# Wing Chun vs MMA



## abe_tz

What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.


----------



## Steve

One martial art isn't better than another.


----------



## JP3

What is MMA, actually?

Let's say I "mixed" up my own version of "Eclectic-Do," in which I snagged cool-looking stuff from Tai Chi, Aikido and Wushu Kung Fu.  That's a Mixed Martial Art, right?

And my evil twin, 3PJ dialed-up his own, wherein he stole stuff from Kenpo, Muay Thai and Savate. Another Mixed Martial Art, right?

Which one is better?

What if I also said that I trained one day out of 5, wherein evil twin guy trained 2 hours a day, worked with hard core sparring partners, etc?

He'd be better, right? So... is it the Mixture, or the guy?  You tell me.


----------



## abe_tz

JP3 said:


> What is MMA, actually?
> 
> Let's say I "mixed" up my own version of "Eclectic-Do," in which I snagged cool-looking stuff from Tai Chi, Aikido and Wushu Kung Fu.  That's a Mixed Martial Art, right?
> 
> And my evil twin, 3PJ dialed-up his own, wherein he stole stuff from Kenpo, Muay Thai and Savate. Another Mixed Martial Art, right?
> 
> Which one is better?
> 
> What if I also said that I trained one day out of 5, wherein evil twin guy trained 2 hours a day, worked with hard core sparring partners, etc?
> 
> He'd be better, right? So... is it the Mixture, or the guy?  You tell me.


fighters of same level. conventional mma that includes brazilian ju jitsu, muay thai, boxing, etc.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

So UFC fighting, not mixed martial arts
The answer is still: it depends on the situation. If they're both at the same level, that means that they are both equal in a fight based on what they've learned, so it would depend on whether a situation suits itself better to "conventional MMA' or Wing chun. This isn't the answer your looking for, but it's the only truthful answer. Now if you wanted to ask what advantages there are to practicing wing chun I'm sure some people could answer that, but there is generally no X style is better than Y style simple answer to these questions.


----------



## Hanzou

Several Wing Chun organizations have adjusted themselves in order to cope with MMA.

MMA doesn't care about Wing Chun.

That should tell you all you need to know.


----------



## JP3

Hanzou said:


> Several Wing Chun organizations have adjusted themselves in order to cope with MMA.
> 
> MMA doesn't care about Wing Chun.
> 
> That should tell you all you need to know.



Really? I can't believe you actually wrote that. You are probably serious, too, right? No, don't answer that.

What is there to "cope with" in MMA, and by MMA I am assuming that you mean the UFC rules for fighting as (as I set out above) there really is no single MMA.  Striking? I think the WC guys/gals can deal with that. Takedowns? Take a bit of Judo or BJJ and that's handled.  What is there to cope with?It's all the same, it's about who, not what.


----------



## Hanzou

JP3 said:


> Really? I can't believe you actually wrote that. You are probably serious, too, right? No, don't answer that.
> 
> What is there to "cope with" in MMA, and by MMA I am assuming that you mean the UFC rules for fighting as (as I set out above) there really is no single MMA.  Striking? I think the WC guys/gals can deal with that. Takedowns? Take a bit of Judo or BJJ and that's handled.  What is there to cope with?It's all the same, it's about who, not what.



You've seriously not aware of WC "anti-grappling" and other training methods developed to specifically deal with MMA fighters?

Conversely, I have yet to attend a MMA session where we deal with how to stop a WC practitioner from knocking us out.

And clearly it is about what, since you're not seeing WC guys entering NHB competitions and doing well. I mean, if all styles are equal, than we should see equal representation of styles. However we don't see that. Instead, we see people from same handful of styles over and over again.


----------



## Spinoza

Both can and have been effectively used for self defense. Pick the one that you can find good instruction for and are willing to commit to, because that is the best one for (your) self defense. Until then, carry pepper spray if you are really worried about self defense. No one's style matters if you empty a can of that in someone's face.


----------



## Spinoza

Hanzou said:


> You've seriously not aware of WC "anti-grappling" and other training methods developed to specifically deal with MMA fighters?


I haven't. Did WC not have anti-grappling methods before then? They've developed new anti-grappling training in response to modern MMA? 



> And clearly it is about what, since you're not seeing WC guys entering NHB competitions and doing well. I mean, if all styles are equal, than we should see equal representation of styles. However we don't see that. Instead, we see people from same handful of styles over and over again.


Has WC not had representation in lei tai matches? I haven't checked to be sure, but I'd be very surprised if that were true.


----------



## lklawson

abe_tz said:


> What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.


Hojutsu.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog

abe_tz said:


> What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.



Chic-Chic-BANG.

One martial art is not better than another. Doesn't really matter in the least if you don't like that fact, it remains a fact.
Life is not that black and white. Get over it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> MMA doesn't care about Wing Chun...


Not only WC, MMA also doesn't care about long fist, Baji, praying mantis, Taiji, XingYi, Bagua, .... The term "style" has no meaning for MMA as long as you know how to use tools such as:

- jab, cross, uppercut, hook, back fist, hammer fist, ...
- straight elbow, downward elbow, upward elbow, backward elbow, ...
- front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, ...
- upward knee, side knee, flying knee, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, head long, spine lock, ...
- hip throw, shoulder throw, single leg, double legs, foot sweep, ...
- arm bar, leg bar, neck choke, side mount, missionary mount, 69 mount, ...

The main concern is which MA style (or styles) can provide you with such tools.


----------



## Danny T

Maybe you don't know of any but I know several with wing chun knowledge. And they do use some within there MMA performances. They do just as boxers turned MMA, wrestlers turned MMA, BJJers turned MMA...etc have done. They train other aspects of the sport fight game. Today how many pure wrestlers do you see in MMA? Or pure any other martial art in MMA especially in the high level events?
I love how when some fighters use Filipino style infighting it isn't called Panantukan or Suntukan which is where much of it came from it is call dirty boxing. When a fighter throws a round house type of kick contacting with the shin it is Muay Thai even though the fighter doesn't train muay thai. Some one latches onto another's neck and shoulder and drive a knee they are using the thai knees.
Jon Jones uses the wing chun bil gee a lot. A lot of fighters use the mon sao... the lead hand reaching out to make contact with the opponent. The so called oblique kick named by Joe Rogan (because he didn't know where it came from) is out of wing chun and is also seen in Savate as well even a lot of BJJ players use it. How about Anderson Silvia who began training and adding wing chun to his tool box? No wing chun isn't in MMA sports but a lot of wing chun techniques are.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> You've seriously not aware of WC "anti-grappling" and other training methods developed to specifically deal with MMA fighters?
> 
> Conversely, I have yet to attend a MMA session where we deal with how to stop a WC practitioner from knocking us out.
> 
> And clearly it is about what, since you're not seeing WC guys entering NHB competitions and doing well. I mean, if all styles are equal, than we should see equal representation of styles. However we don't see that. Instead, we see people from same handful of styles over and over again.



So you're implying that training MMA is better than training Wing Chun if you want to compete in MMA. I think so too.

I also think that an MMA stylist would do poorly in a Wing Chun grading test.

However, those two statements don't mean anything regarding the question in the OP which is 'which one would help me the most for self defence?'.

Btw it's weird to hear that WC guys are 'now developing anti grappling techniques'. It's difficult to believe that in the seemingly long story of Wing Chun no instructor ever thought to himself 'what do I do if I ever get grappled/tackled'. The UFC is indeed a blessing, no man ever would have thought about grappling/takedowns before. Don't listen to the haters, though, they'll say it's judo.


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> So you're implying that training MMA is better than training Wing Chun if you want to compete in MMA. I think so too.
> 
> I also think that an MMA stylist would do poorly in a Wing Chun grading test.
> 
> However, those two statements don't mean anything regarding the question in the OP which is 'which one would help me the most for self defence?'.
> 
> Btw it's weird to hear that WC guys are 'now developing anti grappling techniques'. It's difficult to believe that in the seemingly long story of Wing Chun no instructor ever thought to himself 'what do I do if I ever get grappled/tackled'. The UFC is indeed a blessing, no man ever would have thought about grappling/takedowns before. Don't listen to the haters, though, they'll say it's judo.


okay, let's not get too crazy here.   have you seen the ridiculous "anti grappling" that some WC guys are marketing?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

O'Malley said:


> It's difficult to believe that in the seemingly long story of Wing Chun no instructor ever thought to himself 'what do I do if I ever get grappled/tackled'.


The Chinese wrestling is popular in the northern part of China. It's not popular in the southern part of China. When the WC style was created, to use WC to fight against wrestler might not be a major consideration back then.

If you want to learn the

- striking art, you may choice WC.
- grappling art, you may not choice WC. You may not even choice long fist, Baji, praying mantis, ... Any striking art is always weak in grappling, that's a fact.


----------



## Tez3

Why double threads, you don't have to post the same thread twice.


----------



## O'Malley

@Steve: I've not seen them but if they've been recently 'developed' with the sole purpose of being more appealing to clients yeah there are good chances that they are ridiculous. I'm not sure how representative of the art they are, though.

@Wang: I understand. I've never said that WC was strong in grappling though.

My point was that it would be strange if, at any point of its history, no one ever tackled any of the 'big names' of WC or one of their students. I agree that they didn't train with the primary focus of dealing with grappling but it doesn't mean that they've never considered getting taken down and that they've never come up with a countermeasure. I've seen angry kids and untrained adults do 'takedowns', it makes sense that WC offers some kind of countermeasure for these situations (although its developers probably did not have in mind judo/bjj's sophisticated take on groundfighting).


----------



## lklawson

Danny T said:


> I love how when some fighters use Filipino style infighting it isn't called Panantukan or Suntukan which is where much of it came from it is call dirty boxing.


Umm... Boxing used to have trips, throws, a lock or two, a couple of chokes, backfists, hammer-fists, spinning-backfists, hair pulling, eye-gouging, rabbit punches, an "accidental" kick or two, and even a few of what could be called "vital point" or "pressure point" attacks, you know this, right?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

O'Malley said:


> @Steve: I've not seen them but if they've been recently 'developed' with the sole purpose of being more appealing to clients yeah there are good chances that they are ridiculous. I'm not sure how representative of the art they are, though.


I've been watching this exact debate, in particular the Wing Chun vs "grappling," since the mid-1990's, quite literally.  So, call it roughly *TWO BLASTED DECADES* of the same stupid debate.  Frankly, it was about that time that I started seeing WC "anti-grappling" techniques and they ranged anywhere from "might work sometimes if the grappler isn't too skilled" at the best, all the way down to "completely idiotic."  Wing Chun at the time, at least as was popularly taught in the U.S., did not have effective ground-wrestling skills nor effective skills to prevent take-downs.  It did seem to have other elements of what could be called "standing grappling," most notably the trapping stuff including pak sao, lop sao, etc.  How "effective" those are for "fighting" is a different debate.  However, it is my experience that, at the time, WC in the U.S. simply did not include an effective skill set to counter the skill set of BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Shuai Jiao, and similar arts which include a strong focus on take-downs and ground-grappling.  To address these "deficiencies," many people promoting WC in the U.S. included something that they thought would counter take-down attempts and it was generally labeled "anti-grappling." 



> My point was that it would be strange if, at any point of its history, no one ever tackled any of the 'big names' of WC or one of their students.


At the height of the debate there were several highly published "challenge" matches, and even a few WC vs WC type matches which were video recorded.  Speaking as someone with grappling, take-down, throwing, and ground-fighting experience, none of them showed any particularly notable skill.  Most of them showed skills in that area which are easily exceeded by a teenage Judoka with about 1.5 years of training.  Further, Internet video was becoming popular and many "big names" started uploading their "anti-grappling" solutions intended to counter take-down and throws.  Again, the vast majority of them were unworkable but had the appearance of something that might work if the viewer were not an initiate to take-downs, throws, etc.  The most common one was some variation of an elbow to the back or a rabbit punch to the neck during a wrestling style "shoot."  A few of them were "punch him in the face, that's sure to stop anyone."  There is also a problem of semantics and actual technique.  By that I mean, that no one with ground-grappling training or take-down training uses what is commonly called a "tackle" as you just referred to it.  It works well in American Football but not so well in grappling arts.  However, the uninitiated to grappling are often simply unable to discern the difference between a "tackle" and a "shoot" while the difference between them are starkly obvious to a someone with grappling training.

So, speaking as someone who's been watching this stupid debate for 20 years now, while it does indeed seem strange that no one in WC had ever thought of how to fight a "wrastler," the available evidence does, in fact, seem to lead to that conclusion.



> I agree that they didn't train with the primary focus of dealing with grappling but it doesn't mean that they've never considered getting taken down and that they've never come up with a countermeasure.


The "countermeasure" which I've seen being taught by WC instructors simply won't work against someone with training in an art which teaches takedowns.  At best, being charitable, they might work against someone who's sole training in take-downs & grappling was watching WWE.



> I've seen angry kids and untrained adults do 'takedowns', it makes sense that WC offers some kind of countermeasure for these situations


I don't know what you've seen, but it is my experience that anyone who is untrained in a physical art is even close to the skill level and technique of someone who is trained in it.



> (although its developers probably did not have in mind judo/bjj's sophisticated take on groundfighting).


Or Shuai Jiao?

My experience watching this debate for 20 years is that there will now follow a debate or argument about whether or not "sophisticated grappling" is a threat "in streetfights" to be concerned with, whether grappling training is "any good for streetfights," and we may see something about gravel, broken glass, HIV infected needles, and lava.

Gads, this debate is like the martial arts version of a musical ear-worm.  It just won't go away and keeps replaying itself over and over again.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3

I think there should be a ban on X versus Y threads or else just have one sticky where those that wish to have the style v style arguments can chunter away to their hearts content.


----------



## Danny T

lklawson said:


> Umm... Boxing used to have trips, throws, a lock or two, a couple of chokes, backfists, hammer-fists, spinning-backfists, hair pulling, eye-gouging, rabbit punches, an "accidental" kick or two, and even a few of what could be called "vital point" or "pressure point" attacks, you know this, right?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Yeap. But generally isn't taught in boxing today. Sure you see some holding and punching or back hand punching from time to time and in the clinch the shoulder, elbow, and even head butting by those pressing the limits of the rules. 

There are a lot of people in MMA who do some training in FMA specifically for these infighting 'dirty boxing' aspects where it isn't dirty it is what they do and is allowed in MMA.


----------



## lklawson

Danny T said:


> Yeap. But generally isn't taught in boxing today.


True.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Danny T said:


> Jon Jones uses the wing chun bil gee a lot.



Well, it's technically against the rules and he gets called out for being a dirty fighter, but I guess until a ref actually DQs him he'll keep using it.

(I have no idea if Jones got the idea from Wing Chun or JKD or elsewhere, but I do admit that it looks kind of bil gee-ish.)


----------



## Danny T

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, it's technically against the rules and he gets called out for being a dirty fighter, but I guess until a ref actually DQs him he'll keep using it.
> 
> (I have no idea if Jones got the idea from Wing Chun or JKD or elsewhere, but I do admit that it looks kind of bil gee-ish.)


With Jones, it is a tactic. Everyone knows it is against the rules and everyone knows it can happen accidentally and everyone knows with Jones 'It Will Happen'. Why because it happens with every one of his opponents every one. In the circles I associate with we make bets as to when during the fight he will do so.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, it's technically against the rules and he gets called out for being a dirty fighter, but I guess until a ref actually DQs him he'll keep using it.
> 
> (I have no idea if Jones got the idea from Wing Chun or JKD or elsewhere, but I do admit that it looks kind of bil gee-ish.)


I bet he got the idea from the Robert Downey Jr. interview on the Late Show with David Letterman.  Look it up; it's hilarious.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I think there should be a ban on X versus Y threads or else just have one sticky where those that wish to have the style v style arguments can chunter away to their hearts content.



Can i get a ban on threads i am not interested in as well? 

I supose we could just engage in conversation we are interested in.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, it's technically against the rules and he gets called out for being a dirty fighter, but I guess until a ref actually DQs him he'll keep using it.
> 
> (I have no idea if Jones got the idea from Wing Chun or JKD or elsewhere, but I do admit that it looks kind of bil gee-ish.)



Plenty of chun ideas in mma.  They even vertical fist now.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

As someone who is unfamiliar with wing chun, can someone please explain what bil gee is?


----------



## Steve

My man, robert Downey Jr., talks about in at length with David letterman at 3:28 of this video.   Pretty funny, too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

kempodisciple said:


> As someone who is unfamiliar with wing chun, can someone please explain what bil gee is?


"标指(Biao Gee)" is the 3rd form of the WC system. In that form, you train how to use the finger tips to attack.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Ok, thank you


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "标指(Biao Gee)" is the 3rd form of the WC system. In that form, you train how to use the finger tips to attack.


Uhh... Yes and No.
3rd empty hand form - yes
We learn to use the finger tips to attack in training in the 1st form.

Biu Jee is thrusting fingers. Often used as finger jabs to the eyes. (like Jon Jones)


----------



## Tez3

Far be it for me to stir here but this is a  duplicate thread of one on the WC section only the posters there said their thread was better because they are wittier and cleverer. Just thought you should know ROFL.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> I haven't. Did WC not have anti-grappling methods before then?



The type of grappling common in MMA? Nope.



> They've developed new anti-grappling training in response to modern MMA?



Yep, and it's pretty damn embarrassing.



> Has WC not had representation in lei tai matches? I haven't checked to be sure, but I'd be very surprised if that were true.



Well if that is the case, what happened to their participation in recent decades?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> Far be it for me to stir here but this is a  duplicate thread of one on the WC section only the posters there said their thread was better because they are wittier and cleverer. Just thought you should know ROFL.


Which is better, "Wing Chun vs MMA" in the Wing Chun forum or "Wing Chun vs MMA" in the General Self Defense forum? Please no comments about how one thread is not better than another.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> So you're implying that training MMA is better than training Wing Chun if you want to compete in MMA. I think so too.
> 
> I also think that an MMA stylist would do poorly in a Wing Chun grading test.



The thing is that "training MMA" differs based on the person doing it, and a lot of it depends on their core styles. There should be no reason why a Wing Chun stylist couldn't come into MMA and do well, since Wing Chun is supposed to be a "complete martial art". I wouldn't expect someone who practices Muay Thai and Wrestling to do well at a Wing Chun grading test, but I would expect a Wing Chun exponent to be able to fight against another trained martial artist in a competition with rules since nothing in the MMA ruleset works against Wing Chun.



> However, those two statements don't mean anything regarding the question in the OP which is 'which one would help me the most for self defense?'.



Well frankly I find the arts that tend to work towards MMA to be a bit more upfront and honest than the more traditional MAs that avoid MMA completely. For example, if you go to a Muay Thai gym and ask them about grappling, they'll tell you to cross train at a grappling school. You ask that in a traditional MA school, you'll probably learn some nonsensical anti-grappling that will get your face planted into the concrete.



> Btw it's weird to hear that WC guys are 'now developing anti grappling techniques'. It's difficult to believe that in the seemingly long story of Wing Chun no instructor ever thought to himself 'what do I do if I ever get grappled/tackled'. The UFC is indeed a blessing, no man ever would have thought about grappling/takedowns before. Don't listen to the haters, though, they'll say it's judo.



Look up Wing Chun/Ving Tsun anti-grappling on the web. They're recent additions to the art, but a few of the instructors outright lied about their origin claiming that they've always been part of the art, completely embarrassing themselves in the process. However, WC is hardly the only TMA who is guilty of this, so what can you do?


----------



## Spinoza

Hanzou said:


> The type of grappling common in MMA? Nope.


Well, as far as my own personal observation goes, I'd have to ask a WC practitioner and a modern grappling MMA practitioner.



> Well if that is the case, what happened to their participation in recent decades?


I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if that should be an ultimate determination of its application in self defense. MMA competitions, as much as I may enjoy them, are prone to popular trends in MA styles. Trends which (9 times out of 10) will have nothing to do with self defense applications.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> Well, as far as my own personal observation goes, I'd have to ask a WC practitioner and a modern grappling MMA practitioner.



If WC natively contained it, you wouldn't need stuff like this added to it;








> I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if that should be an ultimate determination of its application in self defense. MMA competitions, as much as I may enjoy them, are prone to popular trends in MA styles. Trends which (9 times out of 10) will have nothing to do with self defense applications.



The "popular trends" have been in place for the better part of 20 years. Even longer than that when you include Vale Tudo's history.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> Well, as far as my own personal observation goes, I'd have to ask a WC practitioner and a modern grappling MMA practitioner.
> 
> I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if that should be an ultimate determination of its application in self defense. MMA competitions, as much as I may enjoy them, are prone to popular trends in MA styles. Trends which (9 times out of 10) will have nothing to do with self defense applications.







I would have a go at the scrapping portion of that competition.(obviously I can't kata to save myself) There does not look anything I do would really restrict my ability to do that. Striking skills are fairly consistent across context.

Including self defence.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Well frankly I find the arts that tend to work towards MMA to be a bit more upfront and honest than the more traditional MAs that avoid MMA completely.





Hanzou said:


> You ask that in a traditional MA school, you'll probably learn some nonsensical anti-grappling that will get your face planted into the concrete.



Like I've said before, you need to get out more.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I would have a go at the scrapping portion of that competition.(obviously I can't kata to save myself)


The sparring doesn't look much like kickboxing.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> I think there should be a ban on X versus Y threads or else just have one sticky where those that wish to have the style v style arguments can chunter away to their hearts content.


Maybe we should have a Wing Chun versus Aikido thread, really give people something to talk about.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> The sparring doesn't look much like kickboxing.



Dosent have to.


----------



## Finlay

To get back to the OP question

Often when people ask about comparing styles for self defence people end up talking about style vs style as above.

This is not self defence this is a match.

In truth both and many styles bring something to the table.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Dosent have to


It is a common complaint that traditional martial art styles begin to look like kickboxing when they spar.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> It is a common complaint that traditional martial art styles begin to look like kickboxing when they spar.



Because kicboxing is the most efficient way to fight. (Sort of) But you want to go in there and do the hokey pokey dance by all means go nuts.

Otherwise similar concepts overlap.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> It is a common complaint that traditional martial art styles begin to look like kickboxing when they spar.



or to be more accurate kickboxing looks like karate when they begin to spar. After all, that's where kick boxing has it's roots.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Because kicboxing is the most efficient way to fight.


Then why does it take up to 15 minutes for a fight to end?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Then why does it take up to 15 minutes for a fight to end?



Because the other guy can also fight so he has better defence.


----------



## Spinoza

Hanzou said:


> If WC natively contained it, you wouldn't need stuff like this added to it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "popular trends" have been in place for the better part of 20 years. Even longer than that when you include Vale Tudo's history.


And the lei tai, where I'm sure WCers have competed against other martial artists, has been going on far longer than that. But again, that's sport fighting. I'm not saying it isn't valuable for self-defense, but it is very unlikely that your self defense is ever going to depend on whether you studied WC or MMA. Style vs style  is like the gun folks who constantly fight over 9mm vs 45.


----------



## Phobius

Lets all use examples of a guy selling videos to people for money as an example of what the art considers proper groundfighting. Especially for an art that in all truth lacks a ground game. (The later being my opinion)

We bring in BJJ as part of ground game because we find it matching our concepts. Not because it is part of our style but because our style lacks something and then we better learn from those who know it best.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Lets all use examples of a guy selling videos to people for money as an example of what the art considers proper groundfighting. Especially for an art that in all truth lacks a ground game. (The later being my opinion)
> 
> We bring in BJJ as part of ground game because we find it matching our concepts. Not because it is part of our style but because our style lacks something and then we better learn from those who know it best.



I was going to bring up the concepts idea.  As it gets put out a bit.

I think matching concepts can create the baggage that you find in the anti grapple.

Bjj for example mostly dosent do this doubtful when say pulling a move from wrestling or something even considers it.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> But again, that's sport fighting. I'm not saying it isn't valuable for self-defense, but it is very unlikely that your self defense is ever going to depend on whether you studied WC or MMA. Style vs style  is like the gun folks who constantly fight over 9mm vs 45.



Typically if someone is asking this question, they're asking which MA will make them a better fighter. If we have a martial art that the vast majority of professional fighters pick up because it makes them a better fighters, versus a martial art that almost no fighters pick up because it doesn't make them a better fighter, then the choice should be clear.


