts of what Kobukai claims to be. To not have an interest is to not have an interest in your own art… and, honestly, the only thing that leads to is people who similarly don't "care" about such aspects being taken in by frauds, liars, and BS artists. By not caring, you're opening yourself up to such… as well as risking being labeled as one yourself (note: that is not what I'm doing here).

This is where I'm coming from, really. I mean, I can tell you flat out that parts of your lineage are very much fraudulent, and based on the work of people who had no actual background in what they claimed at all. Now, this isn't a comment on yourself, or your instructor (well… not entirely), but it is to show that knowing history and what you're talking about can be vital in these areas.



Matt Bryers said:


> Since you have done your Google work, you'll know that I am more into the combatives side of martial arts. And providing excellent instruction to my students. I care about my and my students ability to fight, and defend themselves. I also like the sportive side too. Just fun.



Sure, and I haven't had any problem with that, nor have I called any of it into question. I've asked about the history of Kobukai Jujitsu, and I've asked about it's credibility as pertains to being presented as a "traditional" or "Japanese" art. Constantly telling me what your emphasis, or focus is, while all cool, really isn't related to anything I've asked about. Which is why I'm suggesting that you simply haven't understood what I'm asking, or why.



Matt Bryers said:


> If you want to talk about techniques, training philosophy, strength training, combatives, psychology of Self-Defense... I'm happy to talk.



So, you're happy to talk about some areas, but not about the actual art you're teaching? The one you presented in the video in the OP?



Matt Bryers said:


> But getting into this... Weird discussion where it seems you're committed to proving me wrong on... Something. Just isn't worth it.



I'm not bent on proving you wrong, Matt… frankly, I don't think you're educated enough in this area to be "wrong"… simply ill-informed. If anything, I'm aiming to get you to look past what you think you know, and embrace a wider understanding… and, while that might seem confronting (or confrontational), it's not intended that way. I do have concerns when you feel that being asked about the background of the art you yourself have come here to discuss makes for a "weird discussion"… but, as I said, I feel this is either because you don't know (the aspects that I'm talking about, what traditional arts are actually like, what a Japanese Jujutsu system is like etc), or because you don't want to admit that the art you study isn't actually either. Because, really, there's no other option here. You started a thread specifically about this system, not everything else you teach at your academy, and I've asked about it only… which seems to have highlighted a range of issues in the background of the system… to the point that you've tried to confuse the issue by bringing in many areas that simply aren't related (what your training approach is, what other arts you teach and train, what your focus is), and going to that old stalwart of a non-argument of "well, what does it matter, what I does works!".

None of that is anything I asked about. If you feel it is, please quote and highlight my question where I asked about such things.



Matt Bryers said:


> We're just different and don't care about the same things.
> 
> Thanks.



It's more than that… it's that we're coming from completely different perspectives and understandings of these things.

That said, I do feel we got off on the wrong foot… it came across to me that you felt I was denigrating your system and your school (and, by extension, yourself), which is not the reality at all… in fact, I've said that it looks like a good, solid school, and that I have no issue with what you're doing, as well as pointing out that it not being traditional, or Japanese ins't a slight at all… all in all, I've made 5 or 6 positive comments about what you do (from what I've seen)… the only thing I've asked about is the history. I would ask you to look back over the thread to confirm that, if you have any doubts.



MJS said:


> Me personally, I've trained at Matt's school for a while (not currently) and he's a good guy. He's very passionate about his school, the arts he does, and the quality of his students.



Mike, I've never suggested otherwise.



MJS said:


> Given the fact that there is A LOT of BS out there, it's nice to actually see some quality stuff being taught!



Here's where we get into the issues, though… define "BS" being taught… is it just sub-par methodologies, or is it also to do with false claims and misrepresentation? I haven't had any issues with Matt's methodologies… I have, however, questioned the representation and claims of what exactly the art is.



MJS said:


> I'm sure Matt doesn't need me running to his defense as his replies were just fine,



That's the thing, Mike, the answers weren't "fine"… they were unrelated to the questions that were being asked.



MJS said:


> however, as a friend, I do feel obligated to say something.  I'd hate to see him get run off the forum, by people harping on small things such as lineage.  He posted that...not sure what more there is to say.



Is lineage a small issue? Really? So, if someone with absolutely no connection to any BJJ system, but instead watched a bit of UFC, and did 6 months of karate, made the claim that they were a Gracie black belt, as they were a good naturally gifted fighter, that'd be fine because they could fight?

Lineage is not a small issue. BudoSeek Martial Arts Community - The Importance of Paper



MJS said:


> As for the arts core being about fighting....I agree with that.  All of the other stuff, ie: personal development, etc, is all side bar stuff.  It's like saying you train to lose weight.  That's a load of crap.  Join a gym.  Losing weight is a side bar benefit of the actual purpose...to learn how to defend yourself.



Yeah, again, it's an individual thing, and also down to the system itself. Bluntly, the idea that "martial arts are about fighting" is firstly a flawed concept (as, as I've said many times before, "fighting ain't fighting"… there are many different contexts and forms of fighting, and different arts will deal with different approaches and contexts themselves), and secondly, largely said by those who do modern, dominantly eclectic systems, as well as sporting ones. From my perspective, it's an amateur and beginner mindset that's being expressed there.