----------



## O'Malley

You're lumping self defence and MMA under the same word (i.e. fighting) but those are two different activities. The guys you see in the ring are professional athletes that take the skills they need to win the match, which is a different goal from self defence. Some skills might overlap but they still are completely different activities. 

You don't see many Krav Maga, Silat or Sistema stylists in MMA. However, those styles are widely used by the military or security guards who are also 'professional fighters'. Different goals, different tools.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> You're lumping self defence and MMA under the same word (i.e. fighting) but those are two different activities. The guys you see in the ring are professional athletes that take the skills they need to win the match, which is a different goal from self defence. Some skills might overlap but they still are completely different activities.
> 
> You don't see many Krav Maga, Silat or Sistema stylists in MMA. However, those styles are widely used by the military or security guards who are also 'professional fighters'. Different goals, different tools.



And you see MMA being used by militaries as well, particularly the US military. Additionally, plenty of security guards and body guard train in MMA-based martial arts.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> And you see MMA being used by militaries as well, particularly the US military. Additionally, plenty of security guards and body guard train in MMA-based martial arts.



This point is irrelevant,

Several other martial arts are implemented by militaries, police, security, etc.  It's incredibly common, even MCMAP admits to taking styles you've shown distaste for.

Not to mention MMA fighters and trainers in general tend to pull from those styles themselves.


----------



## crazydiamond

Bruce Lee figured this all out over 50 years ago WC was lacking, so he brought in Judo, western boxing and other martial arts on top of WC to create JKD. This was later expanded further with even more mixed martial arts by Dan Inosanto. This is why JKD is superior to WC and JKD Concepts superior to old JKD - the more MMA the better.    Wait - I think I have branched off into two separate debates and disrespects in one post. Maybe three


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Because kicboxing is the most efficient way to fight. (Sort of) But you want to go in there and do the hokey pokey dance by all means go nuts.
> 
> Otherwise similar concepts overlap.



Just about every kickboxing style has ties to TMA's  I have no idea why people think the two have to be mutually exclusive.

Not to mention there arent usually many differences anyways , depending on your school/style.

Just TMA's without the forms in a nutshell


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> This point is irrelevant,



I know, which is why I didn't bring it up.


----------



## Steve

One thing to note here.   When people here comment on MMA, there is a tendency to say things like "professional athletes" and "elite level conditioning."   While this is certainly true in the ufc, there are many people who train in MMA who are not professional athletes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Because kicboxing is the most efficient way to fight.


- When both you and your opponent have right leg forward, the moment that your opponent switches sides and changes his left side forward, the moment that your back leg roundhouse kick kicks out at his belly.
- When your opponent moves in toward you, you use your low roundhouse kick to hit on his upper leg to interrupt his forward movement.

There are some effective strategies that are used in kickboxing and MMA that are not addressed in most of the TMA.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> I was going to bring up the concepts idea.  As it gets put out a bit.
> 
> I think matching concepts can create the baggage that you find in the anti grapple.
> 
> Bjj for example mostly dosent do this doubtful when say pulling a move from wrestling or something even considers it.



The problem with the video is that someone is trying to take something from for example BJJ and change it to match WC. Instead take something that can be integrated well with your style in its current shape and youre better off.

Why change BJJ, it is already in itself changing and adapting to be the best at its game. Beliving you can make a better ground fighting game without doing proper groundfighting is arrogant and stupid. So I say, as training WC, that BJJ for me works well together with WC in its own shape. Of course with less focus on gi so no, I would not consider myself equal or close to a black belt BJJ practitioner, not that I would come close to thinking that any way.

Might however some day go and study BJJ for more long term. There however are not enough hours of the day.

Of course my school is pro mixing the way Bruce Lee said. Cant say MMA given it now is an art in itself and no longer a concept.

All these versuses threads are silly. No two people are equal. And you can only be better if you train and continue to train something.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - When both you and your opponent have right leg forward, the moment that your opponent switches sides and changes his left side forward, the moment that your back leg roundhouse kick kicks out at his belly.
> - When your opponent moves in toward you, you use your low roundhouse kick to hit on his upper leg to interrupt his forward movement.
> 
> There are some effective strategies that are used in kickboxing and MMA *that are not addressed in most of the TMA*.



What makes you think that?
The moves you describe aren't confined to kick boxing, that's also karate. Kick boxing isn't a unique style, where do you think the techniques come from? Kick boxing is a derivative of full contact karate.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> The problem with the video is that someone is trying to take something from for example BJJ and change it to match WC. Instead take something that can be integrated well with your style in its current shape and youre better off.
> 
> Why change BJJ, it is already in itself changing and adapting to be the best at its game. Beliving you can make a better ground fighting game without doing proper groundfighting is arrogant and stupid. So I say, as training WC, that BJJ for me works well together with WC in its own shape. Of course with less focus on gi so no, I would not consider myself equal or close to a black belt BJJ practitioner, not that I would come close to thinking that any way.
> 
> Might however some day go and study BJJ for more long term. There however are not enough hours of the day.
> 
> Of course my school is pro mixing the way Bruce Lee said. Cant say MMA given it now is an art in itself and no longer a concept.
> 
> All these versuses threads are silly. No two people are equal. And you can only be better if you train and continue to train something.




Wait. It is not the verses thread it is the people discussing it.

(See what I did there)

But you can match up wing chun and mma and see where they sit in a general sort of way. The concepts of one will be weak to the concepts of the other. Now you can either get hurt,ignore it or do something bout it.

If you classically chain punch your way into a guy using forward pressure you are asking to be double legged. You are basically doing everything a grappler wants you to do.

It seems reasonable to be aware of this. So that you can make a tactical shift and use other methods.

Mma constantly addresses what is a conflict within its own style in that you have to expose a weakness.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - When both you and your opponent have right leg forward, the moment that your opponent switches sides and changes his left side forward, the moment that your back leg roundhouse kick kicks out at his belly.
> - When your opponent moves in toward you, you use your low roundhouse kick to hit on his upper leg to interrupt his forward movement.
> 
> There are some effective strategies that are used in kickboxing and MMA that are not addressed in most of the TMA.



There are more people sharing and testing strategys now. So all martial arts are being exposed to different concepts.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> If you classically chain punch your way into a guy using forward pressure you are asking to be double legged. You are basically doing everything a grappler wants you to do.



Except chain punch is not a technique. It is just a way to teach you to not halt your attack if the first one hits but to keep punching until the guy can no longer breath.

Do not trust what you see on YouTube. Guys running forward while chain punching are shmucks (sp?).


----------



## Spinoza

Hanzou said:


> Typically if someone is asking this question, they're asking which MA will make them a better fighter. If we have a martial art that the vast majority of professional fighters pick up because it makes them a better fighters, versus a martial art that almost no fighters pick up because it doesn't make them a better fighter, then the choice should be clear.


If that is what he meant to ask, then he didn't ask the right question. I don't doubt that practicing MMA is extremely useful for self defense. I _do_ doubt that the measure of an art's effectiveness in realistic self defense scenarios is determined by prolonged sport fighting with other martial artists on a mat with padded gloves and a ref. Whether or not you intentionally take the fight to the ground, for example, will mean different considerations for each scenario.


----------



## Hanzou

Despite the fact that MMA is "sport fighting", sport fighting is quite a bit more applicable to the concepts present in traditional MAs like Wing Chun.

For example, if someone punches or kicks you, is it better that you got punched and kicked consistently in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never sparred?

If someone tries to tackle or wrestle you to the ground, is it better that you learned take down defense in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never dealt with those concepts?

If someone knocks you to the ground and gets on top of you, is it better that you learned how to escape ground positions/learned ground fighting in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never went over it?

If you're fighting with someone and have to take them out quickly, is it better that you learned chokes from a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never taught it?

Additionally, if you have to fight for a long time in a SD scenario, is it not better that in a MMA gym you're trained to fight for multiple rounds of constant fighting over a WC gym where that simply isn't encouraged?

These are all things that should be considered.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Except chain punch is not a technique. It is just a way to teach you to not halt your attack if the first one hits but to keep punching until the guy can no longer breath.
> 
> Do not trust what you see on YouTube. Guys running forward while chain punching are shmucks (sp?).



But someone is obviously doing it. Because  we do see it on YouTube. So we can use the comparison of mma vs chun here to identify why they are schmucks.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> If that is what he meant to ask, then he didn't ask the right question. I don't doubt that practicing MMA is extremely useful for self defense. I _do_ doubt that the measure of an art's effectiveness in realistic self defense scenarios is determined by prolonged sport fighting with other martial artists on a mat with padded gloves and a ref. Whether or not you intentionally take the fight to the ground, for example, will mean different considerations for each scenario.



What is the mesure of self defence then?


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> But someone is obviously doing it. Because  we do see it on YouTube. So we can use the comparison of mma vs chun here to identify why they are schmucks.



There are guys doing a lot of things on YouTube, does not mean it is smart. To believe that you should follow their examples or to think their examples are proof would just serve as a negative remark on your own intelligence.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Despite the fact that MMA is "sport fighting", sport fighting is quite a bit more applicable to the concepts present in traditional MAs like Wing Chun.
> 
> For example, if someone punches or kicks you, is it better that you got punched and kicked consistently in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never sparred?
> 
> If someone tries to tackle or wrestle you to the ground, is it better that you learned take down defense in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never dealt with those concepts?
> 
> If someone knocks you to the ground and gets on top of you, is it better that you learned how to escape ground positions/learned ground fighting in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never went over it?
> 
> If you're fighting with someone and have to take them out quickly, is it better that you learned chokes from a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never taught it?
> 
> Additionally, if you have to fight for a long time in a SD scenario, is it not better that in a MMA gym you're trained to fight for multiple rounds of constant fighting over a WC gym where that simply isn't encouraged?
> 
> These are all things that should be considered.


I would agree mostly and that would also be MMA vs any other martial art that doesn't do any sparring or tackling or whatever.
What do you think about the many MMA gyms that are exercise gyms, more like tae bo mma than mma training. They have mma classes with no contact or sparring? Heavy bag punching, some pad work. Groundwork movement drills with grappling dummies.

During the holidays I was ask to be a guest MMA instructor at a UFC Gym in an adjacent town. No partner work, no thai pad work, no clinch work unless it could be performed on a heavy bag and absolutely no sparring. for groundwork they had numerous grappling dummies to do drills on.
"Oh you don't want Muay Thai or MMA you just want a bag class?"
"This is our MMA training"

These people aren't going to have anything very applicable as well. 

We have a very good relationship with another UFC Gym in another town about 60 miles away, I've taught there, their fighters come to us to spar and our fighters go there to spar as well. But this one gym appears to be just a workout gym even though they advertise Boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ training. I've encounter a couple of other MMA gyms that are nothing but exercise gyms. If I'm seeing them there are surely a lot more out there.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> What is the mesure of self defence then?


My preference is for real world applications. We can argue all we want about whether or not karate/WC/[insert whatever style you like here] is effective for self defense, but if people have used it effectively for self defense, then it is effective for self defense as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> I would agree mostly and that would also be MMA vs any other martial art that doesn't do any sparring or tackling or whatever.
> What do you think about the many MMA gyms that are exercise gyms, more like tae bo mma than mma training. They have mma classes with no contact or sparring? Heavy bag punching, some pad work. Groundwork movement drills with grappling dummies.
> 
> During the holidays I was ask to be a guest MMA instructor at a UFC Gym in an adjacent town. No partner work, no thai pad work, no clinch work unless it could be performed on a heavy bag and absolutely no sparring. for groundwork they had numerous grappling dummies to do drills on.
> "Oh you don't want Muay Thai or MMA you just want a bag class?"
> "This is our MMA training"
> 
> These people aren't going to have anything very applicable as well.
> 
> We have a very good relationship with another UFC Gym in another town about 60 miles away, I've taught there, their fighters come to us to spar and our fighters go there to spar as well. But this one gym appears to be just a workout gym even though they advertise Boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ training. I've encounter a couple of other MMA gyms that are nothing but exercise gyms. If I'm seeing them there are surely a lot more out there.



On the fighting side of things, yeah they're not going to get much out of that. In terms of fitness and exercise, they'll probably get a great deal, but when the rubber hits the road, they're going to be in a lot of trouble. 

I think you're going to see more of that because a lot of people simply don't like to fight, even if its just practice. There's not a lot of professionals who don't want to go to work on Monday with black eyes or scars on their face. Even in my Bjj school where no one is actually going to get (seriously) hurt, there's a small but solid amount of people who never roll. Since they don't roll, their skills stagnate, they get smashed a few times in drills, and they eventually end up leaving Bjj completely. 

My fear is that we're going to eventually have a watering down of the sport, and people get stripes and belts despite never rolling to get them. I know Ryron and Rener Gracie are already preaching the nonsense that you shouldn't roll until you're a blue belt. The very idea makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> On the fighting side of things, yeah they're not going to get much out of that. In terms of fitness and exercise, they'll probably get a great deal, but when the rubber hits the road, they're going to be in a lot of trouble.
> 
> I think you're going to see more of that because a lot of people simply don't like to fight, even if its just practice. There's not a lot of professionals who don't want to go to work on Monday with black eyes or scars on their face. Even in my Bjj school where no one is actually going to get (seriously) hurt, there's a small but solid amount of people who never roll. Since they don't roll, their skills stagnate, they get smashed a few times in drills, and they eventually end up leaving Bjj completely.
> 
> My fear is that we're going to eventually have a watering down of the sport, and people get stripes and belts despite never rolling to get them. I know Ryron and Rener Gracie are already preaching the nonsense that you shouldn't roll until you're a blue belt. The very idea makes me want to vomit.


It is happening, has been for several years. Gyms can not make it with just fighters so the programs are redesigned for the general public. Make it fun, make it exciting, make it family oriented, make it for the kids and parents will pay.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> My preference is for real world applications. We can argue all we want about whether or not karate/WC/[insert whatever style you like here] is effective for self defense, but if people have used it effectively for self defense, then it is effective for self defense as far as I'm concerned.



Ok.  How do you mesure that?

I mean this comes up a lot.  You do a fight and someone says not a test for self defence because rules and gloves.  But rarely does anyone come up with a decent alternative


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> What makes you think that?
> The moves you describe aren't confined to kick boxing, that's also karate. Kick boxing isn't a unique style, where do you think the techniques come from? Kick boxing is a derivative of full contact karate.



Yet mma is not a derivative of bjj?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> On the fighting side of things, yeah they're not going to get much out of that. In terms of fitness and exercise, they'll probably get a great deal, but when the rubber hits the road, they're going to be in a lot of trouble.
> 
> I think you're going to see more of that because a lot of people simply don't like to fight, even if its just practice. There's not a lot of professionals who don't want to go to work on Monday with black eyes or scars on their face. Even in my Bjj school where no one is actually going to get (seriously) hurt, there's a small but solid amount of people who never roll. Since they don't roll, their skills stagnate, they get smashed a few times in drills, and they eventually end up leaving Bjj completely.
> 
> My fear is that we're going to eventually have a watering down of the sport, and people get stripes and belts despite never rolling to get them. I know Ryron and Rener Gracie are already preaching the nonsense that you shouldn't roll until you're a blue belt. The very idea makes me want to vomit.



It is not so much the hobbiests that water down the sport.  It is the hobbiests that think they have the same ability as the fighters where things get weird. 

Having to change reality to save egos.


----------



## kuniggety

Danny T said:


> I would agree mostly and that would also be MMA vs any other martial art that doesn't do any sparring or tackling or whatever.
> What do you think about the many MMA gyms that are exercise gyms, more like tae bo mma than mma training. They have mma classes with no contact or sparring? Heavy bag punching, some pad work. Groundwork movement drills with grappling dummies.
> 
> During the holidays I was ask to be a guest MMA instructor at a UFC Gym in an adjacent town. No partner work, no thai pad work, no clinch work unless it could be performed on a heavy bag and absolutely no sparring. for groundwork they had numerous grappling dummies to do drills on.
> "Oh you don't want Muay Thai or MMA you just want a bag class?"
> "This is our MMA training"
> 
> These people aren't going to have anything very applicable as well.
> 
> We have a very good relationship with another UFC Gym in another town about 60 miles away, I've taught there, their fighters come to us to spar and our fighters go there to spar as well. But this one gym appears to be just a workout gym even though they advertise Boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ training. I've encounter a couple of other MMA gyms that are nothing but exercise gyms. If I'm seeing them there are surely a lot more out there.



I think one of the problems with the UFC gyms is the difference of signature vs franchise gyms. With signature gyms, you're more likely assured to get quality instruction. With franchise gyms, it's whatever/whoever the franchise wants to offer. I recently started learning from Jay Penn at the Waikele BJ Penn UFC Signature gym with Leandro Nyza as the head instructor and running the Honolulu gym. Then you have the famous incident (a couple of years ago now I think) of a franchise having a fake BB as their head instructor. I still haven't taken any of the striking classes yet though. From my understanding is that it depends on the "level" of the program offered. Level 1 is technique/fitness oriented, level 2 being more about sparring, and level 3 being fully comprehensive in what they teach.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> Ok.  How do you mesure that?
> 
> I mean this comes up a lot.  You do a fight and someone says not a test for self defence because rules and gloves.  But rarely does anyone come up with a decent alternative



The only legitimate way would be to consistently find yourself in self defence situations. As it is realistically difficult to realise on purpose (except by living a life where you often get attacked and giving up on common sense maybe?) you could alternatively pick up fights in the streets (kajukenbo actually developed with that method) but it would already be quite different from a real self defence situation (regarding distance, awareness of the threat, mindset or goals). Oh and it's kind of illegal.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> Ok.  How do you mesure that?
> 
> I mean this comes up a lot.  You do a fight and someone says not a test for self defence because rules and gloves.  But rarely does anyone come up with a decent alternative


Personally, I don't think there is an adequate test for comparing styles in realistic self defense situations. The best style is the one that you are able to find good instruction in and which you are willing to commit the time to learn. The chances of you needing your martial arts training in a self defense situation are rather small -- smaller still is the chance that you will need to defend yourself against another well-trained martial artist.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Danny T said:


> I would agree mostly and that would also be MMA vs any other martial art that doesn't do any sparring or tackling or whatever.
> What do you think about the many MMA gyms that are exercise gyms, more like tae bo mma than mma training. They have mma classes with no contact or sparring? Heavy bag punching, some pad work. Groundwork movement drills with grappling dummies.
> 
> During the holidays I was ask to be a guest MMA instructor at a UFC Gym in an adjacent town. No partner work, no thai pad work, no clinch work unless it could be performed on a heavy bag and absolutely no sparring. for groundwork they had numerous grappling dummies to do drills on.
> "Oh you don't want Muay Thai or MMA you just want a bag class?"
> "This is our MMA training"


Well, that's pretty horrifying. I hope that's not as widespread as you seem to imply with "many." I've certainly never come across it.


----------



## lklawson

Spinoza said:


> My preference is for real world applications.


Oh.

In that case: Defensive Training Solutions

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## O'Malley

Pretty useless in countries where carrying a weapon is prohibited (i.e. in Belgium even pepper sprays are outlawed and if you carry a knife you have to be damn convincing as to why you didn't leave it at home).


----------



## Danny T

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, that's pretty horrifying. I hope that's not as widespread as you seem to imply with "many." I've certainly never come across it.


There are even organizations that provide MMA Workout Coach certifications one can get. I've even seen several articles for Home MMA Training for those who find the cost of a MMA Gym membership to expensive. These are exercise programs of bag work, body weight strength and flexibility work, some weight type training, and ground dummy exercises advertised as MMA Training or MMA Workouts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Danny T said:


> There are even organizations that provide MMA Workout Coach certifications one can get. I've even seen several articles for Home MMA Training for those who find the cost of a MMA Gym membership to expensive. These are exercise programs of bag work, body weight strength and flexibility work, some weight type training, and ground dummy exercises advertised as MMA Training or MMA Workouts.


----------



## lklawson

O'Malley said:


> Pretty useless in countries where carrying a weapon is prohibited (i.e. in Belgium even pepper sprays are outlawed and if you carry a knife you have to be damn convincing as to why you didn't leave it at home).


I guess it's a good thing that 1) They're not based in Belgium 2) They offer other stuff too.

There's a reason that I am familiar with that particular establishment.  I got my Rifle Instructor certification through them and I was recently contacted to help expand their program to include non-firearm methods, particularly those which are legal in their AOO.  

I'll probably do it, but a lot of it depends on how much personal time I can shunt to the program.


----------



## O'Malley

Fair enough, I was just pointing out the fact that in some places you cannot carry guns (or weapons of any type) so that the answer you gave wasn't always appropriate. Good luck for your project!


----------



## lklawson

O'Malley said:


> Fair enough, I was just pointing out the fact that in some places you cannot carry guns (or weapons of any type) so that the answer you gave wasn't always appropriate.


Yeah, I know because we've gotten bit with that many times before here on MT.  However, Spinoza is in the general area of Austin, Texas, U.S.A.   If not, I probably wouldn't have posted the suggestion, or at the very least would have been a bit more jestful, such as when I referenced Hojutsu (which, by the by, is apparently offered at Defense Training Solutions, a fact which I did not know until recently   ).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> The only legitimate way would be to consistently find yourself in self defence situations. As it is realistically difficult to realise on purpose (except by living a life where you often get attacked and giving up on common sense maybe?) you could alternatively pick up fights in the streets (kajukenbo actually developed with that method) but it would already be quite different from a real self defence situation (regarding distance, awareness of the threat, mindset or goals). Oh and it's kind of illegal.



Wasn't it kajukenbo one of the guys who got knocked out in that fight quest show?


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> There are even organizations that provide MMA Workout Coach certifications one can get. I've even seen several articles for Home MMA Training for those who find the cost of a MMA Gym membership to expensive. These are exercise programs of bag work, body weight strength and flexibility work, some weight type training, and ground dummy exercises advertised as MMA Training or MMA Workouts.


I don't see the problem here.  Does anyone believe that people who train in an MMA workout program believes that they are learning to be MMA fighters?  I don't, just as I don't actually believe that anyone who trains in Tae Bo would mistake what they're doing for training to be a competitive kickboxer.   There are all kinds of great reasons to train LIKE an MMA fighter.  I mentioned earlier in this thread that a common myth is that all MMA fighters are elite level athletes.  At the same time, the myth has an element of truth, as people who compete in MMA tend to be pretty fit.

I'm also unsure what the actual point is here.  What's the actual assertion here?  Is it that MMA workouts are a bad idea?  I don't necessarily agree, provided the goals and outcomes are made clear and there is no fraud involved.  Is it that because these MMA workouts exist (we are told), then WC anti-grappling is effective?  I don't get it.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> Wasn't it kajukenbo one of the guys who got knocked out in that fight quest show?



You're trolling, right? I feel bad for not noticing it earlier.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> I don't see the problem here.  Does anyone believe that people who train in an MMA workout program believes that they are learning to be MMA fighters?  I don't, just as I don't actually believe that anyone who trains in Tae Bo would mistake what they're doing for training to be a competitive kickboxer.   There are all kinds of great reasons to train LIKE an MMA fighter.  I mentioned earlier in this thread that a common myth is that all MMA fighters are elite level athletes.  At the same time, the myth has an element of truth, as people who compete in MMA tend to be pretty fit.
> 
> I'm also unsure what the actual point is here.  What's the actual assertion here?  Is it that MMA workouts are a bad idea?  I don't necessarily agree, provided the goals and outcomes are made clear and there is no fraud involved.  Is it that because these MMA workouts exist (we are told), then WC anti-grappling is effective?  I don't get it.


Well, Tae Bo makes it clear in the name what you are getting. If someone was to teach a Tae Bo class and call it Tae Kwon Do, that would be a problem.

If someone wants to teach a fitness class with exercises inspired by the parts of MMA training that don't involve body contact or learning actual martial arts , that's great. Just don't call it MMA.