The other thing I'd point out is that I'm not talking about the persons' reasons for training… that might indeed be "to learn to fight", "self defence", or anything else… I'm talking about the actual arts themselves. And no, at their core, many arts aren't really about "fighting"… that's just how they give you what they're actually about. If you choose to argue that, please explain to me how Kyudo is "about fighting"… explain to me Katori Shinto Ryu's dictate to members not to engage in any type of fighting… 



MJS said:


> Hang in there Matt.  Despite stuff like this, this forum really is a good place.
> 
> Mike



I'll second that I hope Matt sticks around… I feel he can add a lot of value in a number of areas. But I do also feel that this isn't a "poor example" of the forum, and what can happen here… I don't feel that anything I've asked is out of line, or inappropriate. But hey, you have my contact details if you want to bring anything up with me privately, here or on FB.



kuniggety said:


> Martial - pertaining to war/combat/struggle. Art - human expression or skill not otherwise designated as a science. People come to various "martial arts" for a variety of reasons but let's not confuse what martial arts are. If someone implies martial arts are anything different than what they are then maybe they're using the wrong choice of words. What Matt here is doing is doing, ie his school is doing, is synthesizing a variety of martial arts in effort to create an effective modern combat system. That sounds like it fits the bill to me.



The question of what Matt's doing isn't an issue… yeah, it really does come across as a modern, Western synthesis of a number of different systems… the question is whether it is what it's presented as ("traditional, deep roots in Japanese Jujutsu" etc). 



kuniggety said:


> I have to question anytime someone states matter of factly what is traditional Japanese. My first question is always how much time they've actually lived in Japan and not just read books/watched movies on them.



If you want to question them, the question isn't "how much time has been spent in Japan", it's "how much time has been spent in traditional Japanese arts"… which is a bit different. I know of a number who have been in Japan for years, but not exposed to any real understanding of traditional Japanese arts… and a number who have never been who have a very good understanding of such.



kuniggety said:


> Traditions in Japan last just as long as they do in the US, UK, etc. Ie until someone decides to change them. The "traditional Japanese arts" are just as muddled, cross-bred, and morphed as any "modern" art.



Yeah… I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

One more point, this one for Steve.

Steve, you "disagreed" with my post number 10? Can I ask what exactly you disagreed with? I mean… that post was commenting that Matt didn't actually answer what I was asking… so if you could let me know what exactly you disagreed with, it'd be interesting… I mean, the entire post consisted of my pointing out that my questions weren't answered, and clarifying my take on "traditional"… I really can't see how that can be disagreed with… PM is fine, if you want.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Mike, I've never suggested otherwise.



OK.





> Here's where we get into the issues, though… define "BS" being taught… is it just sub-par methodologies, or is it also to do with false claims and misrepresentation? I haven't had any issues with Matt's methodologies… I have, however, questioned the representation and claims of what exactly the art is.



Really? LOL, I think it's safe to say that we both know what I'm talking about, but for the sake of discussion: let's see...mcdojo's, people who make up their own art, people who claim multiple high ranks in multiple arts, people claiming no touch KO's.  I mean really Chris, all it takes is a look through some old threads on this forum and a search on you tube, and, well, you know what I mean.  





> That's the thing, Mike, the answers weren't "fine"… they were unrelated to the questions that were being asked.



OK.  Well, Matt apparently thought they were fine, I thought they were fine, but apparently they weren't. 





> Is lineage a small issue? Really? So, if someone with absolutely no connection to any BJJ system, but instead watched a bit of UFC, and did 6 months of karate, made the claim that they were a Gracie black belt, as they were a good naturally gifted fighter, that'd be fine because they could fight?
> 
> Lineage is not a small issue. BudoSeek Martial Arts Community - The Importance of Paper



LOL, actually we need to look no further than the Buj itself. We both know all the controversy that revolves around that art.  Yet those same people that train it, swear that all is legit.  My point, and probably Matt's point too, is that sure it is important, but harping on it like what's happening here?  That proves what? 





> Yeah, again, it's an individual thing, and also down to the system itself. Bluntly, the idea that "martial arts are about fighting" is firstly a flawed concept (as, as I've said many times before, "fighting ain't fighting"… there are many different contexts and forms of fighting, and different arts will deal with different approaches and contexts themselves), and secondly, largely said by those who do modern, dominantly eclectic systems, as well as sporting ones. From my perspective, it's an amateur and beginner mindset that's being expressed there.
> 
> The other thing I'd point out is that I'm not talking about the persons' reasons for training… that might indeed be "to learn to fight", "self defence", or anything else… I'm talking about the actual arts themselves. And no, at their core, many arts aren't really about "fighting"… that's just how they give you what they're actually about. If you choose to argue that, please explain to me how Kyudo is "about fighting"… explain to me Katori Shinto Ryu's dictate to members not to engage in any type of fighting…



Ky d - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hey, I wasn't even thought of when that art was around.  Did it serve a purpose back then?  Maybe.  Does it serve one today?  Some things are done simply to honor tradition.  But who is going to fight with a bow and arrow today? 






> I'll second that I hope Matt sticks around… I feel he can add a lot of value in a number of areas. But I do also feel that this isn't a "poor example" of the forum, and what can happen here… I don't feel that anything I've asked is out of line, or inappropriate. But hey, you have my contact details if you want to bring anything up with me privately, here or on FB.



OK.


----------



## Buka

Good stuff there, Matt, thanks for that vid.


----------



## Matt Bryers

No way in hell I'm reading all that.  From skimming:

Yes I care, I explained before, just not my focus.  What I teach I am sure is vastly different than previous "generations".  But still using the "framework" of JJJ. 
Yes lineage is important, I posted my lineage above, but have trained with many MMA fighters / grapplers who are extremely talented, but would have no clue where their art came from.  So if you're using lineage as your way to "validate yourself".  Cool.  I'd rather prove it.
I still don't see a relevant question.

If your ultimate question is "Is Kobukai Ju-Jitsu" a traditional Japanese Martial Art that was practiced in the Samurai ages.... then no.  But I'm glad it's not!  I tried in many different Jiu-Jitsu schools before KJJ and KJJ was the only one where I experienced students and instructors that knew their stuff.  

Lastly, you state that you have no issue with me, but it comes off quite different.  You sound very arrogant, and like you're trying to prove something.  Kinda annoying.  

In this particular thread, I am done having a discussion with you.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Oops, forgot Drop Bear. 

Here's one from December. You'll see me on the left (starting the camera). 

Also, check on the nice slam off the wall by our wrestling coach about a minute in.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Not necessarily sparring,  but a 2 vs 1 drill we do in Defence Lab (I'm the one getting hit). Plus, I just think the gopro makes it look cool!


----------



## Steve

Chris, I disagreed because I thought Matt answered your questions and you said he didn't.  You didn't like his answer, which is not the same thing.  Once again, I think some consideration regarding opinions and facts would be helpful.  

Must I agree with everything you write?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Drose427

Matt Bryers said:


> Not necessarily sparring,  but a 2 vs 1 drill we do in Defence Lab (I'm the one getting hit). Plus, I just think the gopro makes it look cool!



Hey matt, I loved the stuff in your other two vids and some of the drills you're talking about doing, but this one confused me a little. Whats the actual point? To just learn how to optimize your guard and movement so as to not get pummeled to much? Or was there more to the drill that just got cut off by the Go pro? I'm only asking because when we've done 2 v 1 at me school, be it for our SD or our free sparring we teach to step out and start throwing punches/kicks/etc. so you're basically able to block the second guy with goon #1 until either help arrives or you knock out the first guy. Obviously the quick KO is the goal, but things tend to not go as planned in SD lol 

 But we're a striking style, so our methodology is gonna be pretty different. I was just curious as to what the point of that drill in that video because it looked like you just took a beating, but it was also only 30 seconds long lol


----------



## Matt Bryers

Yea the point is really to learn to "optimize your guard" and for me to have fun with the gopro  

We do this for beginners to get comfortable getting hit and realizing that you can defend yourself against a barrage of strikes. 

But it's just fun too! 

Our sparring in DL is similar to MMA, but also against multiple opponents. I don't have any video of that yet.


----------



## Buka

Hey, Matt, how easy is that GoPro to get used to?

And is there a particular model of GoPro you're using? I know nothing about them, but I'm seriously thinking of getting one - just for dojo stuff.


----------



## Matt Bryers

I'm a huge fan of it. Very easy to use. I have the hero 3+ so I can use my phone as a remote and viewer. Great to mount on the wall, on a person, or just on a tripod.


----------



## Brian King

Sounds like your students are lucky to have you sharing your experience, passion, and methods. Sounds like a good program. Welcome to Martial Talk. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## jks9199

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

MartialTalk has a strict policy on fraudbusting in order to prevent heated discussions like has happened here.  We welcome and encourage civil and positive discussion of different arts and their history, but must insist on mutual respect in those discussions, but neither MartialTalk nor its Staff or members are in a position to serve as arbiter of other arts.

jks9199
Administrator


----------



## Transk53

Well I for one have enjoyed Matt's vids. I eagerly await a series I hope


----------



## Matt Bryers

Transk53 said:


> Well I for one have enjoyed Matt's vids. I eagerly await a series I hope


 Cool to hear! Myself and my team have been working on something for 9 months. We're hoping to release the first part in early February.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Brian King said:


> Sounds like your students are lucky to have you sharing your experience, passion, and methods. Sounds like a good program. Welcome to Martial Talk.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


Thanks Brian!


----------



## drop bear

Matt Bryers said:


> Oops, forgot Drop Bear.
> 
> Here's one from December. You'll see me on the left (starting the camera).
> 
> Also, check on the nice slam off the wall by our wrestling coach about a minute in.



by the way i am going to use this vid the next time someone mentions that in sparring you only have to worry about the guy in front of you.