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> I don't see the problem here.  Does anyone believe that people who train in an MMA workout program believes that they are learning to be MMA fighters?  I don't, just as I don't actually believe that anyone who trains in Tae Bo would mistake what they're doing for training to be a competitive kickboxer.   There are all kinds of great reasons to train LIKE an MMA fighter.  I mentioned earlier in this thread that a common myth is that all MMA fighters are elite level athletes.  At the same time, the myth has an element of truth, as people who compete in MMA tend to be pretty fit.
> 
> I'm also unsure what the actual point is here.  What's the actual assertion here?  Is it that MMA workouts are a bad idea?  I don't necessarily agree, provided the goals and outcomes are made clear and there is no fraud involved.  Is it that because these MMA workouts exist (we are told), then WC anti-grappling is effective?  I don't get it.


No Steve, absolutely no problem with them advertising and training as an 'Exercise' Program.
It is that they advertise they are MMA gyms than don't do MMA. They advertise and put themselves out as MMA coaches and trainers. When their programs have nothing to do with the martial arts they are simply an exercise program. No Martial Art training, just punch the bag, do some body weight exercises, so some ground n pound punching on a dummy, but they say they are doing MMA training. And believe it or not yes there are many who think they are training as a mma fighter. As my example of the gym that invited me in as a guest 'MMA Instructor' for MMA training. When I asked about what they wanted as for what to work and ageed to go I was told they wanted a good striking and ground session. It was upon arriving that I was told to do whatever bag work drills or ground drills with no contact, no sparring. They advertise as a MMA Gym and this is a their MMA Class, not a MMA Exercise Class. 

I have an MMA class also that isn't a Fighter Class but we do take-downs & throws, we do light sparring where we kick and punch each other, we do arm & leg locks, we do chokes. It is an MMA Training Class and these people know this is not fighter training. I also have a Fighter Class that is at a much greater level of sparring contact and exercising.


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> No Steve, absolutely no problem with them advertising and training as an 'Exercise' Program.
> It is that they advertise they are MMA gyms than don't do MMA. They advertise and put themselves out as MMA coaches and trainers. When their programs have nothing to do with the martial arts they are simply an exercise program. No Martial Art training, just punch the bag, do some body weight exercises, so some ground n pound punching on a dummy, but they say they are doing MMA training. And believe it or not yes there are many who think they are training as a mma fighter. As my example of the gym that invited me in as a guest 'MMA Instructor' for MMA training. When I asked about what they wanted as for what to work and ageed to go I was told they wanted a good striking and ground session. It was upon arriving that I was told to do whatever bag work drills or ground drills with no contact, no sparring. They advertise as a MMA Gym and this is a their MMA Class, not a MMA Exercise Class.
> 
> I have an MMA class also that isn't a Fighter Class but we do take-downs & throws, we do light sparring where we kick and punch each other, we do arm & leg locks, we do chokes. It is an MMA Training Class and these people know this is not fighter training. I also have a Fighter Class that is at a much greater level of sparring contact and exercising.


So, we're not talking about MMA, really.  We're talking about frauds.  Is the point that you're trying to make that these WC guys who are publishing their "anti-grappling" videos are frauds?

I hear what you're saying, I think.  I'm just not sure where you're headed. 

For what it's worth, I'm also not sure we know enough to know whether this really is a systemic issue or just some localized numbskulls in LA taking advantage of some naïve people.


----------



## Danny T

The conversation came about as a response to Hanzou stating:
_"Despite the fact that MMA is "sport fighting", sport fighting is quite a bit more applicable to the concepts present in traditional MAs like Wing Chun.

For example, if someone punches or kicks you, is it better that you got punched and kicked consistently in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never sparred?

If someone tries to tackle or wrestle you to the ground, is it better that you learned take down defense in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never dealt with those concepts?

If someone knocks you to the ground and gets on top of you, is it better that you learned how to escape ground positions/learned ground fighting in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never went over it?"_

I agreed mostly with him but what about those MMA gyms that advertised they train MMA but are actually MMA 'Exercise' gyms where they never spar either.


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> The conversation came about as a response to Hanzou stating:
> _"Despite the fact that MMA is "sport fighting", sport fighting is quite a bit more applicable to the concepts present in traditional MAs like Wing Chun.
> 
> For example, if someone punches or kicks you, is it better that you got punched and kicked consistently in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never sparred?
> 
> If someone tries to tackle or wrestle you to the ground, is it better that you learned take down defense in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never dealt with those concepts?
> 
> If someone knocks you to the ground and gets on top of you, is it better that you learned how to escape ground positions/learned ground fighting in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never went over it?"_
> 
> I agreed mostly with him but what about those MMA gyms that advertised they train MMA but are actually MMA 'Exercise' gyms where they never spar either.


ah.  Okay.  I'm tracking now.   I think we can all agree that an MMA exercise routine is unlikely to produce a lot of practical skills.   can we also agree that an MMA gym as you describe it is the exception and not the rule?


----------



## Drose427

Steve said:


> ah.  Okay.  I'm tracking now.   I think we can all agree that an MMA exercise routine is unlikely to produce a lot of practical skills.   can we also agree that an MMA gym as you describe it is the exception and not the rule?



I'd say it depends entirely on if one can do it with other systems as well.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> The conversation came about as a response to Hanzou stating:
> _"Despite the fact that MMA is "sport fighting", sport fighting is quite a bit more applicable to the concepts present in traditional MAs like Wing Chun.
> 
> For example, if someone punches or kicks you, is it better that you got punched and kicked consistently in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never sparred?
> 
> If someone tries to tackle or wrestle you to the ground, is it better that you learned take down defense in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never dealt with those concepts?
> 
> If someone knocks you to the ground and gets on top of you, is it better that you learned how to escape ground positions/learned ground fighting in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never went over it?"_
> 
> I agreed mostly with him but what about those MMA gyms that advertised they train MMA but are actually MMA 'Exercise' gyms where they never spar either.



Exept hanzous response came about from a comment that competition is not a yard stick with which to measure fighting ability. 

It was then determined an actual yardstick does not exist for practical purposes.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Exept hanzous response came about from a comment that competition is not a yard stick with which to measure fighting ability.
> 
> It was then determined an actual yardstick does not exist for practical purposes.



I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is _*A*_ yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not _*THE*_ yardstick. 

The difference is vital.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is _*A*_ yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not _*THE*_ yardstick.
> 
> The difference is vital.



While competition is certainly not the only yardstick, it's certainly a better yardstick than pseudo-science, folklore, tall tales, and outmoded concepts.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> Exept hanzous response came about from a comment that competition is not a yard stick with which to measure fighting ability.
> 
> It was then determined an actual yardstick does not exist for practical purposes.





Dirty Dog said:


> I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is _*A*_ yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not _*THE*_ yardstick.
> 
> The difference is vital.


And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self  defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self  defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.



Judo follows a similar mindset that MMA follows, hence why it's been used by several MMA fighters. We can even go a step further and point out that since Brazilian jiujitsu is a western variation of Judo, Judo is a core aspect of MMA itself.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is _*A*_ yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not _*THE*_ yardstick.
> 
> The difference is vital.


This is a great point.   What are some other metrics we can use?


----------



## Steve

Spinoza said:


> And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self  defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.


People who have trained in crossfit have successfully defended themselves.   And people who never trained in anything.   And people who train in parkour.

Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow your premise.   Both might be effective, but if the sample size is small and without controls, it's really hard to say.   

What we can say is that MMA is a very effective way to learn how to fight someone within the structure of competition against committed opponents at full speed.   And it's reasonable to presume that these skills are not forgotten when the context changes and rules don't apply.  While I can completely agree that a competition orientation could create some bad habits, the bad habits can be overcome also through training. But the skills remain well developed.   The wrestler doesn't forget his skills.   The judoka can just as easily throw you with your jacket as with a judo Gi.   And we know this because it is well demonstrated against committed opponents in a competitive context.


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> can we also agree that an MMA gym as you describe it is the exception and not the rule?


Yes we can. I didn't proclaim them to be the rule. 
I say they are already out there and there are many of them.


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> Yes we can. I didn't proclaim them to be the rule.
> I say they are already out there and there are many of them.


Yeah, okay.  But since yiu keep bringing it up, what is "many?"  Are we talking three?  Ten?  1000?


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is _*A*_ yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not _*THE*_ yardstick.
> 
> The difference is vital.



Yeah. But that kind of works both ways. Quite often the rules fighting get criticised with no alternative offered. Which was the case here.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self  defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.



Streetafying your martial arts isn't going to make you punch kick or choke any harder either. You either have solid basics that will work in both the street the gym or the arena or you don't. There are a few styles that don't translate across different environments but most of your basics do.

So OK. If you are a ripping hot sword fighter you could say your skills don't translate to a cage match. And fair enough. But if you have a cross over at all. Then the skills should be transferable.

If you take a boxer with better hand skills and challenge him to a bare knuckle match with eye pokes. The fight will still generally go to the better striker. Not the guy who has trained eye gouge specific.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> This is a great point.   What are some other metrics we can use?



How about actual fighting?
I do not compete any more. I do, sadly, get involved in more physical conflicts than I'd like. A guy threw both a phone and a punch at me this weekend. The phone missed. The punch I moved inside of and blocked his upper arm; it hit, but with no power. He ended up on the floor repeatedly saying "ouch" and "I'm sorry" and "I didn't mean it."
What I did was effective. But I do not compete and have not for years. And what I did would not have been allowed under the rules of most striking art tournies anyway.
But I could still do it, quite effectively, against a man more fit than me and 30 years younger than me. Despite never having done it in competition.

I've done it countless times in forms. But we are told by those who don't understand forms that forms can't be useful. 
I've done it many many times with cooperative and moderately resisting students during demos and teaching sessions. But we are told by those who don't understand these tools that demos and moderately resisting partners can't be useful.

Use whatever metric you like. But there are certainly plenty of people who are tired of being told that only ONE metric can possibly be used.


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> Yeah, okay.  But since yiu keep bringing it up, what is "many?"  Are we talking three?  Ten?  1000?


Well in all honesty I haven't gone out to count nor have I looked into specifically how many organizations are out there certifying MMA workout coaches. I do know of the one UFC Gym I spoke of, one in Biloxi, Ms. that a former student of mine asked me if I had heard anything about because they call themselves a MMA gym that was nothing more than a exercise gym. (I didn't go out to vet that information but I have no reason to not believe my former student). I have told by associates in Spring, Tx. of an MMA club a few blocks from them that is an exercise gym. (again I've not vetted that information). I receive several times a month offers from MMA coaching or training organizations for certification programs to become a certified MMA coach. These programs are exercising programs not MMA coaching. I also get some like MMA Conditioning Coach programs as well. If I am getting these I really don't believe I am the only one. Would a guy like me in a no where town in South La. be the only person getting these? Nah.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> How about actual fighting?
> I do not compete any more. I do, sadly, get involved in more physical conflicts than I'd like. A guy threw both a phone and a punch at me this weekend. The phone missed. The punch I moved inside of and blocked his upper arm; it hit, but with no power. He ended up on the floor repeatedly saying "ouch" and "I'm sorry" and "I didn't mean it."
> What I did was effective. But I do not compete and have not for years. And what I did would not have been allowed under the rules of most striking art tournies anyway.
> But I could still do it, quite effectively, against a man more fit than me and 30 years younger than me. Despite never having done it in competition.
> 
> I've done it countless times in forms. But we are told by those who don't understand forms that forms can't be useful.
> I've done it many many times with cooperative and moderately resisting students during demos and teaching sessions. But we are told by those who don't understand these tools that demos and moderately resisting partners can't be useful.
> 
> Use whatever metric you like. But there are certainly plenty of people who are tired of being told that only ONE metric can possibly be used.


I can see how actual fighting could be considered a metric for evaluating the effectiveness of training.  The issue I see with "actual fighting" as a truly useful metric, however, is that it's not a very good idea to endorse it for each of your trainees.  What I mean is, if you do find yourself in a job where you have the opportunity to use these techniques as intended in real life altercations, you're lucky (or maybe unlucky... I don't know).

Point is, there is a distinction between what techniques are being learned and how they are being learned and tested.  The question you raise isn't whether TKD CAN be effective.  The question is how do we know whether you can use them, or that other guy, or that kid who just got his yellow belt, or that woman over there who has been training for 10 years?  You are suggesting that real fights are a metric.  I agree.  Is it a useful metric?  I don't know.  I mean, yeah, IF you engage in enough fights.  So, in your case, maybe so.  But for most people?  I don't agree that it's useful.  If for no other reason that we (I presume) all agree that getting into fights is a bad idea.  We actively discourage the test.

We also have to distinguish between what is being taught and what is being tested.  There is a fundamental consistency in a competitive art between what you learn and what you test.  In non-competitive arts, the link between the two is often tenuous.  If I train in Judo and compete in a judo tournament, I am testing my ability to execute my techniques in the context in which they were intended.  If I learn to box and compete in a boxing match, I am also testing my technique in context.  Forms, drills, pad work, calisthenics and conditioning are all elements of my training, but in the end, it culminates in feedback and a consistent evaluation of skill.

In a non-competitive art, there is a huge gap between training and testing, which leads to posts like yours above, where the metric that you default to is actually getting into a fight.  Which happens to be bad self defense.  It's inconsistent.  So you test other things.  You test on execution of kata.  You write essays.  You focus on testing abstracts like character and respect.  Perhaps you test on a clinical evaluation of technique or light contact sparring.  I've seen a lot of belt testing over the years in a variety of arts, and I've not seen any testing that involves getting into real fights.


----------



## Phobius

MMA discussions/comparisons always miss one crucial detail.

MMA gathers all the people willing to fight hard and become masters of an art. If you fear the notion of getting hit and refuse to put yourself in such a position, then you pick traditional martial arts instead. Reason? UFC is how badass people want to dream they are, in reality those unwilling to fight for it will never set foot near MMA gyms. Exception being those health resorts calling themselves MMA gyms without any fighting/sparring.

So where do people go that want to be badass but avoid fighting? Anything that is known for its deadliness, their local Kung Fu or Karate gym. Here we get a problem, there are those gyms that want to make money, they avoid any sparring in fear of losing members (or have selected time for sparring for those that see the need for it). Of course many of these gyms are also interested in attracting members and as such they make the biggest ruckus going to YouTube proclaiming their deadliness and a million reasons of why you can never really fight/spar because you will become so good any sparring could be deadly for your opponent.

This minimum effort gyms where you come to train a couple of hours a week. Feel all deadly and safe in your everyday life. They are the majority of practitioners of traditional martial arts because UFC keep most of them away from MMA.

Those few gyms that still consider being a martial artist a lifetime commitment with pain and little to no glory are out there but for many traditional martial arts they are a clear minority until the next flavour of the year arise. Will this same thing occur for BJJ? Good thing with BJJ, which may also have its disadvantages, is that the art is designed to keep McDojos away. Question is whether or not that will work.

So in truth, people who need to profess an art over another is often nothing more than a YouTube warrior. (A good fighter maybe in real life but way too opinionated to be of much concern)


----------



## Chester Wright

To be a complete fighter you must have understanding of yourself as well as your opponent. Why read only one book in a series when it wont give you the whole story.


----------



## Steve

I'm still curious about others opinions on actual fighting as a useful metric for the evaluating a training program.   

Or the disconnect between what non competitive arts teach and what they test.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> I'm still curious about others opinions on actual fighting as a useful metric for the evaluating a training program.
> 
> Or the disconnect between what non competitive arts teach and what they test.



I think your question is pertinent Steve.. My question back to you: is it really possible to evaluate the effectiveness of any program as an entity when every practitioner can have their own different criteria for the value/effectiveness/success of what they are doing FOR THEM?? 

The best we can do is measure the effectiveness of any art/program/system FOR ANY GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, right? Is it possible to  extrapolate that effectiveness or draw any conclusions across the entire program or system when what qualifies as effective for one participant may not agree with what qualifies as effective for another?? J


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> I'm still curious about others opinions on actual fighting as a useful metric for the evaluating a training program.





Steve said:


> In a non-competitive art, there is a huge gap between training and testing, which leads to posts like yours above, where the metric that you default to is actually getting into a fight. Which happens to be bad self defense.



About the only way you can determine whether a non-competitive art would be effective in a physical self defense situation is to look at the students in the art that have had to use their art to defend themselves and see what the overall results were. the problem with that is if you have enough samples to make a definitive determination then the students of the art are getting into far too many self defense situations to look good for the art.

it would be a bit like crash testing. You can't crash test every car you make because then you would have no cars to sell, you can only test a sample of them and apply the results to the whole.You also can't test every conceivable variation on crashes, you can only test a few types and look at the statistics of real crashes and look at the results.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> About the only way you can determine whether a non-competitive art would be effective in a physical self defense situation is to look at the students in the art that have had to use their art to defend themselves and see what the overall results were. the problem with that is if you have enough samples to make a definitive determination then the students of the art are getting into far too many self defense situations to look good for the art.
> 
> it would be a bit like crash testing. You can't crash test every car you make because then you would have no cars to sell, you can only test a sample of them and apply the results to the whole.You also can't test every conceivable variation on crashes, you can only test a few types and look at the statistics of real crashes and look at the results.


as a metric, this would only be useful if you include a lot more analysis.  You have to have some clear criteria established to determine that the martial arts skills were salient to the defense.   In other words, did it matter that the person trained in a martial art.   You'd also have to include a similar analysis of situations where someone trained in a martial art and didn't successfully defend him/herself.   

Crash testing include controls.   The circumstances of a crash test are designed to isolate the variable by controlling all other elements.   By clearly defining the test, you also clearly define the useful context of the results.   In other words, we know that at this speed, with this kind of impact, we see this result.   Now we can extrapolate.   Truly, this is much more like a competition, where the test provides consistent feedback within a well defined context.  


Jenna said:


> I think your question is pertinent Steve.. My question back to you: is it really possible to evaluate the effectiveness of any program as an entity when every practitioner can have their own different criteria for the value/effectiveness/success of what they are doing FOR THEM??
> 
> The best we can do is measure the effectiveness of any art/program/system FOR ANY GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, right? Is it possible to  extrapolate that effectiveness or draw any conclusions across the entire program or system when what qualifies as effective for one participant may not agree with what qualifies as effective for another?? J


this is precisely what I'm suggesting,   That competition is much more consistent because the tests align with the goals of the instruction.   You, as an individual, receive direct feedback in your own individual progress.  In a non competitive art, you don't really know because what yiu are receiving feedback on in training is tangentially related to the stated goals of the training.   You are being taught to fight or to defend yourself, but are being tested on kata, forms, kumite or what have you.


----------



## Spinoza

Hey folks. Sorry I’ve taken a while to respond. I just closed on a house and started a new job.

I should start by clearing up something that seems to be clouded in a lot of confusion: I am not saying that there are not superior styles _of training_. Sparring regularly against people who do not practice the same MA as you, especially in an environment where as many moves as possible are allowed and you are both trying your damnedest to win, is extremely useful training for self defense.

However, no one MA style owns this style of training. Anyone can do that. And I agree that it is a wonderful tool for measuring your own success and preparedness.

What I question is whether or not it is a wonderful tool for measuring the realistic applications of one style vs another style of MA, and that the success of any one MA style is to be measured by its success in MMA competitions.

I used the word “fad” in an earlier conversation, and that was probably the wrong word. Perhaps “trend” is better. I don’t mean anything negative about this, but there are a lot of factors that go into a MA style’s popularity in MMA competitions. When I read about this some time back (and it has been a while), Judo was gaining more popularity among women while BJJ continued to keep its popularity among men. Is that because Judo is more effective for women and BJJ is more effective for men? I personally doubt that. The gym instructors I talked to accredited Judo’s growing popularity among women with Ronda Rousey’s success, which seems more likely.

So far as I know, Krav Maga is practically unheard of in MMA competitions. Does that mean it is not useful for self-defense? Again, I doubt it. Kung fu arts are much more popular in full-contact competitions in China; is that because kung fu is a superior striking art in the hands of people of Chinese descent?

Shuai jiao is very similar to Judo in a lot of ways, yet it remains a lot more popular in lei tai fighting than in Western MMA.

There are obviously a lot of cultural popularity issues, as well as simple hero mimicry. So much so that I cringe every time I hear someone refer to MMA a “scientific” comparison of the effectiveness of styles.

Finally, coming back to that whole training style issue I brought up earlier, there are TMA fighters that train in full contact fighting. There are MMA practitioners that earn their blue belt before even coming into physical contact with a resisting opponent. I would say that the style of training says more about a person’s self-defense preparedness than their MA style does, and that the TMA practitioner would likely fair better in a self-defense situation under these conditions than the MMA practitioner would.

And while Krav Maga hasn’t had a lot of MMA success, one of my friends who practices the art regularly trains with the wind knocked out of him and even with chalk knives and shock knives. I feel very comfortable saying that he would probably fair better in a self-defense situation against someone with a knife than would even the most experienced people in my Judo class.



Hanzou said:


> Judo follows a similar mindset that MMA follows, hence why it's been used by several MMA fighters. We can even go a step further and point out that since Brazilian jiujitsu is a western variation of Judo, Judo is a core aspect of MMA itself.






Steve said:


> People who have trained in crossfit have successfully defended themselves.   And people who never trained in anything.   And people who train in parkour.
> 
> Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow your premise.   Both might be effective, but if the sample size is small and without controls, it's really hard to say.
> 
> What we can say is that MMA is a very effective way to learn how to fight someone within the structure of competition against committed opponents at full speed.   And it's reasonable to presume that these skills are not forgotten when the context changes and rules don't apply.  While I can completely agree that a competition orientation could create some bad habits, the bad habits can be overcome also through training. But the skills remain well developed.   The wrestler doesn't forget his skills.   The judoka can just as easily throw you with your jacket as with a judo Gi.   And we know this because it is well demonstrated against committed opponents in a competitive context.






drop bear said:


> Streetafying your martial arts isn't going to make you punch kick or choke any harder either. You either have solid basics that will work in both the street the gym or the arena or you don't. There are a few styles that don't translate across different environments but most of your basics do.
> 
> So OK. If you are a ripping hot sword fighter you could say your skills don't translate to a cage match. And fair enough. But if you have a cross over at all. Then the skills should be transferable.
> 
> If you take a boxer with better hand skills and challenge him to a bare knuckle match with eye pokes. The fight will still generally go to the better striker. Not the guy who has trained eye gouge specific.


----------



## Steve

Spinoza, I'll just throw out that there are superior styles of training.  Not techniques or martial arts styles,. Rather, the way in which you teach someone a skill and them test their proficiency in that skill.  How you train matters.  How you test for proficiency matters. 

If you think I am an MMA over wing chun guy, I have failed to be clear.  I'm a good training over bad training guy.  A lot of people here teach or train well.  Some don't.  And some of those who don't, think they do.  if you get my drift.


----------



## Phobius

Got to say I agree with Steve as well, being that I am a Wing Chun guy myself. Still I think the training itself is key to success. Of course there are limits to this but most styles are proven at some time or other to work.

MMA I do not see evidence of having a superior training method, but I dont see anything stating it does not either. One key element I feel is crucial to training is sparring however. Call it what you want, do with it what you please, but train none the less.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> So far as I know, Krav Maga is practically unheard of in MMA competitions. Does that mean it is not useful for self-defense? Again, I doubt it. K



It dosent need to be not mma to be self defence worthy. It needs to justify itself based on its own merits.

So to make a statement that krav is good for self defence you would need incidents of self defence where krav is used.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Got to say I agree with Steve as well, being that I am a Wing Chun guy myself. Still I think the training itself is key to success. Of course there are limits to this but most styles are proven at some time or other to work.
> 
> MMA I do not see evidence of having a superior training method, but I dont see anything stating it does not either. One key element I feel is crucial to training is sparring however. Call it what you want, do with it what you please, but train none the less.



The reality is that Wing Chun guys are scrambling to deal with MMA on multiple levels, while MMA isn't concerned about WC at all. I see constant WC vids addressing boxing, BJJ, MMA, and other systems. I even see WC practitioners going into great depth on why WC doesn't work in the MMA environment (often reverting to some fairly bizarre arguments that makes themselves look pretty bad in the process).