----------



## drop bear

I did catch that slam by the way. And the dirty beck crank knee ride finish.

We are are very different in style. It would be interesting to try yours out. If you ever hit Australia. Pop in.


----------



## Matt Bryers

I teach a very brutal, simplest and creative style. The way I fight maybe vastly different than my students, but with experience, they test and develop their own "style" .  Yet we're all still doing Jiu-Jitsu / martial arts and studying the art of combat. 

It's truly amazing to watch them... Evolve. 

Side note, that was a knee on belly "ride" to the solar plexus. Our BJJ coach, Formiga, does it to all of us. It's so simple, and you think it shouldn't work because... Who actually submits to a knee on belly.... But it's quite brutal and effective.


----------



## drop bear

Matt Bryers said:


> I teach a very brutal, simplest and creative style. The way I fight maybe vastly different than my students, but with experience, they test and develop their own "style" .  Yet we're all still doing Jiu-Jitsu / martial arts and studying the art of combat.
> 
> It's truly amazing to watch them... Evolve.
> 
> Side note, that was a knee on belly "ride" to the solar plexus. Our BJJ coach, Formiga, does it to all of us. It's so simple, and you think it shouldn't work because... Who actually submits to a knee on belly.... But it's quite brutal and effective.



we are very mma stand up wrestle,scramble.

I havve had it done to me and it is the balls. Even if I do defend it it just sucks the life out of me.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Ah very nice! 

And yes, "sucks the life out of you"  is a great way to describe it.


----------



## Transk53

Matt Bryers said:


> Side note, that was a knee on belly "ride" to the solar plexus. Our BJJ coach, Formiga, does it to all of us. It's so simple, and you think it shouldn't work because... Who actually submits to a knee on belly.... But it's quite brutal and effective.



Sounds like something a Klingon would do. Knee to the solar plexus. Sorry I am not up on BJJ terminology. "Knee on belly ride" Figure of speech, or an actual technique?


----------



## kuniggety

Knee on belly is actually a very descriptively named technique. It's used more in gi than no-gi but you're on top of someone and have one of your shins across the belly of the person below you. If you want to bring the pressure on (which is already there), you bring your leg up a bit to the solar plexus. When you've got someone 10kg+ more than you doing this to you, it's one of the most uncomfortable positions ever to try to fight/defend from.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Transk53 said:


> Sounds like something a Klingon would do. Knee to the solar plexus. Sorry I am not up on BJJ terminology. "Knee on belly ride" Figure of speech, or an actual technique?









The standard variation is actually more "shin across waist" than knee on belly. The knee on solar plexus variation mentioned above is meaner, but less stable.


----------



## Transk53

kuniggety said:


> Knee on belly is actually a very descriptively named technique. It's used more in gi than no-gi but you're on top of someone and have one of your shins across the belly of the person below you. If you want to bring the pressure on (which is already there), you bring your leg up a bit to the solar plexus. When you've got someone 10kg+ more than you doing this to you, it's one of the most uncomfortable positions ever to try to fight/defend from.



Yeah sounds it. Someone of my weight would be very uncomfortable. Thanks for the info


----------



## Transk53

Tony Dismukes said:


> The standard variation is actually more "shin across waist" than knee on belly. The knee on solar plexus variation mentioned above is meaner, but less stable.



I take it because he only has one leg stabilizing his posture. Which I assume if the fella below manages to manoeuvre to the left, he would him off balance? Just wondering if fella whom is pinned, could he effectively throw that right knee into the shoulder region and knock off balance. Just curious as how much pressure is being applied on the hold?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Transk53 said:


> Which I assume if the fella below manages to manoeuvre to the left, he would him off balance?



Many of the escapes do involve shrimping away from the top person while inserting some sort of frame to keep the opponent from following. The top person won't usually be thrown very far off balance, though. It's a very mobile position and the top person can easily transition to standing or to side control.



Transk53 said:


> Just wondering if fella whom is pinned, could he effectively throw that right knee into the shoulder region and knock off balance.



I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about the bottom person using his _own_ right  knee to throw his opponent off balance or shoving his _opponent's_ knee? There are difficulties either way.



Transk53 said:


> Just curious as how much pressure is being applied on the hold?



Depending on how big the top person is and how he uses his/her weight it can range from mildly uncomfortable* to "oh my god, make it stop!" Some of the meaner variations** sacrifice a certain degree of stability and mobility in exchange for making the opponent suffer more.

*(Bear in mind that once you've been grappling for a while, your notion of what qualifies as "mildly uncomfortable" may evolve.)

**(If you want to be _really_ mean, there's always "knee on neck" and "knee on jaw." These positions will not make you popular with your sparring partners. Discretion is advised.)


----------



## Matt Bryers

Tony Dismukes said:


> Depending on how big the top person is and how he uses his/her weight it can range from mildly uncomfortable* to "oh my god, make it stop!" Some of the meaner variations** sacrifice a certain degree of stability and mobility in exchange for making the opponent suffer more.



That's the key right there. The ability to use your weight and pinpoint that weight into your knee makes it extremely uncomfortable.

The knee on belly  position is one I use all the time due to its mobility and the response it produces in your opponent.


----------



## Transk53

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about the bottom person using his _own_ right knee to throw his opponent off balance or shoving his _opponent's_ knee? There are difficulties either way.



I did indeed. That is what I meant by pinned. I thought the guy on the bottom could launch his knee into the fella on top


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Transk53 said:


> I did indeed. That is what I meant by pinned. I thought the guy on the bottom could launch his knee into the fella on top



Not very effectively in most cases. The bottom guy has his hips pinned to the floor and the top guys pinning shin is already very close to the bottom guys hip, so all you can usually get is a very weak bump with the top of your thigh.


----------



## Transk53

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not very effectively in most cases. The bottom guy has his hips pinned to the floor and the top guys pinning shin is already very close to the bottom guys hip, so all you can usually get is a very weak bump with the top of your thigh.



Right, yeah get it. I discounted the other guys leg for some reason.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Many of the escapes do involve shrimping away from the top person while inserting some sort of frame to keep the opponent from following. The top person won't usually be thrown very far off balance, though. It's a very mobile position and the top person can easily transition to standing or to side control.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about the bottom person using his _own_ right  knee to throw his opponent off balance or shoving his _opponent's_ knee? There are difficulties either way.
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on how big the top person is and how he uses his/her weight it can range from mildly uncomfortable* to "oh my god, make it stop!" Some of the meaner variations** sacrifice a certain degree of stability and mobility in exchange for making the opponent suffer more.
> 
> *(Bear in mind that once you've been grappling for a while, your notion of what qualifies as "mildly uncomfortable" may evolve.)
> 
> **(If you want to be _really_ mean, there's always "knee on neck" and "knee on jaw." These positions will not make you popular with your sparring partners. Discretion is advised.)



we had a wrestling coach knee on everything one of our guys for a five minute set as a lesson not to be a duchebag. He made the guy cry.


----------



## drop bear

Matt Bryers said:


> That's the key right there. The ability to use your weight and pinpoint that weight into your knee makes it extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> The knee on belly  position is one I use all the time due to its mobility and the response it produces in your opponent. View attachment 19166View attachment 19167



Yep.. That is the knee on belly face.


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, back after some internet issues… and there's a few things I'd like to clarify.



MJS said:


> Really? LOL, I think it's safe to say that we both know what I'm talking about, but for the sake of discussion: let's see...mcdojo's, *people who make up their own art*, people who claim multiple high ranks in multiple arts, people claiming no touch KO's.  I mean really Chris, all it takes is a look through some old threads on this forum and a search on you tube, and, well, you know what I mean.



Then let's look at the bolded form of "BS", yeah? That's really where some of this is coming from. Now, to be clear, creating an evolving system, as Matt is doing, isn't an issue in and of itself… it's when certain claims are made that are patently false, or inaccurate.



MJS said:


> OK.  Well, Matt apparently thought they were fine, I thought they were fine, but apparently they weren't.



I'm going to address this more with Steve's post in a bit, but no, Matt's answers weren't "fine". The only way that they can be seen to be fine is to not understand the questions I asked, or to not actually read the two posts (my questions and his "answers") next to each other. This isn't a "difference of opinion" situation.



MJS said:


> LOL, actually we need to look no further than the Buj itself. We both know all the controversy that revolves around that art.  Yet those same people that train it, swear that all is legit.  My point, and probably Matt's point too, is that sure it is important, but harping on it like what's happening here?  That proves what?



The Bujinkan is an interesting case-study… if the claim is simply that Hatsumi studied under Takamatsu, then there's no controversy… even with Takamatsu himself, there is support and validation of a number of his arts, and his teachers of them… it's only some of the traditions, and one teacher of Takamatsu's, that lends the controversy, realistically… and, even there, there is some support.

But, honestly, that's fairly removed from the situation I described. And the thing is, I get Matt's point (and yours)… but it's really fairly irrelevant in this occasion. My questions were about the history and claims of the system… and I was asking the head instructor of a school for the system… saying "well, it doesn't matter" doesn't cut it, frankly.




MJS said:


> Ky d - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia





MJS said:


> Hey, I wasn't even thought of when that art was around.  Did it serve a purpose back then?  Maybe.  Does it serve one today?  Some things are done simply to honor tradition.  But who is going to fight with a bow and arrow today?



"Back then", Mike??? "When that art was around"??? Kyudo is a modern variation on older forms of Japanese archery… it was only really "formed" in 1953, when the initial maul was published… and is absolutely "still around"… it's not about "honouring tradition", you realise… and, as far as practical archery, well, that's more in line with hunting than anything else (although that's really not a consideration in Kyudo), but you might as well ask if anyone fights with an epee anymore, and if not, why have fencing in the Olympics?

But, realistically, that's kinda my point… I was using Kyudo as an example of martial arts not being "about fighting"… so… you're agreeing with me?



Matt Bryers said:


> No way in hell I'm reading all that.  From skimming:



Yeah… perhaps you should have read it properly. Once more, then?