That's a pretty profound difference, and indicates that there's something missing in WC that its practitioners are desperately trying to fill.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> I used the word “fad” in an earlier conversation, and that was probably the wrong word. Perhaps “trend” is better. I don’t mean anything negative about this, but there are a lot of factors that go into a MA style’s popularity in MMA competitions. When I read about this some time back (and it has been a while), Judo was gaining more popularity among women while BJJ continued to keep its popularity among men. Is that because Judo is more effective for women and BJJ is more effective for men? I personally doubt that. The gym instructors I talked to accredited Judo’s growing popularity among women with Ronda Rousey’s success, which seems more likely.



The difference between the current MMA trend and previous martial arts fads is that there was never a means to prove one style over another. Most of the previous fads came from movies, not from actual fighting between stylists. The Kung Fu fad for example emerged from Kung Fu movies of the 60s and 70s. It was never a bunch of Kung Fu guys sitting around challenging other arts in a public forum, it was a bunch of Wushu stylists and actors performing spectacular stuff on a stage in Hong Kong. Kids saw Bruce Lee take down 20 guys with his bare hands, and they wanted to learn how to fight like him.

The MMA trend is a different animal altogether, and the reason its lasted longer than other fads is because it has a reality component to it. The only way the MMA trend ends is if something else comes along to supplant it, like an Aikido stylist entering MMA and throwing people around the octagon and snapping their wrists, or a Kung Fu master knocking people out with neck pinches and push hands.

Since that's never going to happen, the MMA trend is going to persist for a long time.


----------



## Spinoza

Hanzou said:


> The difference between the current MMA trend and previous martial arts fads is that there was never a means to prove one style over another.


I still disagree that MMA is an effective means of doing so. And lei tai also involves competition between people of different martial arts styles.



> Most of the previous fads came from movies, not from actual fighting between stylists.


Lei tai predates film.



> The Kung Fu fad for example emerged from Kung Fu movies of the 60s and 70s. It was never a bunch of Kung Fu guys sitting around challenging other arts in a public forum, it was a bunch of Wushu stylists and actors performing spectacular stuff on a stage in Hong Kong.


There were never a bunch of kung fu guys sitting around challenging people of other arts in a public forum? Again, lei tai seems to disprove that.



> Kids saw Bruce Lee take down 20 guys with his bare hands, and they wanted to learn how to fight like him.



The MMA trend is a different animal altogether, and the reason its lasted longer than other fads is because it has a reality component to it. The only way the MMA trend ends is if something else comes along to supplant it, like an Aikido stylist entering MMA and throwing people around the octagon and snapping their wrists, or a Kung Fu master knocking people out with neck pinches and push hands.[/quote]Well, I've brought up several reasons why I do not follow the same reasoning. And kung fu practitioners do, indeed, engage in contact competition, and they don't do so through neck pinches and push hands.

And push hands is just an exercise, not an attack technique.



> Since that's never going to happen, the MMA trend is going to persist for a long time.


I'm sure it will. And the lei tai, which has been around for far longer, will likely continue as well.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> It dosent need to be not mma to be self defence worthy. It needs to justify itself based on its own merits.


Absolutely. I've mostly been addressing the idea that MMA competitions are the ultimate testing ground for ranking the effectiveness of various martial arts styles.



> So to make a statement that krav is good for self defence you would need incidents of self defence where krav is used.


Would such incidents be enough, or would they be considered anecdotes? The IDF doesn't seem to mind using Krav Maga in self defense.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> I still disagree that MMA is an effective means of doing so. And lei tai also involves competition between people of different martial arts styles.
> 
> Lei tai predates film.



Where can we watch a televised Lei Tai match? Where are all the Lei Tai fighters entering the global MMA competition circuit?



> There were never a bunch of kung fu guys sitting around challenging people of other arts in a public forum? Again, lei tai seems to disprove that.



See above.




> Well, I've brought up several reasons why I do not follow the same reasoning. And kung fu practitioners do, indeed, engage in contact competition, and they don't do so through neck pinches and push hands.



I'm simply saying, you're going to need something to that effect to dislodge the MMA trend; Something that breaks the current rules on what is effective, just like the Gracies did in the UFC that started the MMA trend in the first place.



> I'm sure it will. And the lei tai, which has been around for far longer, will likely continue as well.



As long as Lei Tai is under the surface and not seen by anyone but a select group of people that isn't going to amount to much. It's like the story of the old master in the mountain who can defeat all comers, yet no one knows exactly where he is, and he will never come down from the mountain.

EDIT:

Ah, I've found some "Lei Tai". It's called Kuoshu these days;










Yeah............ 

So that's full contact Kung Fu? Interesting.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> The reality is that Wing Chun guys are scrambling to deal with MMA on multiple levels, while MMA isn't concerned about WC at all. I see constant WC vids addressing boxing, BJJ, MMA, and other systems. I even see WC practitioners going into great depth on why WC doesn't work in the MMA environment (often reverting to some fairly bizarre arguments that makes themselves look pretty bad in the process).
> 
> That's a pretty profound difference, and indicates that there's something missing in WC that its practitioners are desperately trying to fill.



The reality is that you are on a forum. Since you are good at voicing your opinion you will also see a lot of WC guys that try to argue with you and as such given that your arguments are along the line of containing MMA in every other sentence. Chances are you will see a lot of people training WC in forums arguing against MMA. (Some WC guys love to argue, be it with each other or with others... perhaps too many people with an opinion in WC)

Problem being that how can you argue against a style that has no identity rather than what is found on television? The moment something new appears it will be integrated into MMA if worthy enough. Once that occurs MMA will change to adress these new techniques and in turn others are removed or trained less. Once more MMA will change into a neverending cycle where it changes to keep being as effective competition art it can be.

No other martial art I know has that behavior. Probably also one reason why most MMA practitioners have a solid base in some other art beforehand.

Me personally don´t feel it is anything strange with MMA being best suited for MMA type fights. Gracie´s have already proven to the world that leaving out groundgame no matter what art you practise will in a professional context lead to a quick fight where you will lose for sure.

MMA is not a bad mentality to have. Bad mentality in my point of view is when someone becomes so stuck in their art (be it MMA, WC or something else) so much that their entire argument is how it is the only art that matters and that no other art can beat it.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> In a non-competitive art, there is a huge gap between training and testing,


No there isnt.  The only people that believe this are people that don't train in Non-competitive arts


> which leads to posts like yours above, where the metric that you default to is actually getting into a fight.


Thats kinda the point 


> Which happens to be bad self defense.  It's inconsistent.


ok


> So you test other things.  You test on execution of kata.  You write essays.  You focus on testing abstracts like character and respect.  Perhaps you test on a clinical evaluation of technique or light contact sparring.  I've seen a lot of belt testing over the years in a variety of arts, and I've not seen any testing that involves getting into real fights.


Ok and I have no doubt if done Correctly the execution of my non-competitive art will save me if I ever need to use it


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> The reality is that you are on a forum. Since you are good at voicing your opinion you will also see a lot of WC guys that try to argue with you and as such given that your arguments are along the line of containing MMA in every other sentence. Changes are you will only see people training WC in forums arguing against MMA.



This goes quite a bit beyond forums. There's entire video essays dedicated to it;














And of course who could forget Wing Chun anti-grappling?

It's quite an interesting phenomenon.



> Problem being that how can you argue against a style that has no identity rather than what is found on television? The moment something new appears it will be integrated into MMA if worthy enough. Once that occurs MMA will change to adress these new techniques and in turn others are removed or trained less. Once more MMA will change into a never-ending cycle where it changes to keep being as effective competition art it can be.
> 
> No other martial art I know has that behavior. Probably also one reason why most MMA practitioners have a solid base in some other art beforehand.



Well actually I do think MMA has an identity, I mean a MMA-style fighter is pretty recognizable because they tend to mix the same styles together which is essentially submission grappling and kickboxing. This is why I told Spinoza that the so-called "MMA fad" is never going to end until you break the notion that the only thing that works is submission grappling combined with kickboxing. Something outside that paradigm like Aikido, traditional Jujutsu, Karate, or Kung Fu could break it, but I don't see that ever happening for a variety of reasons. MMA fighters don't see it happening either, which is why you don't see MMA videos on how to counter Wing Chun techniques.



> Me personally don´t feel it is anything strange with MMA being best suited for MMA type fights. Gracie´s have already proven to the world that leaving out groundgame no matter what art you practise will in a professional context lead to a quick fight where you will lose for sure.
> 
> MMA is not a bad mentality to have. Bad mentality in my point of view is when someone becomes so stuck in their art (be it MMA, WC or something else) so much that their entire argument is how it is the only art that matters and that no other art can beat it.



Again, the general consensus is that MMA is best suited for fighting period, because people have been fed 20+ years of MMA fighters beating the piss out of everybody.Thus, the perception now is that nothing beats MMA and its core styles. How do you snap that perception? Have some chick beat Holly Holms or Ronda Rousey using White Crane Style.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> Absolutely. I've mostly been addressing the idea that MMA competitions are the ultimate testing ground for ranking the effectiveness of various martial arts styles.
> 
> Would such incidents be enough, or would they be considered anecdotes? The IDF doesn't seem to mind using Krav Maga in self defense.



I was going to mention that. You ever fought an IDF guy? I haven't so where was it decided IDF guys are world class fighters?

It sounds cool. But what is the reality of that statement?

And that is before we even address whether or not you are being trained by the guy who trains the IDF. Which of course you are not.

So ignoring then mma as a testing ground why is krav effective?


----------



## Steve

I've said before, but self defense as a bar for measuring effectiveness is just not useful.   The term is too vague and hard to nail down.


ballen0351 said:


> No there isnt.  The only people that believe this are people that don't train in Non-competitive arts


do you have any idea how self serving and specious your statement is?  The only people think texting while driving is stupid are those who don't do it.  


> Thats kinda the point
> 
> ok
> 
> Ok and I have no doubt if done Correctly the execution of my non-competitive art will save me if I ever need to use it


yeah, I get that.  A terrible point, too, as I've explained  Working as a cop, you have both the training and the means for testing that most non-cops won't have.   And once again, a cop is as far away from self defense as fighting in a cagE.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I've said before, but self defense as a bar for measuring effectiveness is just not useful.   The term is too vague and hard to nail down.


and I disagree


> do you have any idea how self serving and specious your statement is?  The only people think texting while driving is stupid are those who don't do it.


no more self serving then your comment. 


> yeah, I get that.  A terrible point, too, as I've explained  Working as a cop, you have both the training and the means for testing that most non-cops won't have.   And once again, a cop is as far away from self defense as fighting in a cagE.


EXcept im not concerned with "testing"  im concerned with surviving.  I don't care if you don't like the way I choose to evaluate my system I don't need your approval to pick a style.  Also being a cop is far closer to self defense then being in the ring.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> there was never a means to prove one style over another.


Their still isn't.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> and I disagree
> no more self serving then your comment.
> EXcept im not concerned with "testing"  im concerned with surviving.  I don't care if you don't like the way I choose to evaluate my system I don't need your approval to pick a style.  Also being a cop is far closer to self defense then being in the ring.


Ballen, you're just feeling contrary today.  Did you have a long day at work?  It's ikay to be grumpy some times.  

If you can't see the difference between being a cop and self defense for a civilian, you're as bad as the ring uber alles people.  And there's no point discussing anything with a zealot.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Well actually I do think MMA has an identity, I mean a MMA-style fighter is pretty recognizable because they tend to mix the same styles together which is essentially submission grappling and kickboxing. This is why I told Spinoza that the so-called "MMA fad" is never going to end until you break the notion that the only thing that works is submission grappling combined with kickboxing. Something outside that paradigm like Aikido, traditional Jujutsu, Karate, or Kung Fu could break it, but I don't see that ever happening for a variety of reasons. MMA fighters don't see it happening either, which is why you don't see MMA videos on how to counter Wing Chun techniques.



MMA identity is not constant, just take a look at how it has evolved the last few years. Problem with MMA is that it is allowed to be all the most efficient techniques based on the fact that you fight other MMA fighters. When someone introduces a new technique to rule the competition then MMA will adjust itself to it. This is not a constant behaviour.

Sparring and training hard however is not related to MMA, MMA is just one of those styles that need to have it as a major tool.

Problem is that I can not speak more of MMA because mostly I only get to see UFC fights, and UFC is not MMA. In such a controlled environment (in terms of who gets to fight and what skill base they need to have) there is not going to be many openings for people training TMA. Second problem is that those who dream about being UFC fighters will not study TMA, at least for long, but jump straight to flavor of the year. And finally some styles are more efficient for a young well trained body because some styles utilize body strength more than others. (BJJ is one of those styles that don't of course)

You can not fight in MMA without being an MMA fighter as far as I know.



Hanzou said:


> Again, the general consensus is that MMA is best suited for fighting period, because people have been fed 20+ years of MMA fighters beating the piss out of everybody.Thus, the perception now is that nothing beats MMA and its core styles. How do you snap that perception? Have some chick beat Holly Holms or Ronda Rousey using White Crane Style.



You don't have someone change the perception, boredom kills the tv shows. Something new takes its place. TV is what made UFC great, UFC is what made MMA great. I just hope MMA does not disappear in terms of understanding the need to fight in order to learn fighting.

Finally because of all the talk of MMA, is there some way to watch world wide MMA fights (non UFC)?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Again,* the general consensus* is that MMA is best suited for fighting period, because people have been fed 20+ years of MMA fighters beating the piss out of everybody.Thus, *the perception now* is that nothing beats MMA and its core styles. How do you snap that perception?


Experts agree, everybody knows, its a well known fact, some people say, it stands to reason and other weasel words.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Ballen, you're just feeling contrary today.  Did you have a long day at work?  It's ikay to be grumpy some times.
> 
> If you can't see the difference between being a cop and self defense for a civilian, you're as bad as the ring uber alles people.  And there's no point discussing anything with a zealot.


I can see the difference I didn't say they were the same.  I said it's closer to reality then the ring. And since I've trained in an MMA gym with people training for the ring and am a Cop I've experienced both.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> I was going to mention that. You ever fought an IDF guy? I haven't so where was it decided IDF guys are world class fighters?


Who said anything about "world class fighters"?



> And that is before we even address whether or not you are being trained by the guy who trains the IDF. Which of course you are not.


As mentioned earlier, the effectiveness of styles of training and the effectiveness of styles of MA are two different questions. The questions was whether KM was effective in self defense, not whether _my_ KM training is effective for self defense (which it can't be, because I don't train in KM).



> So ignoring then mma as a testing ground why is krav effective?


Because it has been and is used in self defense situations. I'm assuming that the IDF has actually used some of their training in real life. If they have not used their training, and they just continue to train in Krav Maga for the sake of training in Krav Maga, then I'd have to reassess my assumptions.


----------



## Spinoza

Hanzou said:


> Where can we watch a televised Lei Tai match?


I can find some links for you if you'd like. It is, of course, more commonly televised in China than the US.



> Where are all the Lei Tai fighters entering the global MMA competition circuit?


Where are the MMA fighters entering the lei tai circuit? Not that it matters, but Cung Le is a lei tai fighter who has done pretty good in MMA.



> See above.


You said that kung fu fighters never competed this way in the past. Lei tai proves that his claim is incorrect. In fact, in the past, some lei tai matches were fought to the death, historically they were fought bare knuckle and weapons were even sometimes allowed.



> I'm simply saying, you're going to need something to that effect to dislodge the MMA trend; Something that breaks the current rules on what is effective, just like the Gracies did in the UFC that started the MMA trend in the first place.


And I'm simply saying that MMA has its own cultural trends and influence, rather than being a purely "scientific" comparison of styles.



> As long as Lei Tai is under the surface and not seen by anyone but a select group of people that isn't going to amount to much.


Lei tai has a much longer history than MMA. The fact that it is not as popular in the West is part of the point -- when it comes to style popularity, there are a lot of considerations beyond the idea that MMA somehow scientifically gravitates towards the objectively best.



> It's like the story of the old master in the mountain who can defeat all comers, yet no one knows exactly where he is, and he will never come down from the mountain.


You can read up on lei tai without visiting a mountain. It isn't hiding, it just isn't as popular here. Again, that's part of the point.



> EDIT:
> 
> Ah, I've found some "Lei Tai". It's called Kuoshu these days;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah............
> 
> So that's full contact Kung Fu? Interesting.


The sarcasm and cherry-picking of Youtube videos isn't conducive to a respectful and mutually beneficial conversation. I think we are done here. If you would like to know more about lei tai, the Wikipedia article is actually really well done. "Kuoshu" literally just means kung fu, and kuoshu competitions can include full contact lei tai matches, but are also full of wushu demonstrations and friendlier matches. You can look up some Sanshou lei tai videos for some less friendly fights.


----------



## Spinoza

Steve said:


> Spinoza, I'll just throw out that there are superior styles of training.  Not techniques or martial arts styles,. Rather, the way in which you teach someone a skill and them test their proficiency in that skill.  How you train matters.  How you test for proficiency matters.
> 
> If you think I am an MMA over wing chun guy, I have failed to be clear.  I'm a good training over bad training guy.  A lot of people here teach or train well.  Some don't.  And some of those who don't, think they do.  if you get my drift.


No worries; actually your post was what got me thinking about clarifying on that distinction, because I thought you had more clearly made that distinction than I had.


----------



## Paul_D

Hanzou said:


> Have some chick beat Holly Holms or Ronda Rousey using White Crane Style.



"some chick"

Such immense respect you have for women in general and female MMA fighters in particular.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I can see the difference I didn't say they were the same.  I said it's closer to reality then the ring. And since I've trained in an MMA gym with people training for the ring and am a Cop I've experienced both.


I'll have to dust off all of  your posts about how the ring isn't self defense, but change it from cage to cop.  The distinctions are the same. 

The only difference is that you play for the cop team and others play for the octagon team.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> No worries; actually your post was what got me thinking about clarifying on that distinction, because I thought you had more clearly made that distinction than I had.



The thing with martial arts in general is the systems have all been made up at some point. Some people are going to do a better job of that than others.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> I can find some links for you if you'd like. It is, of course, more commonly televised in China than the US.



Please do.



> Where are the MMA fighters entering the lei tai circuit? Not that it matters, but Cung Le is a lei tai fighter who has done pretty good in MMA.



Why would they when MMA promotions make them more money? Professional Sanda/Sanshou fighters are trying to break into MMA, not the other way around. Cung Le is an example of what I'm talking about.



> You said that kung fu fighters never competed this way in the past. Lei tai proves that his claim is incorrect. In fact, in the past, some lei tai matches were fought to the death, historically they were fought bare knuckle and weapons were even sometimes allowed.



Based on what I'm seeing out of those Lei Tai competitions, I would say that no, they're not competing the way MMA did.



> And I'm simply saying that MMA has its own cultural trends and influence, rather than being a purely "scientific" comparison of styles.



Elaborate.



> Lei tai has a much longer history than MMA. The fact that it is not as popular in the West is part of the point -- when it comes to style popularity, there are a lot of considerations beyond the idea that MMA somehow scientifically gravitates towards the objectively best.



Yes, people tend to prefer seeing technique being exchanged, not two people swinging wildly as if they've had no training whatsoever.



> The sarcasm and cherry-picking of Youtube videos isn't conducive to a respectful and mutually beneficial conversation. I think we are done here. If you would like to know more about lei tai, the Wikipedia article is actually really well done. "Kuoshu" literally just means kung fu, and kuoshu competitions can include full contact lei tai matches, but are also full of wushu demonstrations and friendlier matches. You can look up some Sanshou lei tai videos for some less friendly fights.



Where's the cherry picking? I typed in "Lei Tai fights" and those were the first vids that popped up. There's  literally hundreds of vids like that on the web.

Yeah I was being sarcastic because the fighting looked pretty bad considering that we're supposed to be looking at two Martial Artists engaging in a full contact fight. No offense, but I've seen street fights on World Star with better technique.

You don't think it's interesting that all of those forms and techniques go out the window when the fists start flying? I do.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'll have to dust off all of  your posts about how the ring isn't self defense, but change it from cage to cop.  The distinctions are the same.
> 
> The only difference is that you play for the cop team and others play for the octagon team.


 Not even close they are far different.  Again it's not the physical skills that im talking about with regards to self defense. Its the mental and emotional side.  The fear can't be replicated .  For example 3 nights ago I get dispatched to a suicidal/homicidal man with a rifle in his home.  He sent a text,to his wife he was going to kill himself and if the police or paramedics show up before he does it he will kill them first.  Now in the end im standing in his living room trying to talk him into putting the gun down and coming with me to the hospital. Is that exact scene something a private citizen would encounter...of course not,  proper self defense would have been drive across town and eat a cheese burger.  However the fear and mental challenges of getting past the fear of being killed would be very similar to a scenario where your in your office and a terminated employee walks in with a gun wanting to kill the boss and you guys find yourself face to face in the office.  Or really any scenario where your face to face with an armed subject that's mentally unstable. The fear of death is something the cage can never replicate.  Its also the hardest part of self defense to deal with.  Now you can dismiss the mental aspects of self defense if you wish but in my opinion that is far harder to deal with and overcome then a physical technique that you will learn and practice in a class or gym


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Where's the cherry picking? I typed in "Lei Tai fights" and those were the first vids that popped up. There's  literally hundreds of vids like that on the web.



Think I might be out on a limb here but if you search for "Lei Tai fights" you get some american wannabe or european friendly version. For most asian fights you either have to search specifically or even better go to a chinese only website (forgot the name of their YouTube counterpart) to search for clips.

I am not saying this as someone who knows but rather using logical sense. Chinese people do not have access to YouTube, so finding information there is usually not gonna give any good results.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Not even close they are far different.  Again it's not the physical skills that im talking about with regards to self defense. Its the mental and emotional side.  The fear can't be replicated .  For example 3 nights ago I get dispatched to a suicidal/homicidal man with a rifle in his home.  He sent a text,to his wife he was going to kill himself and if the police or paramedics show up before he does it he will kill them first.  Now in the end im standing in his living room trying to talk him into putting the gun down and coming with me to the hospital. Is that exact scene something a private citizen would encounter...of course not,  proper self defense would have been drive across town and eat a cheese burger.  However the fear and mental challenges of getting past the fear of being killed would be very similar to a scenario where your in your office and a terminated employee walks in with a gun wanting to kill the boss and you guys find yourself face to face in the office.  Or really any scenario where your face to face with an armed subject that's mentally unstable. The fear of death is something the cage can never replicate.  Its also the hardest part of self defense to deal with.  Now you can dismiss the mental aspects of self defense if you wish but in my opinion that is far harder to deal with and overcome then a physical technique that you will learn and practice in a class or gym



You don't think there is an emotional element to training or competition?

You don't think mental toughness is a determining factor in both environments?

The thing is you are taking your individual issues and assuming they are even across the board. And again you assume you have a monopoly of fear or real situations. 

We have no idea if you would break mentally in a cage under pressure. I have seen guys who have faced life or death do just that. Then they take the mental toughness they learned in the cage and use that to increase their ability to handle a life or death situation.

And regardless of that. You do not have a better method for equipping people with mental toughness or the ability to handle a self defence situation. You don't have any method for this.

And that is where it all breaks down for you. Just because you don't have a method to deal with this. You think there is no method to deal with these issues. But you haven't really looked.

But the truth is your situation is not special. Plenty of people handle life or death situations. And some of those people do look for outside methods to increase mental toughness and handle fear. So we can develop strategies outside of confronting crazy people with guns.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Think I might be out on a limb here but if you search for "Lei Tai fights" you get some american wannabe or european friendly version. For most asian fights you either have to search specifically or even better go to a chinese only website (forgot the name of their YouTube counterpart) to search for clips.
> 
> I am not saying this as someone who knows but rather using logical sense. Chinese people do not have access to YouTube, so finding information there is usually not gonna give any good results.



So logically there will only be bad fights on YouTube?

You don't think that is a stretch?

Anyway one fc is Asia's answer to the ufc. You might want to look there.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> You don't think there is an emotional element to training or competition?
> 
> You don't think mental toughness is a determining factor in both environments?


Of course there is but its not the same. There is no fear of death in a ring only losing


> The thing is you are taking your individual issues and assuming they are even across the board. And again you assume you have a monopoly of fear or real situations.


I don't assume anything Ive said several times Military, Police, even used the example of a kid growing up in a gang infested neighborhood who lost several family members to gang violence all have experience in this type of mental conditioning.  Id add Docs and Nurses working in ER's, Correction Guards, even criminals themselves.