Matt Bryers said:


> Yes I care, I explained before, just not my focus.  What I teach I am sure is vastly different than previous "generations".  But still using the "framework" of JJJ.





That's the thing, Matt… what you're teaching, from all indications, your posts, the videos, and what I've been able to find, shows that you absolutely do not use "the 'framework' of JJJ"… bluntly, I don't think you have the first idea what that would be. Your description earlier is most closely related to the basic, kihon section of some systems… which all comes well and truly before the actual "framework" of JJJ. But, really, this is not answering my question, other than to show that I was correct in my first assessment.



Matt Bryers said:


> Yes lineage is important, I posted my lineage above, but have trained with many MMA fighters / grapplers who are extremely talented, but would have no clue where their art came from.  So if you're using lineage as your way to "validate yourself".  Cool.  I'd rather prove it.





The claim is that Kobukai is traditional… and that it is a form of Japanese Jujutsu (note the spelling)… also that it has "deep roots in JJJ"… after all, it bears a "Japanese" name (after a fashion). Lineage is the only thing that matters in that regard. I don't really care what you can or can't do, that's not the point, the question, or the focus I've been looking at.



Matt Bryers said:


> I still don't see a relevant question.



Really? Look, I'm going to state them again, as clearly as I can…

The Kobukai Jujitsu system is promoted as being "traditional", as well as being either Japanese Jujutsu, or closely related to Japanese Jujutsu. All the evidence points to none of that being the case. As a result, I am asking whether or not there is anything in the history (that I haven't found through my searches) which does back up these claims? If not, why are such claims being made?

You eventually answered (partially) the name question, so I'm not rehashing that.



Matt Bryers said:


> If your ultimate question is "Is Kobukai Ju-Jitsu" a traditional Japanese Martial Art that was practiced in the Samurai ages.... then no.



Good lord, Matt, no, that is not my question. The insistence on that qualification has not been a part of any question I've asked… I even clarified that when Tony put forth the idea that that was what I was asking (if it was claiming to be Koryu… believe me, if that was your claim, it would have been blasted out of the water in seconds flat, and I would have absolutely no need to ask you for any clarification).

The question is "are the claims being made, that Kobukai Jujitsu is traditional and Japanese, or Japanese based, correct?"



Matt Bryers said:


> But I'm glad it's not!  I tried in many different Jiu-Jitsu schools before KJJ and KJJ was the only one where I experienced students and instructors that knew their stuff.



Look, to be blunt, I don't think you've ever seen anything like actual traditional Jujutsu… but even then, I don't think you'd enjoy it much. It's just too different from what you think is important, honestly. I will say, though, that I doubt that the KJJ guys are the first who "knew their stuff"… realistically, they're the first you came across who's views and perceptions matched yours, and whose approach matched what you thought it should be like. My perspective, as I'm sure you'd expect, would give quite a different appraisal.



Matt Bryers said:


> Lastly, you state that you have no issue with me, but it comes off quite different.  You sound very arrogant, and like you're trying to prove something.  Kinda annoying.



Honestly, Matt, I don't have an issue with you, and I'm not trying to prove anything. I was asking about the system you teach, as my interest is in traditional Japanese arts, and the systems they spawned… you have consistently missed the point, misunderstood the questions, failed to address what I've been talking about and asking, and more. When I've attempted to clarify, you've gotten huffy, and are now refusing to even engage? 

I'm going to put it simply. I asked about the system you're the head instructor for. If that's annoying, as you don't have the answers, or the education to understand the questions, then I suggest you take a look at what you're teaching, and how well you understand it.

Oh, and arrogant? Sure… not an uncommon comment where I'm concerned… but here's the thing… my "arrogance" is based in knowing what I'm talking about.



Matt Bryers said:


> In this particular thread, I am done having a discussion with you.



I really don't think it bodes well for the head instructor of a system to throw a fit just because they were asked some questions they didn't expect, you know… I mean… I asked about the history of your system, you answered something completely different (finishing by inviting further questions), so I clarified… at which point you started getting defensive, and a single post after that has this? Hmm… 



Steve said:


> Chris, I disagreed because I thought Matt answered your questions and you said he didn't.  You didn't like his answer, which is not the same thing.  Once again, I think some consideration regarding opinions and facts would be helpful.
> 
> Must I agree with everything you write?



It was nothing to do with not liking his answers, Steve, it was that he was answering things that bore no relation to the questions I was asking. Again, I invite you to go back to the first page and check that… I asked about the history of the system, including why it was classed (internally) as "traditional", and linked with Japanese arts, when no such link seemed apparent, as well as asking about the name itself.

Matt's response was to say that I'd already done some work on the history, so he didn't need to add to it. Uh.. yeah, actually, he did. That was the point of the question… I was saying that I'd gotten as much information as I could, and asking if he could add to it. So that's the first avoidance.

He followed that by describing other systems taught (BJJ) or that are used in the make-up and development of KJJ (BJJ, Judo, boxing, wrestling, Kyokushin, etc)… he also described what the system was made up of, but only in very general terms that denoted nothing to do with what I was asking (striking, grappling, ground work etc)… none of which was anything to do with my questions about the history, what made it "traditional", or "Japanese", or any of my questions about the name. 