> We have no idea if you would break mentally in a cage under pressure. I have seen guys who have faced life or death do just that. Then they take the mental toughness they learned in the cage and use that to increase their ability to handle a life or death situation.


Sure we dont know how Id do in a ring however since I have no fear of dying in a ring and dont care about winning pretty trophies Im sure ill be fine.  What I know for a fact is the ring will never equal the fear and mental strain of a real life violent encounter


> And regardless of that. You do not have a better method for equipping people with mental toughness or the ability to handle a self defense situation. You don't have any method for this.


Never claimed too.  I simply saying your argument of well I do it in the ring so I can do it in real life is flawed because they are too different.  It is as realistic as me saying "well Ive survived the streets for 15years as a Cop so I could win the next UFC fight" They are far to different to be comparable.


> And that is where it all breaks down for you. Just because you don't have a method to deal with this. You think there is no method to deal with these issues. But you haven't really looked.


Except I have I trained in MMA gyms, I train with MMA fighters, I have cop friends that coach MMA at gyms who agree with me MMA in the ring isnt real and doesn't compare.  I currently train at an MMA gym.  So Yeah Ive really looked


> But the truth is your situation is not special. Plenty of people handle life or death situations. And some of those people do look for outside methods to increase mental toughness and handle fear. So we can develop strategies outside of confronting crazy people with guns.


Sure and Ive mentioned them your were too busy worrying about elephants


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Sure we dont know how Id do in a ring however since I have no fear of dying in a ring and dont care about winning pretty trophies Im sure ill be fine. What I know for a fact is the ring will never equal the fear and mental strain of a real life violent encounter



It's a fact now is it?
Do you have a source?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Sure and Ive mentioned them your were too busy worrying about elephants



No you haven't other than fight guys on PCP. It would be easy to either cut and paste where you offered a solution or re right it. But you won't. You will deflect instead. And I wonder why?


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> It's a fact now is it?
> Do you have a source?


You fear for your life in the ring?  Alot of people being murdered or killed daily in the ring?  NO So the fear isnt the same never will be


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Except I have I trained in MMA gyms, I train with MMA fighters, I have cop friends that coach MMA at gyms who agree with me MMA in the ring isnt real and doesn't compare. I currently train at an MMA gym. So Yeah Iv



Lol. I have cop friends that agree with me. And cop friends who couldn't self defence their way out of a paper bag. So as I said neither of us are special.

I am not relying on that as my one big argument though.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> No you haven't other than fight guys on PCP. It would be easy to either cut and paste where you offered a solution or re right it. But you won't. You will deflect instead. And I wonder why?


Go read it Im not cutting and pasting things Ive already typed. But now we are bleeding one topic into multiple threads and this has nothing to do with Wing Chun so perhaps you can settle on one thread instead of bouncing around to different threads with the same argument


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Lol. I have cop friends that agree with me. And cop friends who couldn't self defence their way out of a paper bag. So as I said neither of us are special.
> 
> I am not relying on that as my one big argument though.


Nor am I


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> You fear for your life in the ring?  Alot of people being murdered or killed daily in the ring?  NO So the fear isnt the same never will be



Driving is about the most dangerous thing you can do. So therefore the fear is greatest there. Police work does not even compare.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Nor am I



Really. You have anything other than you are a cop and get really scared?


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> The thing with martial arts in general is the systems have all been made up at some point. Some people are going to do a better job of that than others.


Of course, but it goes beyond just the skills and diligence of the style's originator(s). There are MMA practitioners that never practice with a resisting/competitive opponent and there are TMA practitioners that do. Some people are going to be better teachers than others; some people are going to train better than others, regardless of their preferred style.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Go read it Im not cutting and pasting things Ive already typed. But now we are bleeding one topic into multiple threads and this has nothing to do with Wing Chun so perhaps you can settle on one thread instead of bouncing around to different threads with the same argument



And I wonder why?


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Driving is about the most dangerous thing you can do. So therefore the fear is greatest there. Police work does not even compare.


now your being as silly as your elephant argument


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> And I wonder why?


So you lost the argument your going to resort to acting like a 2 year old lol ok


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> now your being as silly as your elephant argument



You are still trying to be special because you think it makes your argument valid. It doesn't. You cannot comprehend that other people face fear and death in their day to day life.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...4nSdBuuv4aXqWOBxw&sig2=Z7Pi7AXODBhdhJfflcOM0g


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Think I might be out on a limb here but if you search for "Lei Tai fights" you get some american wannabe or european friendly version. For most asian fights you either have to search specifically or even better go to a chinese only website (forgot the name of their YouTube counterpart) to search for clips.
> 
> I am not saying this as someone who knows but rather using logical sense. Chinese people do not have access to YouTube, so finding information there is usually not gonna give any good results.



I did the search in Google, not Youtube.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> So you lost the argument your going to resort to acting like a 2 year old lol ok



Lol. No I was alluding to the idea that you were making up these non existing posts. And that because you were making them up you were never going to present them. And then that you would make up more stuff to disguise that fact.

And you did.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> You cannot comprehend that other people face fear and death in their day to day life.


Of course they do IN THE REAL WORLD not the ring which has been my point all along


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Of course they do IN THE REAL WORLD not the ring which has been my point all along


Ballen the real world for a cop has very little bearing on the real world for a non-cop.   It's not self defense.  It's professional risk.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Ballen the real world for a cop has very little bearing on the real world for a non-cop.   It's not self defense.  It's professional risk.


  The risk itself of being shot, stabbed, knocked out and stomped, killed is the same risk that can happen to anyone at any time in the street no matter their profession.  Dangerous professions like police military security guards even other criminals just happen to be at risk more often and for different reasons but the outcome is the same,  dead is dead it doesn't matter if I'm killed at work or during a robbery attempt while im leaving a resturant on date night with my wife.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> The risk itself of being shot, stabbed, knocked out and stomped, killed is the same risk that can happen to anyone at any time in the street no matter their profession.  Dangerous professions like police military security guards even other criminals just happen to be at risk more often and for different reasons but the outcome is the same,  dead is dead it doesn't matter if I'm killed at work or during a robbery attempt while im leaving a resturant on date night with my wife.


Choosing to risk violence as a profession vs self defense are fundamentally different things.   

Think about your passionate rants against "the cage."  Substitute the word "cop" and the rationale is the same.  The specifics vary.  Do you really not see it?  Truly?  Or are you just having a bit of fun in a cold night out fighting the good fight on the mean streets of Baltimore?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Choosing to risk violence as a profession vs self defense are fundamentally different things.
> 
> Think about your passionate rants against "the cage."  Substitute the word "cop" and the rationale is the same.  The specifics vary.  Do you really not see it?  Truly?  Or are you just having a bit of fun in a cold night out fighting the good fight on the mean streets of Baltimore?


i,agree choosing to confront violence is different.  But the violence is the same not matter if I choose to go to the call and they try to hurt me, or you choose to walk around downtown after a Seahawks game and the violence chooses you.  Once it starts it's all the same.  Thays my point perhaps I can't convey it the way I want too


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> i,agree choosing to confront violence is different.  But the violence is the same not matter if I choose to go to the call and they try to hurt me, or you choose to walk around downtown after a Seahawks game and the violence chooses you.  Once it starts it's all the same.  Thays my point perhaps I can't convey it the way I want too



No violence as a police officer is completely different to violence as a civilian. 

You have protection of the law access to back up more tools time off work if you get injured.

You can't even compare the two.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> No violence as a police officer is completely different to violence as a civilian.
> 
> You have protection of the law access to back up more tools time off work if you get injured.
> 
> You can't even compare the two.


totally agree.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> No violence as a police officer is completely different to violence as a civilian.
> 
> You have protection of the law access to back up more tools time off work if you get injured.
> 
> You can't even compare the two.


 no the violence is identical.  The bullet doesn't care what clothes in wearing, a blade in my back isn't concerned about a badge on my chest, a boot to my face doesn't check to see if my hair cut is with in regulation.  What leads up to the violence is different the violence is the same.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> totally agree.


I don't.  But tell me more about all your experience dealing with violence as a police officer.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> no the violence is identical.  The bullet doesn't care what clothes in wearing, a blade in my back isn't concerned about a badge on my chest, a boot to my face doesn't check to see if my hair cut is with in regulation.  What leads up to the violence is different the violence is the same.



No fighting a police officer subjects you to more rules that fighting anybody else the consequences are greater and you are more ikey to be caught. The badge does make a difference.

It is nothing like self defence.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> No fighting a police officer subjects you to more rules that fighting anybody else the consequences are greater and you are more ikey to be caught. The badge does make a difference.
> 
> It is nothing like self defence.


not here it doesn't. There is no special law for police officers. Assault is the same no matter who the victim is.  Murder is Murder there is no enhanced punishment


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I don't.  But tell me more about all your experience dealing with violence as a police officer.


You're a riot.  Tell me more about your career as a professional MMA fighter?

I see now that you are completely unaware of your hypocrisy.  I believe you don't even see it.  Amazing.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> not here it doesn't. There is no special law for police officers. Assault is the same no matter who the victim is.  Murder is Murder there is no enhanced punishment



So this is wrong? Anyway you get to tazer people that has to take the pressure off a bit.


What are the penalties for assaulting a cop in cities around the world?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You're a riot.  Tell me more about your career as a professional MMA fighter?
> 
> I see now that you are completely unaware of your hypocrisy.  I believe you don't even see it.  Amazing.


 who's talking about professional MMA fighters?


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> So this is wrong? Anyway you get to tazer people that has to take the pressure off a bit.
> 
> 
> What are the penalties for assaulting a cop in cities around the world?


I don't know about penalties around the world.  I know about penalties here. Penalties here are the same.   And also tasers are legal her as well so anyone can have one.  In fact civilian taser is worse then mine.  I pull the trigger it runs for 5 seconds the civilian model runs for 60 seconds


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> I don't know about penalties around the world.  I know about penalties here. Penalties here are the same.   And also tasers are legal her as well so anyone can have one.  In fact civilian taser is worse then mine.  I pull the trigger it runs for 5 seconds the civilian model runs for 60 seconds



I keep finding these laws about assaulting a police officer though.

"Assaulting a police officer" may not mean what you think


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> I keep finding these laws about assaulting a police officer though.
> 
> "Assaulting a police officer" may not mean what you think


That's great laws are different everywhere.  I'm telling you in this state where I work and live there is no enhanced punishment for fighting police.  In fact I had a judge once say on court that being assaulted is in my job description and give a guy probation for assaulting 3 of us


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> That's great laws are different everywhere.  I'm telling you in this state where I work and live there is no enhanced punishment for fighting police.  In fact I had a judge once say on court that being assaulted is in my job description and give a guy probation for assaulting 3 of us


given what the judge said, are you still suggesting that your experience as a cop bears any resemblance to anything a non cop might encounter?  You're literally making my point for me.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> given what the judge said, are you still suggesting that your experience as a cop bears any resemblance to anything a non cop might encounter?  You're literally making my point for me.


sure the assault itself was the same regardless of the clothes I'm wearing.  The outcome in a court of law is unrelated to self defense


----------



## Steve

And isn't assaulting a police officer generally hand in hand with resisting


ballen0351 said:


> sure the assault itself was the same regardless of the clothes I'm wearing.  The outcome in a court of law is unrelated to self defense


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> And isn't assaulting a police officer generally hand in hand with resisting


And?  Does that makes the assault not an assault?  At the time of the attack goal #1 is to defend yourself and stop the attack.  Just like if you were attacked.


----------



## Steve

When you can arrest the guy who's assaulting you, yeah, is not the same thing.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> When you can arrest the guy who's assaulting you, yeah, is not the same thing.


So can you.  Elder just told a story on another thread about detaining someone until the police arrive


----------



## Phobius

Guys, not to barge in but it does not matter if you are a cop or not.

If someone attacks you and threatens your life, it is self defense to protect yourself. Cops do it. Average Joe does it.

The difference is in how you can train for it to improve your odds. A cop can not train the same way an average bar attender or a regular guy/girl just wanting to feel safe. They do not share goals nor intent with self defense, but that does not mean the term self defense dont apply in both cases.

Heck, self defense in the army would also be something completely different and quite a bit more mortal.


----------



## lklawson

Steve said:


> Choosing to risk violence as a profession vs self defense are fundamentally different things.



Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be optimal for Joe Citizen "Self Defense."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Phobius said:


> Guys, not to barge in but it does not matter if you are a cop or not.
> 
> If someone attacks you and threatens your life, it is self defense to protect yourself. Cops do it. Average Joe does it.
> 
> The difference is in how you can train for it to improve your odds. A cop can not train the same way an average bar attender or a regular guy/girl just wanting to feel safe. They do not share goals nor intent with self defense, but that does not mean the term self defense dont apply in both cases.
> 
> Heck, self defense in the army would also be something completely different and quite a bit more mortal.


It matters a great deal more than you seem to realize.  The situations are different and the goals are different.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Spinoza

So MMA can tell us a lot about fighting, but there are significant differences between MMA fighting scenarios and self defense fighting scenarios, so we should keep that in mind when trying to draw conclusions about self defense from MMA fighting. Law enforcement can tell us a lot about self defense, but there are significant differences between the scenarios in which law enforcement must defend themselves and most of the scenarios in which everyday citizens must defend themselves, so we should keep that in mind when trying to draw conclusions about civilian self defense from law enforcement.

MMA involves fighting, but not self defense fighting.
Law enforcement involves self defense, but not civilian self defense.

Law enforcement has more tools and resources at its disposal than civilians have access to. In an MMA fight you have more tools and resources at your disposal (a mat, a ref, breaks, rules and, most importantly, the time to study your opponent and their style) than you will have access to in a real fight.

There are similarities and differences between law enforcement and civilian self defense and there are similarities and differences between MMA fighting and self defense fighting. In the end, the situations and goals have similarities, but are still different.

Both can provide valuable information. Neither is the be-all-end-all measure of a style or a technique's effectiveness in self defense.


----------



## Phobius

lklawson said:


> It matters a great deal more than you seem to realize.  The situations are different and the goals are different.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Actually in terms of meaning of the wording "Self defense" it does not matter. The wording simply states defending yourself and can be done on many levels.

Situations may be different but noone can argue that a cop never has to defend himself. As if he was never to be threatened?

Same thing applies to a hospital worker, just different situation, different scenario and different solutions. All use self defense, all use it differently.

Even two people with same job, same country of origin, same language, same everything. Being attacked by same guy, will utilize different solutions in terms of self defense. It is all individual if you simply add enough details to look at. No scenario is identical to another.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinoza said:


> MMA involves fighting, but not self defense fighting.
> .



MMA fighting has a great deal of spillover into self defense fighting.


----------



## lklawson

Spinoza said:


> Law enforcement involves self defense, but not civilian self defense.


LEO *are* civilians in the U.S.  ...unless the Posse Comitatus Act has suddenly disappeared.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Phobius said:


> Actually in terms of meaning of the wording "Self defense" it does not matter. The wording simply states defending yourself and can be done on many levels.
> 
> Situations may be different but noone can argue that a cop never has to defend himself. As if he was never to be threatened?
> 
> Same thing applies to a hospital worker, just different situation, different scenario and different solutions. All use self defense, all use it differently.
> 
> Even two people with same job, same country of origin, same language, same everything. Being attacked by same guy, will utilize different solutions in terms of self defense. It is all individual if you simply add enough details to look at. No scenario is identical to another.


Not quite.  The situations and goals of LEO are different from non-LEO civilian self defense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Spinoza

lklawson said:


> LEO *are* civilians in the U.S.  ...unless the Posse Comitatus Act has suddenly disappeared.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


It just depends on how the word "civilian" is being defined. LEO are civilians in the U.S. in the sense that they are not part of the military, of course, but that is not what I intended by the word "civilian." I was thinking more along the lines of a civilian being a person who is not a member of the military or of the police force. If the wording issue is a stumbling block to the conversation and another word would keep that from happening, then I'm open to adopting that instead. The last thing that I want to do is to introduce a semantic argument to this thread.


----------



## lklawson

Spinoza said:


> It just depends on how the word "civilian" is being defined. LEO are civilians in the U.S. in the sense that they are not part of the military, of course, but that is not what I intended by the word "civilian."


But that's what the word means.  In fact, it's pretty common for "people in power" to write of and discuss "the civilian police force."  I know that it seems nit-picky to you but it's a very important thing.  The more and more that we culturally lump LEO together with military, including by segregating them conceptually from "civilians," the more we culturally give tacit acceptance to the militarization of the civilian police force.

It's important.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Spinoza

(Sorry, I'm having issues with the quote button, so hopefully this works)

The word, like all words, can mean different things in different contexts. I linked to a Merriam-Webster definition that matches the way I was using the word. But like I said, if it is causing confusion and there is a better term, I'll happily use it. I understand the call-out, but obviously neither one of us wants it to become a sticking point for the discussion. Perhaps we can just say non-LEO?


----------



## lklawson

Spinoza said:


> Perhaps we can just say non-LEO?


That's what I usually do.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> You've seriously not aware of WC "anti-grappling" and other training methods developed to specifically deal with MMA fighters?
> 
> Conversely, I have yet to attend a MMA session where we deal with how to stop a WC practitioner from knocking us out.
> 
> And clearly it is about what, since you're not seeing WC guys entering NHB competitions and doing well. I mean, if all styles are equal, than we should see equal representation of styles. However we don't see that. Instead, we see people from same handful of styles over and over again.



Why would an MMA fight trainer need to focus on specifically Wing Chun (or any single style)? There are variations in striking, but many of the same tactics work against several. They also aren't likely to specifically (that I've seen) focus on how to beat Shotokan Karate, or Goju-ryu Karate, or... or... They focus on how to beat strikes, then how to beat grappling, etc.

The only time they've focused on single arts was either at the beginning (when each was adapting to the new competition format) or when someone came in with surprising results (like Gracie, though arguably what they were preparing for was Gracie, not Gracie BJJ).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> And clearly it is about what, since you're not seeing WC guys entering NHB competitions and doing well. I mean, if all styles are equal, than we should see equal representation of styles. However we don't see that. Instead, we see people from same handful of styles over and over again.



There's another factor that affects who enters competitions like that: who is interested. I've noticed that the atmosphere in some schools and styles is simply not attractive to those who want to hit someone else hard enough to knock them out in a competition. Those styles/schools will likely never be represented significantly in NHB competition, because the practitioners aren't interested.

Take me, for instance. There was a time I could have competed in Judo competitions, and likely would have done okay. I never had enough interest to do so. That absence doesn't mean my techniques wouldn't work there (my experience rolling with Judoka and suggests otherwise).


----------



## Spinoza

gpseymour said:


> There's another factor that affects who enters competitions like that: who is interested. I've noticed that the atmosphere in some schools and styles is simply not attractive to those who want to hit someone else hard enough to knock them out in a competition. Those styles/schools will likely never be represented significantly in NHB competition, because the practitioners aren't interested.
> 
> Take me, for instance. There was a time I could have competed in Judo competitions, and likely would have done okay. I never had enough interest to do so. That absence doesn't mean my techniques wouldn't work there (my experience rolling with Judoka and suggests otherwise).


Exactly. And should we really be surprised to see that some of the most popular arts being practiced in early MMA fights were arts that were already geared towards competition fighting--Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, boxing, wrestling, etc.? It seems like it would have been easy to predict that a new competitive fighting format would attract people who already had an interest in competitive fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Phobius said:


> Actually in terms of meaning of the wording "Self defense" it does not matter. The wording simply states defending yourself and can be done on many levels.
> 
> Situations may be different but noone can argue that a cop never has to defend himself. As if he was never to be threatened?
> 
> Same thing applies to a hospital worker, just different situation, different scenario and different solutions. All use self defense, all use it differently.
> 
> Even two people with same job, same country of origin, same language, same everything. Being attacked by same guy, will utilize different solutions in terms of self defense. It is all individual if you simply add enough details to look at. No scenario is identical to another.



I agree with this. Everyone has a different situation. My primary instructor was a pharmacist. Interestingly, that occupation put him in danger more than once from folks trying to steal drugs. Does the fact that he chose that occupation mean it's not a self-defense situation? Of course not.

The same applies with cops. Yes, they have some situations that do not apply to civilian self-defense. Yes, they chose an occupation that requires they walk into dangerous situations (violating a basic tenet of self-defense), but many of the situations they find themselves in are highly applicable to civilian training once the violence/attack starts. That's the part we (as instructors) should learn from. That's the feedback I ask for from officers I've trained with or taught.

So, if we are talking about the concept and process of self-defense (which includes avoidance of situations), then there's little we can use from police situations. When we talk about tactics and technique for physical defense against an imminent attack, there's much we can use.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Why would an MMA fight trainer need to focus on specifically Wing Chun (or any single style)? There are variations in striking, but many of the same tactics work against several. They also aren't likely to specifically (that I've seen) focus on how to beat Shotokan Karate, or Goju-ryu Karate, or... or... They focus on how to beat strikes, then how to beat grappling, etc.



Unless I'm mistaken WC striking is pretty distinct from MMA striking which is largely based on kickboxing. So if Wing Chun made an impact on MMA, people would have to adapt to the change. Just like MMA is currently adjusting to boxing, Judo, and leg locked-based Bjj.



> The only time they've focused on single arts was either at the beginning (when each was adapting to the new competition format) or when someone came in with surprising results (like Gracie, though arguably what they were preparing for was Gracie, not Gracie BJJ).



Actually Bjj is one of the few remaining solo MMA styles that are focused on. Many fighters actively pursue rank in the style after establishing a striking base.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Unless I'm mistaken WC striking is pretty distinct from MMA striking which is largely based on kickboxing. So if Wing Chun made an impact on MMA, people would have to adapt to the change. Just like MMA is currently adjusting to boxing, Judo, and leg locked-based Bjj.


My point wasn't to compare "MMA striking" to WC, but to comment that MMA fighters have been preparing against strikes for a long time. If their initial work helped them against WC movements, as well as others, there would be no need to specifically target WC. You only target something where it exposes a weakness, and perhaps they collectively covered that area as they prepared for the multitude of other striking arts and their varied approaches.




> Actually Bjj is one of the few remaining solo MMA styles that are focused on. Many fighters actively pursue rank in the style after establishing a striking base.



This is the other side of the coin. Now you're talking about what they use, rather than what they defend against. BJJ does seem to be the best adaptation to MMA needs for someone who has their strikes down. I don't know enough of those needs to say why, except to suppose that the way BBJ'rs roll must adapt more cleanly than (for instance) how Judo players compete.

Oh, and I still rankle at the term "MMA style". I know the training is starting to converge toward a commonality that could be called a style, but BJJ is not an MMA style. It's a style that is used in MMA competition. Nit-picking, I know, and so probably not worth responding to.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> Exactly. And should we really be surprised to see that some of the most popular arts being practiced in early MMA fights were arts that were already geared towards competition fighting--Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, boxing, wrestling, etc.? It seems like it would have been easy to predict that a new competitive fighting format would attract people who already had an interest in competitive fighting.



They also tend to be practically better martial artists. Gpseymor goes and judo's against a champion. He is going to be thrown around the room.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They also tend to be practically better martial artists. Gpseymor goes and judo's against a champion. He is going to be thrown around the room.


Yes. This is something I've already said. They train a hell of a lot more than I do, so they had better be better than me. If not, they are wasting their energy.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is the other side of the coin. Now you're talking about what they use, rather than what they defend against. BJJ does seem to be the best adaptation to MMA needs for someone who has their strikes down. I don't know enough of those needs to say why, except to suppose that the way BBJ'rs roll must adapt more cleanly than (for instance) how Judo players compete.
> 
> Oh, and I still rankle at the term "MMA style". I know the training is starting to converge toward a commonality that could be called a style, but BJJ is not an MMA style. It's a style that is used in MMA competition. Nit-picking, I know, and so probably not worth responding to.



Correct. Bjj is more accurately a mma drill.



He. He.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> They also tend to be practically better martial artists. Gpseymor goes and judo's against a champion. He is going to be thrown around the room.


Yes, they tend to practically train for competition fighting so they tend to practically fair better in competition fighting. Their training and their interests are both a factor.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> They also tend to be practically better martial artists. Gpseymor goes and judo's against a champion. He is going to be thrown around the room.


Yes, they tend to practically train for competition fighting so they tend to practically fair better in competition fighting. Their training and their interests are both a factor.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> Yes, they tend to practically train for competition fighting so they tend to practically fair better in competition fighting. Their training and their interests are both a factor.



That same judo champion will do gpseymor on the street. Sorry but concrete shoes and gp trying to steal the guys wallet is not going to change the situation enough.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> That same judo champion will do gpseymor on the street. Sorry but concrete shoes and gp trying to steal the guys wallet is not going to change the situation enough.


I'm really confused. I'm not sure what that is supposed to be in relation to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That same judo champion will do gpseymor on the street. Sorry but concrete shoes and gp trying to steal the guys wallet is not going to change the situation enough.



If he's a champion at a high level, yes. Because he's training a lot more. It's not the competition factor, nor the style. It's the amount of training in this case. Give me someone with a similar experience/training level/physical condition in Judo, and I probably have an edge on the street. Of course, if he has 30+ years of training and experience in multiple arts (to match mine), then my edge will be slight. There is a point of diminishing return.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinoza said:


> I'm really confused. I'm not sure what that is supposed to be in relation to.


Apparently, now the issue is whether I can successfully mug a Judoka.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If he's a champion at a high level, yes. Because he's training a lot more. It's not the competition factor, nor the style. It's the amount of training in this case. Give me someone with a similar experience/training level/physical condition in Judo, and I probably have an edge on the street. Of course, if he has 30+ years of training and experience in multiple arts (to match mine), then my edge will be slight. There is a point of diminishing return.



If he is a fundimentaly better martial artist. The circumstances make less difference.


----------



## drop bear

Spinoza said:


> I'm really confused. I'm not sure what that is supposed to be in relation to.



You are suggesting that a persons fighting ability ends as soon as they leave the gym. That judo for competition does not effect judo for the street.


----------



## Spinoza

drop bear said:


> You are suggesting that a persons fighting ability ends as soon as they leave the gym. That judo for competition does not effect judo for the street.


I don't recall saying anything like that at all. If I did, I apologize, because it is incorrect.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> There's another factor that affects who enters competitions like that: who is interested. I've noticed that the atmosphere in some schools and styles is simply not attractive to those who want to hit someone else hard enough to knock them out in a competition. Those styles/schools will likely never be represented significantly in NHB competition, because the practitioners aren't interested.
> 
> Take me, for instance. There was a time I could have competed in Judo competitions, and likely would have done okay. I never had enough interest to do so. That absence doesn't mean my techniques wouldn't work there (my experience rolling with Judoka and suggests otherwise).



Yeah, but the idea that *every single* participant in a given style is not interested in NHB competition is a little hard to believe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If he is a fundimentaly better martial artist. The circumstances make less difference.


Not true. Much of his training depends upon using the mats as his friend. The street's surface is rarely your friend. There are many other points. Yes, being a fundamentally better martial artist makes a difference, but I'd expect us to be equal in that respect if we are equal in training and experience. I'm not a stranger to Judo - I studied it before I got into my primary art. In fact, it's the first art I used for self-defense. Are you as familiar with my training as I am with Judo?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> My point wasn't to compare "MMA striking" to WC, but to comment that MMA fighters have been preparing against strikes for a long time. If their initial work helped them against WC movements, as well as others, there would be no need to specifically target WC. You only target something where it exposes a weakness, and perhaps they collectively covered that area as they prepared for the multitude of other striking arts and their varied approaches.



My point is that WC is significantly different than the type of striking a MMA fighter would be used to. So it stands to reason that if a WC fighter entered MMA and used WC striking on a MMA fighter, that fighter wouldn't be able to counter it. The same thing occurred when Ryan Hall pulled 50/50 guard in TUF competition, his opponents really had no answer for it, and that's largely how he ended up winning the competition. Ronda Rousey did the same thing with Judo, since that grappling style wasn't common for a lot fighters, she was able to utilize her unique grappling skill to counter the common grappling style of MMA which is a mix of wrestling standup and BJJ submission grappling.

So if the WC's version of Hall or Rousey entered MMA, the same thing would happen.



> This is the other side of the coin. Now you're talking about what they use, rather than what they defend against. BJJ does seem to be the best adaptation to MMA needs for someone who has their strikes down. I don't know enough of those needs to say why, except to suppose that the way BBJ'rs roll must adapt more cleanly than (for instance) how Judo players compete.



I was addressing the idea that individual styles aren't focused on, and I was pointing out that Bjj is one of the few that are if the fighter in question has superb skill in it. Roused had a similar situation with her Judo as her opponents sought to counter it.



gpseymour said:


> Not true. Much of his training depends upon using the mats as his friend. The street's surface is rarely your friend. There are many other points. Yes, being a fundamentally better martial artist makes a difference, but I'd expect us to be equal in that respect if we are equal in training and experience. I'm not a stranger to Judo - I studied it before I got into my primary art. In fact, it's the first art I used for self-defense. Are you as familiar with my training as I am with Judo?



Actually the concrete would be _his_ friend, since he'd be throwing you on it.

High level Judoka can even make it so you fall in really bad ways even if you have a solid break fall.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but the idea that *every single* participant in a given style is not interested in NHB competition is a little hard to believe.


Did you miss the word "significantly"? If a very small number of those people are interested, the likelihood of someone rising to the top is small (simple probability). Add to that the fact that those few will have very little to draw on as far as how to adapt the art to competition (whereas those from competitive styles have generations of that information), and you have a differentiator.

Or, it could be the art's techniques are ill-suited to that sort of use.

Or, it could be that the art isn't effective.

Too many people jump to that last possibility, and declare it a conclusion. That's a huge fallacy in reasoning.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Did you miss the word "significantly"? If a very small number of those people are interested, the likelihood of someone rising to the top is small (simple probability). Add to that the fact that those few will have very little to draw on as far as how to adapt the art to competition (whereas those from competitive styles have generations of that information), and you have a differentiator.
> 
> Or, it could be the art's techniques are ill-suited to that sort of use.
> 
> Or, it could be that the art isn't effective.
> 
> Too many people jump to that last possibility, and declare it a conclusion. That's a huge fallacy in reasoning.



What techniques would be ill-suited for competitive/fighting use?


----------



## Phobius

For many non-competitive styles I believe the path to fight in MMA is simply too long to be of interest.

Doubt it is like this everywhere but at least where I live if you want to have a chance of entering an MMA competition you need to train in MMA. If you train MMA you need to use the techniques they train, otherwise you will never advance long enough to be allowed to fight.

I wish MMA never got to be viewed as a style, would make my area much more interesting. Because without losing a couple of fights there is simply no way to learn to improve.

Secondly if you are serious about competing in MMA you want to win, as such you optimize you input and output. MMA I personally believe to be a quicker path where lack of knowledge can be bridged by simply training harder and having better physics.

Same goes for styles like boxing, from my point of view it breeds fighters rapidly. Not experts but decent fighters pop up just after a year of training. Sadly I can not say the same for TMA, it requires more devotion and studying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Actually the concrete would be _his_ friend, since he'd be throwing you on it.
> 
> High level Judoka can even make it so you fall in really bad ways even if you have a solid break fall.



You're ignoring the fact that I am equally capable of making them fall, and I practice looking for ways to make those falls worse on hard surfaces. And I, probably (though not certainly) unlike them, have practiced movement on uneven surfaces, broken surfaces, etc., to improve my chances when the mats aren't there. I also practice strikes, which most (again not all) Judoka don't.

Your'e simply declaring that a Judoka at my same level is better and would win if we had a street confrontation, because they compete. That's an assumption, based on nothing but opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> What techniques would be ill-suited for competitive/fighting use?



Techniques that are designed for someone who is enraged, for one example. Those techniques are designed to take advantage of low control and high commitment. The attacks spawned by that rage are often inefficient, so won't likely show up in a competition (except in Karate Kid and Van Damme movies).

Time spent training to handle multiple attackers (movement, etc.) is also wasted for competition.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> You're ignoring the fact that I am equally capable of making them fall, and I practice looking for ways to make those falls worse on hard surfaces. And I, probably (though not certainly) unlike them, have practiced movement on uneven surfaces, broken surfaces, etc., to improve my chances when the mats aren't there. I also practice strikes, which most (again not all) Judoka don't.
> 
> Your'e simply declaring that a Judoka at my same level is better and would win if we had a street confrontation, because they compete. That's an assumption, based on nothing but opinion.



No, I'm declaring that a Judoka can make their techniques work regardless of the surface they're doing the technique on.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm declaring that a Judoka can make their techniques work regardless of the surface they're doing the technique on.


sometimes


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Techniques that are designed for someone who is enraged, for one example. Those techniques are designed to take advantage of low control and high commitment. The attacks spawned by that rage are often inefficient, so won't likely show up in a competition (except in Karate Kid and Van Damme movies).



So you're assuming that no one has ever become enraged or frustrated in the ring/competition, or that someone who is highly trained in a style that utilizes control wouldn't be able to control an enraged person?



> Time spent training to handle multiple attackers (movement, etc.) is also wasted for competition.



Yeah, that's not true. I've been taught multiple attacker techniques/principles in Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> sometimes



Most of the time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not true. Much of his training depends upon using the mats as his friend. The street's surface is rarely your friend. There are many other points. Yes, being a fundamentally better martial artist makes a difference, but I'd expect us to be equal in that respect if we are equal in training and experience. I'm not a stranger to Judo - I studied it before I got into my primary art. In fact, it's the first art I used for self-defense. Are you as familiar with my training as I am with Judo?



Is your skill level about the same as a judo champion?

I mean the distinction is not skill level because you are fighting judo champ on your ground. 

People think this gives them the advantage because judo guy has only trained for competition. 

I think you would have to find some very funky enviroments to make up for that avility difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm declaring that a Judoka can make their techniques work regardless of the surface they're doing the technique on.



I never said they couldn't. I just said that their training uses the mat as an aid. Those techniques are different on concrete. You suggested it would aid them because they'd be throwing me, which assumes I don't throw them. Of course they can make them work. Some of what they are used to, however (and, of course, some of what I'm used to) won't work as nicely when there's not a cushy surface to work with. I've taken falls and grappled on surfaces other than grappling mats, for this purpose. Many judoka haven't. Of course, if this judoka in question has a self-defense mindset, he will have done that, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Is your skill level about the same as a judo champion?
> 
> I mean the distinction is not skill level because you are fighting judo champ on your ground.
> 
> People think this gives them the advantage because judo guy has only trained for competition.
> 
> I think you would have to find some very funky enviroments to make up for that avility difference.




You're missing a few points in between. I already commented that a judo champion puts in way more training and conditioning than me, and doesn't have the joint issues I do (or he wouldn't be a champion). I was talking about a judoka of similar experience and skill, saying that training the way I do (using odd surfaces at times) gives me an advantage over someone who trains solely for competition, since they'd have no use for similar training. 

You really should read more closely before you post snarky comments, attempting to put people in their place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So you're assuming that no one has ever become enraged or frustrated in the ring/competition, or that someone who is highly trained in a style that utilizes control wouldn't be able to control an enraged person?



No, I'm making no such assumption. Stop trying to put weak reasoning behind my words.

What I'm assuming is that an enraged competitor is rare, while an enraged bar attack is probably more the norm. And I also didn't say a trained person who uses control can't control an enraged person. What I said was that there are approaches taught in self-defense that are specifically designed to take advantage of this "emotional hijacking" by the limbic system. Since this is often present in attacks of passion (rather than robberies, etc.), it's reasonable to learn to make use of the errors it creates. Since it would be less common in the ring, it may not make sense to train that same approach for competition. That's not about whether other techniques would work, but about whether those approaches for leveraging someones rage are of much use in higher levels of competition. People likely don't get to compete at relatively high levels if they can't control themselves - they'd lose too often to the cooler heads in the ring.



> Yeah, that's not true. I've been taught multiple attacker techniques/principles in Bjj.



That you've trained it doesn't mean it's useful for competition, which is what I actually referred to. You seem determined to make my comments out to be some slander of competition and any school that competes or trains for competition. I have zero problem with them, have friends who run some of them, and have even visited and trained at some of them. Some (relatively few, in my experience - like the first part of the Gracie curriculum, IIRC) competition styles and schools incorporate self-defense, as well. If they do, that's not a purely competition school. Not better or worse, but different, and more useful for someone who wants to prepare for self-defense.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> No, I'm making no such assumption. Stop trying to put weak reasoning behind my words.
> 
> What I'm assuming is that an enraged competitor is rare, while an enraged bar attack is probably more the norm. And I also didn't say a trained person who uses control can't control an enraged person. What I said was that there are approaches taught in self-defense that are specifically designed to take advantage of this "emotional hijacking" by the limbic system. Since this is often present in attacks of passion (rather than robberies, etc.), it's reasonable to learn to make use of the errors it creates. Since it would be less common in the ring, it may not make sense to train that same approach for competition. That's not about whether other techniques would work, but about whether those approaches for leveraging someones rage are of much use in higher levels of competition. People likely don't get to compete at relatively high levels if they can't control themselves - they'd lose too often to the cooler heads in the ring.



Which is nonsense. Competitors do get frustrated, enraged, desperate, etc. Heck, that can happen when your sparring/rolling while training. All of that alters their fighting ability, and there's no reason to believe that a sport martial artist wouldn't be able to handle an enraged assailant as well (if not better) than a traditional martial artist can.

Further, unless you're some kind of street fighter who gets into altercations constantly, a sport martial artist is more likely to experience those emotional shifts than a traditional martial artist, and be better able to handle that situation.



> That you've trained it doesn't mean it's useful for competition, which is what I actually referred to.



Knee on belly is useful for multiple opponents and competition. Cain Velasquez used that exact technique to win the UFC HW championship.

That's one example of many.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're missing a few points in between. I already commented that a judo champion puts in way more training and conditioning than me, and doesn't have the joint issues I do (or he wouldn't be a champion). I was talking about a judoka of similar experience and skill, saying that training the way I do (using odd surfaces at times) gives me an advantage over someone who trains solely for competition, since they'd have no use for similar training.
> 
> You really should read more closely before you post snarky comments, attempting to put people in their place.



Which bit was snarky out of interests sakes?

Anyway we were judging the merits of the practitioner by their specific skill set. So a person who competes at judo is good but only for competition. So the fact he is a judo champion does not really factor in. Technically this judo champion is of equal or lesser skill on the uneven pavement depending if he trained for the street or not.

Now if the above does not sound all that realistic. Then maybe we need to consider sports fighters as martial artists in their own right and not just suited to competition.


"Yes, they tend to practically train for competition fighting so they tend to practically fair better in competition fighting. Their training and their interests are both a factor."


----------



## Phobius

A practitioner studies a martial art, no matter whether they compete or not.

Problem could be that a contender may put some effort in learning tools that are not usable for street/self defense but very viable for competition under rules. (Sort of like seeing some grapplers have head forward and low arms while standing)
Now if you practise the same amount of time as someone else, and you spend 20% of that time on teaching your body to automatically do stuff you should never do when in a real fight, that still means you train 80% on doing stuff correctly.

Now imagine if this guy trains twice as hard as anyone else just to get an edge in competition, then yes he will control his opponent without much worries.

Now if the table is turned and one guy trains twice as hard but never competes, facing an opponent that does compete and trains quite a bit less. Imagine who would win most likely.

Competition has nothing to do with being used to fighting with resistance or having an opponent. Sparring is not a training tool for competitions. It is a training tool period.


----------



## Paul_D

Phobius said:


> Problem could be that a contender may put some effort in learning tools that are not usable for street/self defense but very viable for competition under rules.........Now if you practise the same amount of time as someone else, and you spend 20% of that time on teaching your body to automatically do stuff you should never do when in a real fight.......


Self defence and getting into "real fights" are two different things.  If you get in to a fight you are not defending yourself, you are breaking the law.


----------



## Phobius

Paul_D said:


> Self defence and getting into "real fights" are two different things.  If you get in to a fight you are not defending yourself, you are breaking the law.



I know, but I believe the discussion was that if he robbed a Judo champion... that means he is breaking the law and getting himself into a real fight.

And you can be in a real fight as part of self defense. You are not breaking the law if someone tries to hit you. Not all real fights means you want or need to hit your opponent(s). In some cases you just need to get away unharmed.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> You're ignoring the fact that I am equally capable of making them fall, and I practice looking for ways to make those falls worse on hard surfaces. And I, probably (though not certainly) unlike them, have practiced movement on uneven surfaces, broken surfaces, etc., to improve my chances when the mats aren't there.


<pssst>  [looks around] Judoka do too.  




> I also practice strikes, which most (again not all) Judoka don't.


More than you seem to think.



> Your'e simply declaring that a Judoka at my same level is better and would win if we had a street confrontation, because they compete. That's an assumption, based on nothing but opinion.


As a Judoka, I'd agree with this.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> A practitioner studies a martial art, no matter whether they compete or not.
> 
> Problem could be that a contender may put some effort in learning tools that are not usable for street/self defense but very viable for competition under rules. (Sort of like seeing some grapplers have head forward and low arms while standing)
> Now if you practise the same amount of time as someone else, and you spend 20% of that time on teaching your body to automatically do stuff you should never do when in a real fight, that still means you train 80% on doing stuff correctly.
> 
> Now imagine if this guy trains twice as hard as anyone else just to get an edge in competition, then yes he will control his opponent without much worries.
> 
> Now if the table is turned and one guy trains twice as hard but never competes, facing an opponent that does compete and trains quite a bit less. Imagine who would win most likely.
> 
> Competition has nothing to do with being used to fighting with resistance or having an opponent. Sparring is not a training tool for competitions. It is a training tool period.



The point about competition is you get a guage of ability. You get the same with sparring. 

What happens is that people separate this from self defence and suggest competition is no guage of ability. And will push that to sparring is no guage of ability. 

It then almost comes down to whether or not the martial artist fits this script that is made to suggest what happens in self defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Which is nonsense. Competitors do get frustrated, enraged, desperate, etc. Heck, that can happen when your sparring/rolling while training. All of that alters their fighting ability, and there's no reason to believe that a sport martial artist wouldn't be able to handle an enraged assailant as well (if not better) than a traditional martial artist can.



Again, not a response to my statement. I never said a competitor couldn't handle enraged people. I said that they are unlikely to train for techniques and approaches specifically designed for those. And, again, I never said folks don't get angry when competing - I said that those folks who do won't rise as high, because they are a bit easier to handle when they do that.



> Further, unless you're some kind of street fighter who gets into altercations constantly, a sport martial artist is more likely to experience those emotional shifts than a traditional martial artist, and be better able to handle that situation.



Perhaps true, and still not relevant to any specific comment I made. You're still trying to defend competition, which I'm not attacking.



> Knee on belly is useful for multiple opponents and competition. Cain Velasquez used that exact technique to win the UFC HW championship.
> 
> That's one example of many.



And, again, I never said nothing used in competition is useful for multiple-attacker scenarios. What I said was that training for competition ONLY wouldn't include anything specifically designed for multiple attackers. To be clearer, there is NO REASON for someone competing in one-on-one fights to study how to manage movement against 2 or more attackers if his ONLY reason for training is competition. If he studies that, he has stepped into self-defense training. Neither better nor worse than competition, just a different area than pure competition training.

Now can you please stop defending competition from attacks I'm not making?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which bit was snarky out of interests sakes?
> 
> Anyway we were judging the merits of the practitioner by their specific skill set. So a person who competes at judo is good but only for competition. So the fact he is a judo champion does not really factor in. Technically this judo champion is of equal or lesser skill on the uneven pavement depending if he trained for the street or not.



You're choosing to ignore my entire reply to that, so I'm going to choose not to repeat it.



> Now if the above does not sound all that realistic. Then maybe we need to consider sports fighters as martial artists in their own right and not just suited to competition.



More of the same. If you were replying to something I actually said, I'd reply.



> "Yes, they tend to practically train for competition fighting so they tend to practically fair better in competition fighting. Their training and their interests are both a factor."



The point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Self defence and getting into "real fights" are two different things.  If you get in to a fight you are not defending yourself, you are breaking the law.



You're arguing the definition of "fight". I think he was referring to the physical confrontation that would happen if you were physically attacked. In that case, if we call that a fight (and I often do), then that is part of self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> <pssst>  [looks around] Judoka do too.



Precisely. Those who are preparing for something outside competition. Perhaps I should have been clearer that my reply was using a theoretical competition-trained-only judoka as an example, since the original comment was about the value of competition training. As someone who has used Judo in self-defense, I know its value for that. As someone who trains for self-defense, I know that value rises when you train to use it that way. At that point, we're not just talking about someone who competes.



> More than you seem to think.



Actually, most of the Judoka I know are cross-trained in one style or another of Karate (as was my instructor). I don't have  ton of Judo training, but the few schools I was in didn't include that in Judo training. They were competition-oriented, so trained just for that. Again, any adaptation blurs the line between that theoretical Judoka first brought up and my own training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The point about competition is you get a guage of ability. You get the same with sparring.
> 
> What happens is that people separate this from self defence and suggest competition is no guage of ability. And will push that to sparring is no guage of ability.
> 
> It then almost comes down to whether or not the martial artist fits this script that is made to suggest what happens in self defence.



I don't know any serious SD martial artists who don't think there's value in sparring. Without sparring, there's nothing unexpected (well not as much - there are other ways to train that, as well), and no chance to try finding a way to work against someone who knows how to stop you. I think sparring - in its various forms and levels - is a valuable tool for training.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> Actually, most of the Judoka I know are cross-trained in one style or another of Karate (as was my instructor). I don't have  ton of Judo training, but the few schools I was in didn't include that in Judo training. They were competition-oriented, so trained just for that. Again, any adaptation blurs the line between that theoretical Judoka first brought up and my own training.


OK.  I will readily conceded that there are a vast number of Judo Dojo with heavy competition orientations.  But even within "pure" Judo, Atemi Waza is part of the "official" curriculum.  Heck, everyone has heard of the classic "Judo Chop!"

_"Judo consists primarily of nage-waza (throws), along with katame-waza (grappling), which includes osaekomi-waza (pins), shime-waza (chokes), and kansetsu-waza (joint locks). Additional techniques, including atemi-waza (striking), various joint locks, self defense and weapons are found in the Judo katas. Judo is generally compared to wrestling, but it retains its unique combat forms. As a daughter to Jujutsu these techniques are also often taught in Judo classes."_
- Kodokan Judo
by Neil Ohlenkamp​Classification of Techniques in Kodokan Judo
http://judoinfo.com/pdf/MyMethodofSelfDefense.pdf

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Paul_D

Firstly as it is difficult to portray intent in writing, so I shall attempt to avoid the problems which have plagued other threads and state that this is meant to be helpful, not argumentative, so if my writing style infers confrontation, that is due to my poor writing, rather than my actual intent. 



Phobius said:


> I
> And you can be in a real fight as part of self defense.


No you can't, and that is the very crux of my point.  .  Fighting is illegal, self defence is not.  How then can an illegal fight be legal self defence? There is no confusion, or debate.  They are different and one cannot be the other.



Phobius said:


> You are not breaking the law if someone tries to hit you. Not all real fights means you want or need to hit your opponent(s).


No you're are not breaking the law, but that is becasue someone trying to hit you is called assault not a fight, and defending yourself form assault is called self defence, not fighting.

Fighting is when you willingly agree to take your argument outside and settle it in a "square go". Self defence is when one or more people involved are unwilling.

It may sound pedantic but it is not, the distinction is important.  Talking about "fighting" when what you really mean is self defence gives people the mistaken impression that a) agreeing to take part in street fights or bar brawls is legal self defence and b) that the skills and tactics needed for success in a consensual fight are the same as the skills and tactics needed for success in self defence.

Furthermore is the consideration that in the when people are convicted by the courts when legally defending themselves, it was not because of what they did, but rather what they said.  In Dead or Alive:  The Definitive Self Protection Handbook, Geoff Thomspon discusses this very issue:-

_Many people are convicted not for what they have done but for what they have said. You are judged on your statement as opposed to the incident itself. So, what does this mean in English? Basically you could defend yourself within the law and yet still be convicted and sent to jail because you did not quote the law correctly when giving a statement. Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law._ 

Telling the Police someone tried to assault you is a very different thing (to them and to the jury) to telling them you got into a fight.