In among the answer were two comments that were partially related, which really were just claims ("KJJ, like other JJJ systems"… "So….. the answer to your question is that we are a Traditional Martial Art Style that has deep roots in JJJ"), neither of which were supported by anything shown at all, and both of which were then followed by comments that showed that neither claim was correct (the description of "other Japanese Ju-jitsu [sic] styles" structure doesn't match Japanese Jujutsu systems in the main, other than at a very base level, and the follow-on from the "traditional martial art style with deep roots" was really just another case of Matt showing that tradition wasn't a part of his art, nor was any "deep root" to Japanese Jujutsu, but that what he teaches is an evolving, modern, Western eclectic system).

So no, Steve, it wasn't a case of "opinion and facts"… I asked specific questions, none of which were answered or even addressed. If you can find any part of Matts post that does address my comments and questions, please point them out. I've read and re-read his post many many times… and simply, it isn't there.

But no, you don't have to agree with everything I write… and I gotta say, this passive aggressive approach you've been taking recently is getting a little stale… but I do prefer it that you have something to actually disagree with. Disliking my post? Fine. If you're going to disagree, though, show your work.



jks9199 said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> MartialTalk has a strict policy on fraudbusting in order to prevent heated discussions like has happened here.  We welcome and encourage civil and positive discussion of different arts and their history, but must insist on mutual respect in those discussions, but neither MartialTalk nor its Staff or members are in a position to serve as arbiter of other arts.
> 
> jks9199
> Administrator



And just to further clarify… my aim is not to fraud bust. I don't consider that Matt is a fraud in any sense of the word… I think he's a dedicated teacher, striving to do the best he can for himself and his students. I do have question marks over large parts of the history of this particular system, but even that wasn't the point of my comments… realistically, I was looking for clarification of the marketing of the system, nothing more. Honestly, if Matt had simply said "You know what, we're not a traditional system, we're not a Japanese one, we're a modern Western system, we just have that as part of our marketing", that would have been fine… of course, he continued to insist that it was traditional… and had "deep roots to JJJ"… which, to be clear, is absolutely not the case. And, to ensure that I'm not misunderstood here again, there is nothing wrong with being a modern, eclectic, Western system… provided claims aren't made to the contrary.


----------



## Steve

Chris, the answers were there, even though you can't or won't see them.  I appreciate that you explained your train of thought.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> It was nothing to do with not liking his answers, Steve, it was that he was answering things that bore no relation to the questions I was asking. {Snipped out the extra bits}


Chris, I'll explain a little further.  Having read through Mike's posts, it seems to me that he tried to answer your questions, and when you began your usual alpha dog BS (where you attempt to establish yourself as the de facto expert on pretty much everything to any new poster), he let you know in a firm but friendly manner that he isn't interested in engaging in it with you.  I think he handled you very well.  He answered your questions to the extent that he could, and then told you very clearly that he was finished.  You continued hounding him, and so he politely asked you to knock it off.  Every one of these is an answer to you.  Some are direct and some are indirect, but they are all answers.  This ties in neatly to the last part of this post, as well.  





> So no, Steve, it wasn't a case of "opinion and facts"… I asked specific questions, none of which were answered or even addressed. If you can find any part of Matts post that does address my comments and questions, please point them out. I've read and re-read his post many many times… and simply, it isn't there.


The answers are there.  They don't answer you in the manner you would like.  If you understood that, you'd stop asking the same questions again and insisting on a different answer.  





> But no, you don't have to agree with everything I write…


Well, thanks, Chris.  I appreciate that.  





> and I gotta say, this passive aggressive approach you've been taking recently is getting a little stale… but I do prefer it that you have something to actually disagree with.


Other than the personal dig, Chris, I honestly don't understand what you're driving at...  prefer that I have something to disagree with?  I'm pretty sure that when I disagree with someone around here, they know it.  

Personally, hounding someone for answers to questions after they have made it very clear that they are finished answering them, and acting as though it's not rude... that's what I would call passive aggressive.  The whole, "Hey friend, haha.  I'm not busting your balls or anything.  Just having a friendly interrogation... i mean chat.  But, I'm going to ask that you take an hour to read my novella of a post, and then respond to each point.  And if you don't, to my satisfaction, I will continue to harangue you until I am quite done, whether you like it or not."  That's what I would call passive aggressive.  But, that's just my opinion.





> Disliking my post? Fine. If you're going to disagree, though, show your work.


Can you point me to the section of the ToS that requires that I or anyone else respond to you in precisely the manner you demand?  I can't seem to find it.  You don't get to tell people how to respond to you.

Above, I mentioned that it ties well into the last part.  This is the part.   The real takeaway here is that if you are consistently failing to get the answers you demand (whether it's to demand that I 'show my work' or demand that someone else answer your questions to your satisfaction), perhaps you should consider whether that in itself is your answer and you're just not getting it.



Chris Parker said:


> And just to further clarify… my aim is not to fraud bust. I don't consider that Matt is a fraud in any sense of the word… I think he's a dedicated teacher, striving to do the best he can for himself and his students. I do have question marks over large parts of the history of this particular system, but even that wasn't the point of my comments… realistically, I was looking for clarification of the marketing of the system, nothing more. Honestly, if Matt had simply said *"You know what, we're not a traditional system, we're not a Japanese one, we're a modern Western system, we just have that as part of our marketing",* that would have been fine… of course, he continued to insist that it was traditional… and had "deep roots to JJJ"… which, to be clear, is absolutely not the case. And, to ensure that I'm not misunderstood here again, there is nothing wrong with being a modern, eclectic, Western system… provided claims aren't made to the contrary.


I forgot this part.  I can't see much  difference between your required answer in bold above and this: 


Matt Bryers said:


> Ahhhh I see.  Then no, we are definitely not traditional.


You're a little more wordy, but otherwise, isn't Matt saying functionally what you are insisting he should have said???


----------



## tshadowchaser

Folks disagreeing is fine but can we keep it on the friendly side of disagreeing


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, back after some internet issues… and there's a few things I'd like to clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's look at the bolded form of "BS", yeah? That's really where some of this is coming from. Now, to be clear, creating an evolving system, as Matt is doing, isn't an issue in and of itself… it's when certain claims are made that are patently false, or inaccurate.



Hmm...I think that you know very well what I mean Chris, but somehow I can't help but to think that you're twisting my words a bit.  You've been on these forums long enough, and have been around the Martial Arts world long enough to know what I mean.  We've seen some rather 'interesting' folks, for lack of better words, come on here, touting their 'art', which turns out, to, well...be quite a joke.  But if we think about it, many arts have been created, by folks, who have mixed legit arts together.  Hell, BJJ came from Judo, no?  Kajukenbo came from a mix or arts, yet it's a devastating and well respected art, that's been proven.  





> I'm going to address this more with Steve's post in a bit, but no, Matt's answers weren't "fine". The only way that they can be seen to be fine is to not understand the questions I asked, or to not actually read the two posts (my questions and his "answers") next to each other. This isn't a "difference of opinion" situation.



OK, to each their own then.  We'll agree to disagree. 





> The Bujinkan is an interesting case-study… if the claim is simply that Hatsumi studied under Takamatsu, then there's no controversy… even with Takamatsu himself, there is support and validation of a number of his arts, and his teachers of them… it's only some of the traditions, and one teacher of Takamatsu's, that lends the controversy, realistically… and, even there, there is some support.
> 
> But, honestly, that's fairly removed from the situation I described. And the thing is, I get Matt's point (and yours)… but it's really fairly irrelevant in this occasion. My questions were about the history and claims of the system… and I was asking the head instructor of a school for the system… saying "well, it doesn't matter" doesn't cut it, frankly.



OK




> "Back then", Mike??? "When that art was around"??? Kyudo is a modern variation on older forms of Japanese archery… it was only really "formed" in 1953, when the initial maul was published… and is absolutely "still around"… it's not about "honouring tradition", you realise… and, as far as practical archery, well, that's more in line with hunting than anything else (although that's really not a consideration in Kyudo), but you might as well ask if anyone fights with an epee anymore, and if not, why have fencing in the Olympics?
> 
> But, realistically, that's kinda my point… I was using Kyudo as an example of martial arts not being "about fighting"… so… you're agreeing with me?



Yes, back then.  This question was sparked by something that you said...that the purpose of some arts, was not fighting, you pointed to Kyudo.  I made a comment that sure, some things are done for the sake of a tradition.  It's no different than training sword or bo.  Nobody today, walks around with either.  Sure, can you say that you could grab a broom and use it as a bo?  Sure, but odds are, in many circumstances, a broom isn't going to be available.  So....technically, you're (not YOU, just a figure of speech) training weapons that really have no purpose...other than tradition.  Wearing a gi or uniform specific to an art, is also the same thing, considering that nobody walks around outside of the dojo/training hall/gym, wearing one.  Yet how many people do you actually see in a typical MA school, training in street clothes...you know...clothes that you'll probably be wearing daily?  

My point to all of this:  No, IMHO, Kyudo is not about fighting.  Of course, nothing says that a modern bow hunter of today, has to train Kyudo in order to hunt deer with a bow.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I for one am very happy that Matt is here and look forward to hearing more about his system and events that will be happening at his school!


----------



## Drose427

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I for one am very happy that Matt is here and look forward to hearing more about his system and events that will be happening at his school!



Same here! Really liked the drills I saw with his students!


----------



## Buka

I'll second that. Or third that, actually.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Thanks guys!  I'm happy to be here too! 

I don't think Chris is too happy.... but you can't win them all!  LOL!


----------



## Instructor

I would also like to express my support and encouragement to Matt Bryers and his efforts.  To my eyes it looks like a fine program.


----------



## Hanzou

Welcome to the boards Matt. Love the vid. Looks like a high quality school.


----------



## Chester Wright

Very cool! Would definitely like to see more videos.


----------