----------



## Hanzou

So if a woman is pinned down by her attacker, and she begins to kick, punch, and grapple to escape him, she's not defending herself via fighting?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> No you can't, and that is the very crux of my point. . Fighting is illegal, self defence is not. How then can an illegal fight be legal self defence? There is no confusion, or debate. They are different and one cannot be the other.



Forrest griffin will explain it to you.


----------



## drop bear

Defence against assault. Neatly put into an acronym for easy reference.

*The defences to assault are*
CAMELS Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence.

Assault flashcards | Quizlet

Why people get this massive semantic tizz over the explaination of concepts like self defence. And then only explain half of it I have no idea.

Self defence is the wrong term. Use of force is the correct term. Because it covers a more comprehensive use of the skills learned in martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Firstly as it is difficult to portray intent in writing, so I shall attempt to avoid the problems which have plagued other threads and state that this is meant to be helpful, not argumentative, so if my writing style infers confrontation, that is due to my poor writing, rather than my actual intent.
> 
> 
> No you can't, and that is the very crux of my point.  .  Fighting is illegal, self defence is not.  How then can an illegal fight be legal self defence? There is no confusion, or debate.  They are different and one cannot be the other.
> 
> 
> No you're are not breaking the law, but that is becasue someone trying to hit you is called assault not a fight, and defending yourself form assault is called self defence, not fighting.
> 
> Fighting is when you willingly agree to take your argument outside and settle it in a "square go". Self defence is when one or more people involved are unwilling.
> 
> It may sound pedantic but it is not, the distinction is important.  Talking about "fighting" when what you really mean is self defence gives people the mistaken impression that a) agreeing to take part in street fights or bar brawls is legal self defence and b) that the skills and tactics needed for success in a consensual fight are the same as the skills and tactics needed for success in self defence.
> 
> Furthermore is the consideration that in the when people are convicted by the courts when legally defending themselves, it was not because of what they did, but rather what they said.  In Dead or Alive:  The Definitive Self Protection Handbook, Geoff Thomspon discusses this very issue:-
> 
> _Many people are convicted not for what they have done but for what they have said. You are judged on your statement as opposed to the incident itself. So, what does this mean in English? Basically you could defend yourself within the law and yet still be convicted and sent to jail because you did not quote the law correctly when giving a statement. Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law._
> 
> Telling the Police someone tried to assault you is a very different thing (to them and to the jury) to telling them you got into a fight.


As I said before, you're arguing from your own definition of "fight". For me (and pretty much everyone I've ever trained with), the word can be used to indicate an arranged contest (what you're talking about) or any other physical confrontation that involves similar actions (punches, kicks, tackles, grabs, etc. - what I'm talking about). If you continue to use your definition to reply to my comments, we can never agree. If you don't like my definition, give me another term that works for those other things I'm calling "fights" that don't fit your definition. Otherwise, we're just going to waste our time arguing in circles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> OK.  I will readily conceded that there are a vast number of Judo Dojo with heavy competition orientations.  But even within "pure" Judo, Atemi Waza is part of the "official" curriculum.  Heck, everyone has heard of the classic "Judo Chop!"
> 
> _"Judo consists primarily of nage-waza (throws), along with katame-waza (grappling), which includes osaekomi-waza (pins), shime-waza (chokes), and kansetsu-waza (joint locks). Additional techniques, including atemi-waza (striking), various joint locks, self defense and weapons are found in the Judo katas. Judo is generally compared to wrestling, but it retains its unique combat forms. As a daughter to Jujutsu these techniques are also often taught in Judo classes."_
> - Kodokan Judo
> by Neil Ohlenkamp​Classification of Techniques in Kodokan Judo
> http://judoinfo.com/pdf/MyMethodofSelfDefense.pdf
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Point well-made, Kirk. I suspect I either didn't get the atemi portion of the curriculum (not sure when it would have come in) or I just don't recall it, since I studied Shotokan Karate with the same instructor.

In either case, strikes are certainly out-of-scope for Judo competition training (though useful if training for MMA, of course).

Oh, and I'd forgotten "Judo chop"!


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't know any serious SD martial artists who don't think there's value in sparring. Without sparring, there's nothing unexpected (well not as much - there are other ways to train that, as well), and no chance to try finding a way to work against someone who knows how to stop you. I think sparring - in its various forms and levels - is a valuable tool for training.



Well.  You will eventually meet them here. And they are very serious.

So i understand the point you are making.  But it is a different point to the one i am trying to get across.

My argument has been the same as yours.  Sparring refines a core skill which you really need if you want to go out and self defence. Even if you are mad keen to streetafy your training you need that ability to start from.

The counter argument is that it dosent refine a core skill but that it refines a competition skill.  And that you need different core principles to create a base for self defence.

I have never found that argument consistent in anything else i have done.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> I'll have to dust off all of your posts about how the ring isn't self defense, but change it from cage to cop. The distinctions are the same.


There is only one thing like self defense and that's self defense. Other things can have elements in common but there is nothing like the real thing.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> not two people swinging wildly as if they've had no training whatsoever.


Something that is seen in MMA often.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> My argument has been the same as yours.  Sparring refines a core skill which you really need if you want to go out and self defence. Even if you are mad keen to streetafy your training you need that ability to start from.


So if you want to teach self defence to the elderly, you are going to tell them they can't do so it without sparring?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but the idea that *every single* participant in a given style is not interested in NHB competition is a little hard to believe.


Not when you consider that people who have no interest in NHB competition tend to gravitate towards martial arts that do not compete in NHB competitions.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Competitors do get frustrated, enraged, desperate, etc.


And there is usually a referee there to break them up if it gets too hairy.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Not when you consider that people who have no interest in NHB competition tend to gravitate towards martial arts that do not compete in NHB competitions.



It's not that they have no interest in NHB competitions, they have no interest in actually fighting or getting hit to advance their abilities and expose their limitations. Every major MA that lends itself to NHB competitions has a very heavy sparring component that turns off many practitioners for a variety of reasons. Kyokushin for example has a full contact sparring portion that is a major part of the style. Many people don't want to get really punched in the body or kicked in the head on a regular basis, so they'll go to a softer, more kata-based karate system where they don't have to get hit, or worry about having to spar 30 big karate guys to get their black belt one day.

In the end, many people would rather kick/punch air instead of getting choked out by a big sweaty man. It's only natural.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> So if you want to teach self defence to the elderly, you are going to tell them they can't do so it without sparring?



Cant do it well.  
We have put two 55 plus guys in the ring by the way.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> And there is usually a referee there to break them up if it gets too hairy.



If somone starts doing sonething illegal or one fighter cant defend himself.

From a practical standpoint there becomes a small chance a fighter can recover from that point.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> It's not that they have no interest in NHB competitions, they have no interest in actually fighting or getting hit to advance their abilities and expose their limitations. Every major MA that lends itself to NHB competitions has a very heavy sparring component that turns off many practitioners for a variety of reasons. Kyokushin for example has a full contact sparring portion that is a major part of the style. Many people don't want to get really punched in the body or kicked in the head on a regular basis, so they'll go to a softer, more kata-based karate system where they don't have to get hit, or worry about having to spar 30 big karate guys to get their black belt one day.
> 
> In the end, many people would rather kick/punch air instead of getting choked out by a big sweaty man. It's only natural.



But it is that they have no interest in NHB..

Kyokushin, WTF TKD, Boxing, Sanda, are all full contact, blood, sweat, tears, KO styles but they arent all rushing to NHB.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> But it is that they have no interest in NHB..
> 
> Kyokushin, WTF TKD, Boxing, Sanda, are all full contact, blood, sweat, tears, KO styles but they arent all rushing to NHB.



Actually, there's plenty of Kyokushin, TKD, Boxing, and Sanda in NHB. Heck, all of those styles have their own form of full-contact competition, and plenty of fighters utilize those styles for their base.

If NO ONE or close to zero from those styles were entering NHB competitions, or participated in their own full-contact competitions you'd have an argument.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Actually, there's plenty of Kyokushin, TKD, Boxing, and Sanda in NHB. Heck, all of those styles have their own form of full-contact competition, and plenty of fighters utilize those styles for their base.
> 
> If NO ONE or close to zero from those styles were entering NHB competitions, or participated in their own full-contact competitions you'd have an argument.



Not really involved in what you are talking about. But one thing, you dont have an argument either. In order for this to be an argument in your point of view you need to provide actual statistical data to make a statement that it is way more than "NO ONE or close to zero" from those styles entering NHB competitions.

What is it with all these arguments lately on the forum. Please provide statistics to your arguments, and if you can not, then you better accept that other people will add arguments without need of proof right back at you.


Oh, I am not saying you are right or wrong. Just that you can´t state that your arguments are proven because you say so, and others are not because they did not provide facts..... or actually you can. It just feels so silly to read it if so.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Not really involved in what you are talking about. But one thing, you dont have an argument either. In order for this to be an argument in your point of view you need to provide actual statistical data to make a statement that it is way more than "NO ONE or close to zero" from those styles entering NHB competitions.



Actually I don't since that wasn't my argument. My argument was that plenty of people from those styles are participating in NHB competition, and their styles even have NHB competition integrated into them, making the transition a bit easier for them.

My other argument is that the reason we don't see a lot of NHB participation from certain styles is because the culture of those styles attract a certain type of person. Typically, that person simply doesn't like a lot of fighting and would prefer to do mainly katas/forms or choreographed demos instead of heavy sparring and fighting.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> There is only one thing like self defense and that's self defense. Other things can have elements in common but there is nothing like the real thing.



The point here before it gets too messy is that a lot of these full contact competitions are still an example of good fighting even if they are not NHB. 

There are quality bjj fighters who are not nhb fighters.

There is a different mesure to this argument. The guys who are big fish in little ponds wont be seen crossing hands with people anywhere. 

Being the gun fighter of a group of mabye ten shlubs is what it is.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Cant do it well.
> We have put two 55 plus guys in the ring by the way.


Nice I have a 50 year old friend who is not only amateur boxer but he also does bare knuckle street fights for £1,000 a time.

Anyway, why can't they they defend themselves without going to a gym and sparring?  They aren't getting into bar brawls or street fights, they have different types of self defence concerns.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Nice I have a 50 year old friend who is not only amateur boxer but he also does bare knuckle street fights for £1,000 a time.
> 
> Anyway, why can't they they defend themselves without going to a gym and sparring?  They aren't getting into bar brawls or street fights, they have different types of self defence concerns.



You can defend yourself to a level.  But you loose out on refining a whole bunch of core principles that you learn from sparring.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> You can defend yourself to a level.  But you loose out on refining a whole bunch of core principles that you learn from sparring.


Thanks, I think I get what you are getting at now


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It's not that they have no interest in NHB competitions, they have no interest in actually fighting or getting hit to advance their abilities and expose their limitations.



NHB full contact competitions are not the only way to advance one's abilities and expose their limitations. It is just your bias and ignorance of those styles that lead you to that conclusion.



Hanzou said:


> Every major MA that lends itself to NHB competitions has a very heavy sparring component that turns off many practitioners for a variety of reasons.



There is more than just your definition of heavy sparring. Our style has turned people off after witnessing the sparring at one of our black belt tests.



Hanzou said:


> In the end, many people would rather kick/punch air instead of getting choked out by a big sweaty man. It's only natural.



And many people would rather roll around on the floor instead of getting kicked or punched. Even Royce Gracie has stated that he doesn't like being hit.



Hanzou said:


> If NO ONE or close to zero from those styles were entering NHB competitions, or participated in their own full-contact competitions you'd have an argument.



NO ONE or close to zero from my style is entering NHB competitions, or participating in our own full-contact competitions so he does have an argument



Hanzou said:


> Typically, that person simply doesn't like a lot of fighting and would prefer to do mainly katas/forms or choreographed demos instead of heavy sparring and fighting.



Typically you offer only conjecture and personal opinion.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKWCMB said:


> NHB full contact competitions are not the *only* way to advance one's abilities and expose their limitations.



I never said it was.




> There is more than just your definition of heavy sparring. Our style has turned people off after witnessing the sparring at one of our black belt tests.



I'm sure. 



> And many people would rather roll around on the floor instead of getting kicked or punched.



And "rolling around on the floor" is still better than kicking and punching air.




> Even Royce Gracie has stated that he doesn't like being hit.



Yes, so they developed a system where you minimize the possibility of getting hit. Instead of standing toe to toe with someone and exchanging punishing blows, you take your opponent down and control them. Of course we should also remember that once the Gracies took someone to the ground they starting striking them from a dominant position.

Worked out pretty good for them wouldn't you say?




> NO ONE or close to zero from my style is entering NHB competitions, or participating in our own full-contact competitions so he does have an argument



TKD? Plenty of NHB fighters come from a TKD base. The particular style of TKD *you* practice is a different story altogether.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> The particular style of TKD *you* practice is a different story altogether.


That is because I do a self defense based style and getting injured in training by full contact fighting would kind of defeat the purpose.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That is because I do a self defense based style and getting injured in training by full contact fighting would kind of defeat the purpose.



Isn't the entire purpose of your training to be able to kick and punch someone into submission? The idea that you're avoiding practicing the purpose of your training because you're afraid of getting injured is pretty funny. I mean, you're not learning ballroom dancing (which you can also get injured in), you're learning how to literally beat someone down with your bare hands.

Which begs the question; How do you learn to beat someone down with your bare hands without actually beating someone down with your bare hands?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> And "rolling around on the floor" is still better than kicking and punching air.


And if that was all the striking art was doing then I would agree.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Isn't the entire purpose of your training to be able to kick and punch someone into submission?



No, the purpose of my training is to defend myself when someone attacks me not to win competitions or beat people up.



Hanzou said:


> The idea that you're avoiding practicing the purpose of your training because you're afraid of getting injured is pretty funny.



That would only be true if the purpose of my training was to compete in NHB fighting competitions, it is not. NHB fighting takes a toll on the fighters bodies in injuries that are not necessary for learning self defense. If you get injured in class then you cannot defend yourself as effectively until you are fully recovered. It has nothing to do with fear of injury.



Hanzou said:


> you're learning how to literally beat someone down with your bare hands.



No I am learning to finish off an attacker as efficiently as possible without getting hurt or using excessive force.



Hanzou said:


> How do you learn to beat someone down with your bare hands without actually beating someone down with your bare hands?



In much the same way you learn to shoot people without actually shooting people.

I don't know about anyone else but I joined a martial art so people WOULDN'T punch me in the head.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> And if that was all the striking art was doing then I would agree.



That would depend on the striking art right? Not all of them just kick and punch air, and they're far better because of it.



RTKWCMB said:


> No, the purpose of my training is to defend myself when someone attacks me not to win competitions or beat people up.



So if someone is attacking you, you're not striking (beating) them in order to protect yourself? How else would you be able to stop an attacker getting physical with you? Mind games?



> That would only be true if the purpose of my training was to compete in NHB fighting competitions, it is not.



Your entire martial art is based around punching and kicking someone. What other purpose is there for it to exist? Cut down all of the philosophy and Mr. Myagi mumbo-jumbo and the entire purpose behind TKD is to kick or punch the crap out of someone. We can even assign a self defense angle to it; Sport TKD is mutual agreed upon butt kicking, self defense TKD is when you don't agree and you kick *their* butt.

You can dress up a pig any way you like, but its still a pig.

And sorry, but injuries come with the territory, if you're learning to fight that is.



> In much the same way you learn to shoot people without actually shooting people,



Aiming and firing a firearm is far more simple than learning and applying martial art.

In my style someone would get laughed off the mat if they said that someone who has never sparred could submit someone who sparred constantly. I find it interesting that other styles actually believe such a thing is possible.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Aiming and firing a firearm is far more simple than learning and applying martial art.



Firing a firearm at someone is as far away from simple as one can get. No matter how much you train, you will most likely freeze when needing to pull the trigger unless something else like fear can push you over any sane border.

Also shooting someone will probably destroy you mentally more than any martial artist ever could physically.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> In my style someone would get laughed off the mat if they said that someone who has never sparred could submit someone who sparred constantly. I find it interesting that other styles actually believe such a thing is possible.



This has been covered. You keep assuming the discussion is whether someone can beat someone else in competition if one spars and the doesn't. That has never been the discussion. Seld-defense training comes in many types and levels. Some can be had with zero sparring. Adding sparring likely raises the level of effectiveness, as does any number of other factors. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> This has been covered. You keep assuming the discussion is whether someone can beat someone else in competition if one spars and the doesn't. That has never been the discussion. Seld-defense training comes in many types and levels. Some can be had with zero sparring. Adding sparring likely raises the level of effectiveness, as does any number of other factors.



That comment had nothing to do with competition. If you've never rolled against someone in Bjj and applied a choke while they're trying to get you off of them, or moving their head towards the weak point of the choke in order to resist it, or while their trying to kick or punch you, then you've never really applied a choke before. Thus the chances of you being able to apply a choke in a self defense situation is pretty close to zero.

There is simply no other type of training that matches actual fighting. The closest we have to actual fighting is full contact sparring.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Firing a firearm at someone is as far away from simple as one can get. No matter how much you train, you will most likely freeze when needing to pull the trigger unless something else like fear can push you over any sane border.
> 
> Also shooting someone will probably destroy you mentally more than any martial artist ever could physically.



Choking someone to death or bashing their brains into the concrete until they die will destroy you mentally as well. The point is that performing either one of those acts is far more difficult than shooting someone.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> That would depend on the striking art right? Not all of them just kick and punch air, and they're far better because of it.



There are virtually no martial arts that just kick and punch air, except maybe Strawmando.



Hanzou said:


> So if someone is attacking you, you're not striking (beating) them in order to protect yourself? How else would you be able to stop an attacker getting physical with you? Mind games?



Again you are confusing fighting, sparring and self defense, they are related but they are not the same thing. The difference between incapacitating an attacker with a strike and beating them up is usually jail time. I do what is necessary, beating someone up is not always necessary.



Hanzou said:


> Your entire martial art is based around punching and kicking someone. What other purpose is there for it to exist? Cut down all of the philosophy and Mr. Myagi mumbo-jumbo and the entire purpose behind TKD is to kick or punch the crap out of someone. We can even assign a self defense angle to it; Sport TKD is mutual agreed upon butt kicking, self defense TKD is when you don't agree and you kick *their* butt.
> 
> 
> And sorry, but injuries come with the territory, if you're learning to fight that is.



There is much more to my style than just kicking and punching and Mr Myagi is no more relevant to a Korean style than the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Yes injuries come with the territory but I see no reason to increase the risk of injury when I don't need to.



Hanzou said:


> Aiming and firing a firearm is far more simple than learning and applying martial art.



It's called 'reasoning by analogy', look it up.



Hanzou said:


> In my style someone would get laughed off the mat if they said that someone who has never sparred could submit someone who sparred constantly. I find it interesting that other styles actually believe such a thing is possible.



Who says that we don't spar in my martial art?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That comment had nothing to do with competition. If you've never rolled against someone in Bjj and applied a choke while they're trying to get you off of them, or moving their head towards the weak point of the choke in order to resist it, or while their trying to kick or punch you, then you've never really applied a choke before. Thus the chances of you being able to apply a choke in a self defense situation is pretty close to zero.
> 
> There is simply no other type of training that matches actual fighting. The closest we have to actual fighting is full contact sparring.



And for grappling, I've never met a style that didn't do some sort of full-contact sparring (like rolling in BJJ).


----------



## Hanzou

RTKWCMB said:


> There are virtually no martial arts that just kick and punch air, except maybe Strawmando.



So you're saying there's no Martial Arts out there that are almost entirely kata-based?





> Again you are confusing fighting, sparring and self defense, they are related but they are not the same thing. The difference between incapacitating an attacker with a strike and beating them up is usually jail time. I do what is necessary, beating someone up is not always necessary.



And you're using semantics. In all cases you're using your hands and feet to cause physical punishment to another human being. A 'one punch KO in the street is the same physical act as a one punch KO in the gym or the ring. If you have to strike a person multiple times in multiple areas to "incapacitate" them, how is that not "beating them up"? The only thing different is the environment and the context in which you're doing the physical act.



> Who says that we don't spar in my martial art?



I'm talking about full contact sparring, not pulling kicks and punches right before impact.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying there's no Martial Arts out there that are almost entirely kata-based?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're using semantics. In all cases you're using your hands and feet to cause physical punishment to another human being. A 'one punch KO in the street is the same physical act as a one punch KO in the gym or the ring. If you have to strike a person multiple times in multiple areas to "incapacitate" them, how is that not "beating them up"? The only thing different is the environment and the context in which you're doing the physical act.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about full contact sparring, not pulling kicks and punches right before impact.




Even Kata based still spar, and even in Boxing, MT, and MMA strikes are pulled before impact in sparring...


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Even Kata based still spar..



Some don't.



> and even in Boxing, MT, and MMA strikes are pulled before impact in sparring...



And they still practice plenty of full contact sparring to balance that out.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Some don't.
> 
> 
> 
> And they still practice plenty of full contact sparring to balance that out.



No they dont,

Even professionals, very few regularly or even weekly spar at 100+% like its a bout for a million reasons

Several pros in Boxing and MMA have even spoke out about why you shouldnt regularly spar like its a bout.

It's typically exactly the same way most TMA's do, 60-80%

And you act like those tma schools are the majority, its quite the opposite.


----------



## Paul_D

Hanzou said:


> And you're using semantics. In all cases you're using your hands and feet to cause physical punishment to another human being. A 'one punch KO in the street is the same physical act as a one punch KO in the gym or the ring. If you have to strike a person multiple times in multiple areas to "incapacitate" them, how is that not "beating them up"? The only thing different is the environment and the context in which you're doing the physical act.


No it's not semantics.  Sparring, fighting and self defence are different things.  This has been explained to you may times by many different people.  So I am curious.  How many people have to explain it before you before you realise their might be something you don't understand?  10, 20, 50, 100?  Or does it not matter, will you simply never accept that any opinion other than your own can be correct?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> No it's not semantics.  Sparring, fighting and self defence are different things.  This has been explained to you may times by many different people.  So I am curious.  How many people have to explain it before you before you realise their might be something you don't understand?  10, 20, 50, 100?  Or does it not matter, will you simply never accept that any opinion other than your own can be correct?



And plenty of people have "explained" that the word "fight" can be used different ways, including the physical altercation side of SD. How many people have to explain it before you realize there might be something you don't [agree with, but can still be correct]? 10, 20, 50, 100? Or does it not matter, will you simply never accept that any opinion other than your own can be correct?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> No they don't,



Uh, yes they do. There's plenty of styles out there that have a "no-sparring" policy.



> Even professionals, very few regularly or even weekly spar at 100+% like its a bout for a million reasons
> 
> Several pros in Boxing and MMA have even spoke out about why you shouldnt regularly spar like its a bout.








There's literally hundreds of videos of him sparring like that on the web. So if the best in the business regularly spars like that, what does that say about everyone else?





> It's typically exactly the same way most TMA's do, 60-80%
> 
> And you act like those tma schools are the majority, its quite the opposite.



So you're saying that most TMAs spar like competitive fighters?

Not even close to reality.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Uh, yes they do. There's plenty of styles out there that have a "no-sparring" policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's literally hundreds of videos of him sparring like that on the web. So if the best in the business regularly spars like that, what does that say about everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that most TMAs spar like competitive fighters?
> 
> Not even close to reality.



If you think thats match level fighting you've never seen a bout.....Theres a definite degree of control on both sides...The Champ is sparring like that becuse its the best way to spar. Not to far off from a bout and hard enough that you learn, but controlled enough your body will be able to recover so you can fight your bout.

Mayweather isnt a champ for just sparring with intensity...

Name one style that has an all around "No spar" policy. Just one Legitimate style.

And yes TMA's do, it's incredibly common to find schools spar that hard... 

It doesnt take a competitive fighter to spar with contact nor was that my argument


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> Uh, yes they do. There's plenty of styles out there that have a "no-sparring" policy.



Which styles?


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> If you think thats match level fighting you've never seen a bout.....Theres a definite degree of control on both sides...The Champ is sparring like that becuse its the best way to spar. Not to far off from a bout and hard enough that you learn, but controlled enough your body will be able to recover so you can fight your bout.
> 
> Mayweather isnt a champ for just sparring with intensity...
> 
> Name one style that has an all around "No spar" policy. Just one Legitimate style.
> 
> And yes TMA's do, it's incredibly common to find schools spar that hard...
> 
> It doesnt take a competitive fighter to spar with contact nor was that my argument



If they don't Spar are we classing them as not legitimate?


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> If they don't Spar are we classing them as not legitimate?



No, but the only systems I can think of that dont spar are things like Yellow Bamboo and Tae Bo, which I wouldn't consider legitimate Martial Arts


----------



## O'Malley

I think that Drose was trying to avoid the "I know of ONE karate dojo where all they do is kata, thus karate doesn't spar" argument.

Edit: too slow.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> No, but the only systems I can think of that dont spar are things like Yellow Bamboo and Tae Bo, which I wouldn't consider legitimate Martial Arts



Sort of yours and O'Malleys post.

Yeah I assume you could separate them into systems rather than schools as such.

There was a poster who was vehemently anti sparring trying to find his post.
Edit.
Supposed to run a legitimate school.
How important is contact sparring in MA?


----------



## Drose427

Notice how only one or two fighters say they go 100% in regular sparring

And even a few of that minority admit it isnt the greatest idea

Controlled sparring doesnt mean no or light contact, you can still get knocked out.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> If you think thats match level fighting you've never seen a bout.....Theres a definite degree of control on both sides...The Champ is sparring like that becuse its the best way to spar. Not to far off from a bout and hard enough that you learn, but controlled enough your body will be able to recover so you can fight your bout.



Considering that they're wearing protective gear, its clearly not "bout level", however it IS full contact sparring.



> Mayweather isn't a champ for just sparring with intensity...



However he wouldn't be the champ if he didn't spar on a consistent basis.



> Name one style that has an all around "No spar" policy. Just one Legitimate style.



An entire style? That would be hard to prove since someone would pop on and say that their particular school does sparring and complain that I'm being unfair to them and their system. However, there are styles of MA where sparring isn't common. Aikido, Ninjutsu, Internal Chinese MAs, and some classic JJ styles for example.



> And yes TMA's do, it's incredibly common to find schools spar that hard...



Define sparring hard...

I wouldn't consider this sparring hard;


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Define sparring hard...
> 
> I wouldn't consider this sparring hard;


Now this is funny Hanzou.
It says "Level 1 Sparring"
I would call it play which could well be level 1 sparring for them. I don't and most don't just throw people into a sparring program or class without building up some skills and easing them in. 

The description even states it is beginners and others who don't attend their 'sparring classes. 
_"The newer students are finding their footing getting used to moving and gaining hand eye coordination and getting used to being attacked in a free-style manner VS scripted. The more advanced students are learning the same things, but also that even if you are good at techniques when it is scripted, that doesn't mean you will automatically do well when the attacks are free. You need both.

It is my wish that every student of mine spars and attends grappling class, but I do not force this on them and allow them to enjoy the art in the way they choose."_

So yes you are correct this is not 'hard' sparring.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Now this is funny Hanzou.
> It says "Level 1 Sparring"
> I would call it play which could well be level 1 sparring for them. I don't and most don't just throw people into a sparring program or class without building up some skills and easing them in.
> 
> The description even states it is beginners and others who don't attend their 'sparring classes.
> _"The newer students are finding their footing getting used to moving and gaining hand eye coordination and getting used to being attacked in a free-style manner VS scripted. The more advanced students are learning the same things, but also that even if you are good at techniques when it is scripted, that doesn't mean you will automatically do well when the attacks are free. You need both.
> 
> It is my wish that every student of mine spars and attends grappling class, but I do not force this on them and allow them to enjoy the art in the way they choose."_
> 
> So yes you are correct this is not 'hard' sparring.



Which is why I chose that particular video.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Considering that they're wearing protective gear, its clearly not "bout level", however it IS full contact sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> However he wouldn't be the champ if he didn't spar on a consistent basis.
> 
> 
> 
> An entire style? That would be hard to prove since someone would pop on and say that their particular school does sparring and complain that I'm being unfair to them and their system. However, there are styles of MA where sparring isn't common. Aikido, Ninjutsu, Internal Chinese MAs, and some classic JJ styles for example.
> 
> 
> 
> Define sparring hard...
> 
> I wouldn't consider this sparring hard;



It ISNT full contact sparring, theyre pulling punches, not following through, etc. If you can't see that nobody can help you

Yes, as do Most TMAS......

And outside of Internal Chinese, all those styles spar...Not as hard as others, but still spar.

Hard sparring is the level where theres a degree of injury if you mess up, but not in the same vein as a match.

Various levels of that are in these videos:





Even through protective gear, these guys will have bruises. You can find similar videos of others in the same system






On the lesser end of the spectrum, but hard enough to know by the sound of the connections theres good contact.












Hey look! Controlled sparring, even in MMA!


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> It ISNT full contact sparring, theyre pulling punches, not following through, etc. If you can't see that nobody can help you



Considering the impact from those blows, they're definitely not pulling punches.



> Yes, as do Most TMAS......
> 
> And outside of Internal Chinese, all those styles spar...Not as hard as others, but still spar.



So we agree that Internal CMAs don't (or don't tend to) spar? 

Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion?



> Hey look! Controlled sparring, even in MMA!



Where did I say that there was no controlled sparring in MMA?


----------



## Phobius

Bah, please ignore. A really old post now I replied to.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Drose427 said:


> Hey look! Controlled sparring, even in MMA!


And taking it easy.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying there's no Martial Arts out there that are almost entirely kata-based?



So it's gone from 'just kicking and punching air' to being almost 'entirely kata based'. Make up your mind.



Hanzou said:


> And you're using semantics. In all cases you're using your hands and feet to cause physical punishment to another human being. A 'one punch KO in the street is the same physical act as a one punch KO in the gym or the ring. If you have to strike a person multiple times in multiple areas to "incapacitate" them, how is that not "beating them up"? The only thing different is the environment and the context in which you're doing the physical act.



What Paul_D said.



Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about full contact sparring, not pulling kicks and punches right before impact.



We don't 'pull punches' we fully extend every strike just as you would when actually hitting someone, we just control the distance.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> And plenty of people have "explained" that the word "fight" can be used different ways, including the physical altercation side of SD. How many people have to explain it before you realize there might be something you don't [agree with, but can still be correct]? 10, 20, 50, 100? Or does it not matter, will you simply never accept that any opinion other than your own can be correct?


I will address your query in two parts if I may.

Firstly, and briefly, if I am discussing topic with people who are more knowledgeable in that area than myself, if I receive let’s say half a dozen or so replies along the same lines, then I will concede that, as they are more knowledgeable on the subject than me, I should accept their conclusion as correct.  And I have done so on more than one occasion since I joined the site.  So to answer your question, about 6.

The second part though is to address the fact that you appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that my post was about semantics.  It was not.  It was not discussing what terms we give to what happens in the ring/cage and what happens in “the street”.  

Although there are similarities between what happens in the cage and what happens in the street (regardless of what label’s you use to describe them) there are also many differences.  Hence they are not 100% the same thing.  Despite us talking about self defence Hanzou continues to talk about cage fighting as if it where self defence and repeatedly goes back to cage fighting/BJJ as some sort of litmus test for the techniques, ideas and principals of self defence.

My question then was to try and ascertain why Hanzou is here.  He is not here to learn, as he never accepts any opinion (or facts) which do not agree with his onion or (mistaken belief).  He is only here to troll and tell everyone who doesn’t think like him that they are wrong, regardless of his ignorance on the subject (his total misunderstanding of kata and how it should be applied for self defence being another prime example.  He has routinely displayed his ignorance of the subject whilst telling the people that do understand what they are talking about, that they are wrong).  

That and that alone was the point of my question, not to argue about the words “fight” and “self defence”, but to ask Hanzou is here when he is clearly not here to learn.  But thank you for taking the time to butt in and get the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Define sparring hard...


There you go:


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> My question then was to try and ascertain why Hanzou is here. He is not here to learn, as he never accepts any opinion (or facts) which do not agree with his onion or (mistaken belief). He is only here to troll and tell everyone who doesn’t think like him that they are wrong, regardless of his ignorance on the subject (his total misunderstanding of kata and how it should be applied for self defence being another prime example. He has routinely displayed his ignorance of the subject whilst telling the people that do understand what they are talking about, that they are wrong).



This has been going on for a long time now and over many, many threads. We've had many interesting discussions on karate, CMA's, katas/forms etc ruined by Hanzou's incorrect assertions about how we are all wrong. Missionary zeal without grace or politeness is tedious and annoying. Most of us practice our styles believing they are the best..._for us_, we will all sing the praises of our styles, why we do them, why we enjoy them, why we think they fit us but the majority of people here will listen to what others say with an open mind, that doesn't mean they have to believe it just be willing to look at the evidence. It's not hard.
I train BJJ and MMA as well as karate, I also train self defence, each has it's attractions, each has it's good points _and it's drawbacks. _That's something that needs to be understood, no style has an answer for everything hence why we spend time as martial artists looking for answers. Not to continue learning and to be adamant that one knows everything is a major personality flaw, to continue to harrass people who don't agree with that assessment of yourself is just plain wrong and destructive to boot.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> So it's gone from 'just kicking and punching air' to being almost 'entirely kata based'. Make up your mind.



Which is exactly what kata is; Kicking and punching air.



> We don't 'pull punches' we fully extend every strike just as you would when actually hitting someone, we just control the distance.



If you're not doing full contact then you are "pulling punches".


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Considering the impact from those blows, they're definitely not pulling punches.
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that Internal CMAs don't (or don't tend to) spar?
> 
> Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that there was no controlled sparring in MMA?



Not seeing the obvious pulling of punches, lack of follow through, lack of hip rotation on hooks, throwing from far enough away that they dont make hard impact, in 90% of you Mayweather, says enough on your view of hard sparring


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Which is exactly what kata is; Kicking and punching air.



It has been clearly established that you don't have the slightest idea what kata (hyungs in this case) actually is.



Hanzou said:


> If you're not doing full contact then you are "pulling punches".



No, pulling punches means that you stop your punches before fully extending them at a distance where full extension would result in full contact. That is not what we do.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> It has been clearly established that you don't have the slightest idea what kata (hyungs in this case) actually is.



Really?







Looks like kicking and punching air to me.



> No, pulling punches means that you stop your punches before fully extending them at a distance where full extension would result in full contact. That is not what we do.



No, pulling punches is anytime you're not striking at full power. Extensions and distances mean nothing, all that matters is the amount of force behind the blows.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Looks like kicking and punching air to me.



Looks like a yellow belt pattern from a different style of TKD to me.



Hanzou said:


> No, pulling punches is anytime you're not striking at full power.



Like in the sparring videos you posted. I throw strikes at full power without hitting someone.



Hanzou said:


> Extensions and distances mean nothing,



Rubbish.



Hanzou said:


> all that matters is the amount of force behind the blows.



The amount of force generated by a punch is the same no matter what you hit or don't hit, the only difference between impact and no impact is the distancing.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> No, pulling punches is anytime you're not striking at full power.* Extensions and distances mean nothing, *all that matters is the amount of force behind the blows.



Every striking coach in the country across all styles disagrees with you there Hanzou.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Looks like a yellow belt pattern from a different style of TKD to me.



So are you not punching and kicking air when doing "patterns"?




> Like in the sparring videos you posted. I throw strikes at full power without hitting someone.



Which is kicking and punching air, and not teaching you how to hit.



> The amount of force generated by a punch is the same no matter what you hit or don't hit, the only difference between impact and no impact is the distancing.



so you're saying that if I stand a foot away from a punching bag there's no way to control the amount of force I can generate in a strike?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Every striking coach in the country across all styles disagrees with you there Hanzou.



I'm talking about pulling punches, not striking in general.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about pulling punches, not striking in general.



I know.

Extension and distance are how you do so......without sacrificing speed or power...

in the UFC video I posted a couple different fighters talk about this...


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> I know.
> 
> Extension and distance are how you do so......without sacrificing speed or power...
> 
> in the UFC video I posted a couple different fighters talk about this...



You mean the same video where you said that most fighters don't do full contact sparring, yet almost all of them said they did?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Which is kicking and punching air, and not teaching you how to hit.



 It is teaching you how to strike with correct technique, hitting the pads teaches you how to hit with impact. Sparring with full contact can lead to lack of balance, poor distancing and a lack of control.



Hanzou said:


> so you're saying that if I stand a foot away from a punching bag there's no way to control the amount of force I can generate in a strike?



No that is not what I am saying and if you were a foot away from the punching bag then you only have more limited options (i.e you could not do things like side kicks etc). What I am saying is basically force equals mass times acceleration no matter what the destination of the strike or what is in its way. I strike with maximum power no matter if I am doing basics, patterns, drills, pad work or breaking. The force I use for sparring depends on who I am sparring, e.g If I am sparring an adult male black belt of similar experience/ability I am striking with full speed and power, if I am sparring a 12 year old girl, not so much.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> It is teaching you how to strike with correct technique, hitting the pads teaches you how to hit with impact. Sparring with full contact can lead to lack of balance, poor distancing and a lack of control.



So boxers, MMA fighters, Kickboxers, Etc. all have poor distancing, balance, and a lack of control?

Okay....



> No that is not what I am saying and if you were a foot away from the punching bag then you only have more limited options (i.e you could not do things like side kicks etc). What I am saying is basically force equals mass times acceleration no matter what the destination of the strike or what is in its way. I strike with maximum power no matter if I am doing basics, patterns, drills, pad work or breaking. The force I use for sparring depends on who I am sparring, e.g If I am sparring an adult male black belt of similar experience/ability I am striking with full speed and power, if I am sparring a 12 year old girl, not so much.



Again, that's not what I said. I said that you can control the power of strikes regardless of distance or extension.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> So boxers, MMA fighters, Kickboxers,



All who, as some part of their training, train by kicking and punching the air


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> All who, as some part of their training, train by kicking and punching the air



It is like a jigsaw. Without all the prices you don't get the full picture.

(I just made that up)


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> All who, as some part of their training, train by kicking and punching the air



Training that is supported by far more moderate to heavy sparring.

There are arts that don't have sparring. There are arts that don't have kata.

Of those two, which one do you think is more likely to produce the better fighter?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Training that is supported by far more moderate to heavy sparring.
> 
> There are arts that don't have sparring. There are arts that don't have kata.
> 
> Of those two, which one do you think is more likely to produce the better fighter?



There are arts that have all of the above, Wing Chun an also be one of those, as are many traditional MA. It is not usually black and white, nor is it as cut and dried as you seem to think it is or want it to be.

But if you have a person who specializes in Qinna, he does not spar, do kata or kick and punch in the air. But, whether you want to believe it or not, you really do not want to get near him. He may not spar, but he does train what he knows.

But in general you need to spar. But that was never in question. You, in a previous post used punching and kicking in the air



Hanzou said:


> Which is kicking and punching air, and not teaching you how to hit.



as if it was a deciding factor in effectiveness or usefulness... was simply pointing out that boxers, MMA fighters, Kick boxers also did the same, since you did use them as an example


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> It is teaching you how to strike with correct technique, hitting the pads teaches you how to hit with impact. Sparring with full contact can lead to lack of balance, poor distancing and a lack of control.
> 
> 
> 
> No that is not what I am saying and if you were a foot away from the punching bag then you only have more limited options (i.e you could not do things like side kicks etc). What I am saying is basically force equals mass times acceleration no matter what the destination of the strike or what is in its way. I strike with maximum power no matter if I am doing basics, patterns, drills, pad work or breaking. The force I use for sparring depends on who I am sparring, e.g If I am sparring an adult male black belt of similar experience/ability I am striking with full speed and power, if I am sparring a 12 year old girl, not so much.




Punching isn't measured in force by the way. So that equation does not really count.

Just to be semantic.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> There are arts that have all of the above, Wing Chun an also be one of those, as are many traditional MA. It is not usually black and white, nor is it as cut and dried as you seem to think it is or want it to be.



And we both know that there are plenty of TMAs out there that don't believe in sparring at all. That's what I was talking about.



> But if you have a person who specializes in Qinna, he does not spar, do kata or kick and punch in the air. But, whether you want to believe it or not, you really do not want to get near him. He may not spar, but he does train what he knows.



Yet amazingly no one with this incredible power can demonstrate it in an objective environment, or when a person is trying to punch them in the face.



> in general you need to spar. But that was never in question. You, in a previous post used punching and kicking in the air



Blame it on my years in Shotokan and then transitioning to arts without kata and realizing that they are a waste of time, typically in place to pad belt testing.



> as if it was a deciding factor in effectiveness or usefulness... was simply pointing out that boxers, MMA fighters, Kick boxers also did the same, since you did use them as an example



I wouldn't consider what boxers and MMA fighters do to be "kata". A boxer shadow boxing for example is using techniques they're actually going to use in a fight. They're not doing exotic or expressive stances or movements, they're moving and striking exactly like they fight.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> And we both know that there are plenty of TMAs out there that don't believe in sparring at all. That's what I was talking about.



Will not dispute that




Hanzou said:


> Yet amazingly no one with this incredible power can demonstrate it in an objective environment, or when a person is trying to punch them in the face.



So you know and have seen every Qinna person and have extensive background in Qinna and know when and where to use it then right?



Hanzou said:


> Blame it on my years in Shotokan and then transitioning to arts without kata and realizing that they are a waste of time, typically in place to pad belt testing.



So the study of one art makes you a master of all then, is that it?

Although my years in Jujutsu, TKD, Changquan, Wing Chun, Taijiquan, Sanda, XIngyiquan tell me that forms have their use. However I will not say there are not schools out there that are approaching it in a way that is a waste of time and are not using it to pad belt tests. Sorry you were in a bad school, but one style or one or even a few bad schools does not make one a judge of all schools and all styles



Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't consider what boxers and MMA fighters do to be "kata". A boxer shadow boxing for example is using techniques they're actually going to use in a fight. They're not doing exotic or expressive stances or movements, they're moving and striking exactly like they fight.



Never even mentioned kata. I was referring to your post about hitting in the air, and it was a direct quote. However I am more than willing to accept the fact that you might have meant hitting and kicking the air in kata, you just were not clear on that point at that time


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Will not dispute that
> 
> 
> So you know and have seen every Qinna person and have extensive background in Qinna and know when and where to use it then right?



I didn't say that. I said it would be nice to see it utilized against a non compliant opponent in an objective fashion.




> So the study of one art makes you a master of all then, is that it?
> 
> Although my years in Jujutsu, TKD, Changquan, Wing Chun, Taijiquan, Sanda, XIngyiquan tell me that forms have their use. However I will not say there are not schools out there that are approaching it in a way that is a waste of time and are not using it to pad belt tests. Sorry you were in a bad school, but one style or one or even a few bad schools does not make one a judge of all schools and all styles



I never said that studying Shotokan made me an expert in anything. Further, Shotokan wasn't the only art with kata that I studied. However, Shotokan did help me realize that they aren't really necessary, and that the only reason they still exist in most systems is for traditional purposes. Practicing styles without kata solidified that stance, since the kata-less styles are very effective w/o kata practice.  



> Never even mentioned kata. I was referring to your post about hitting in the air, and it was a direct quote. However I am more than willing to accept the fact that you might have meant hitting and kicking the air in kata, you just were not clear on that point at that time



And I was responding to the notion that a boxer shadow boxing is the same as a crane stylist hopping on one leg and spreading his arms out imitating the bird.

It's not.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Punching isn't measured in force by the way. So that equation does not really count.
> 
> Just to be semantic.


You need to produce a force for a punch to do anything, just to be semantic.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Blame it on my years in Shotokan and then transitioning to arts without kata and realizing that they are a waste of time, typically in place to pad belt testing.


Of course you never for once consider that either you or the school you studied at were just not very good at it, you didn't understand it or your school didn't teach it properly or it was just your school that used it to pad belt testing or that you misunderstood the purpose of their kata etc.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> So boxers, MMA fighters, Kickboxers, Etc. all have poor distancing, balance, and a lack of control?
> 
> Okay....



Yeah, a lot of them do. They strike and just about fall over, and sometimes do fall over, they kick too close, they take wild swings, hit with the wrong part of the fist etc. take your blinders off and look closely.



Hanzou said:


> Again, that's not what I said. I said that you can control the power of strikes regardless of distance or extension.



Controlling the power of the strikes is the easy part, controlling how much of that power is transferred to the target at will requires correct technique and skill that completely depends on extension and distance.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I never said that studying Shotokan made me an expert in anything.



No, you just act like it.



Hanzou said:


> Further, Shotokan wasn't the only art with kata that I studied.



Then perhaps the common denominator was you and not kata?


----------



## Buka

On the subject of "hitting air" two of my instructors, Bill Wallace and Joe Lewis, had completely different views on the subject.
Wallace always says, "I only hit air or people, I never hit bags." 
Lewis always said, "I only hit bags or people, I never hit air."

Both seemed to know what they were talking about. Maybe it's just personal opinion.


----------



## FriedRice

If Wing Chun was really good, we'd see it in MMA.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Yeah, a lot of them do. They strike and just about fall over, and sometimes do fall over, they kick too close, they take wild swings, hit with the wrong part of the fist etc. take your blinders off and look closely.
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling the power of the strikes is the easy part, controlling how much of that power is transferred to the target at will requires correct technique and skill that completely depends on extension and distance.


Hold on.   Are you suggesting that combat sports competitors lack technique and skill to control extension and distance?  I don't know about that.   I'd be very careful drawing conclusions like that if your experience is limited to watching matches on tv.  There is a huge difference between two equally matched martial artists squaring off and what those same martial artists can do outside of these matches.   

An easy way to figure out whether your own timing is solid would be to work out with a variety of MAists from other styles.   Not suggesting yiu train in MMA if its not your thing, but practicing your technique with them would answer some important questions.  Might also help with some of the misunderstanding.   Vice Versa is also true, of course.   Tez trains karate and MMA.  Surely there's someone out there to help you test your theories.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Hold on. Are you suggesting that combat sports competitors lack technique and skill to control extension and distance?



Many of them do



Steve said:


> An easy way to figure out whether your own timing is solid would be to work out with a variety of MAists from other styles.



There have been plenty of students from other martial arts over the years that have trained with us that I have sparred.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> You need to produce a force for a punch to do anything, just to be semantic.



No.

In *physics*, a *force* is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. In other words, a *force* can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Many of them do
> 
> 
> 
> There have been plenty of students from other martial arts over the years that have trained with us that I have sparred.



What level of contact?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> What level of contact?


Do you mean what level of contact the martial arts came from or what level of contact was t I sparring them as?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Do you mean what level of contact the martial arts came from or what level of contact was t I sparring them as?




What level of contact did you Spar them.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> What level of contact did you Spar them.


Since it was in my own school it was non-contact sparring.


----------



## moonhill99

abe_tz said:


> What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.



I don't think you can join MMA gym or boxing gym just for self-defense or to learn how to be good fighter!! When you join MMA gym or boxing gym in 6 months to year they will want to put your in amateur fighting match. Their main money making is base on fights.

From what I hear about wing chun is it takes really long time to get good at it. Where in two or three years of saying taking MMA or boxing you be really good to fight most 90% people on the streets. Where to be really good with wing chun you be looking at closer to 8 years.

Boxing is not better than wing chun it just that boxing you can be really good at it in like half of the time. Where wing chun takes a really long time to get good at it.


----------



## Kenpoguy123

abe_tz said:


> What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.


The fact you say you don't want no comments about how one isn't better shows you have no understanding of martial arts. A wing chun guy can beat an mma guy and an mma guy can beat a wing chun guy


----------



## Steve

moonhill99 said:


> I don't think you can join MMA gym or boxing gym just for self-defense or to learn how to be good fighter!! When you join MMA gym or boxing gym in 6 months to year they will want to put your in amateur fighting match. Their main money making is base on fights.
> 
> From what I hear about wing chun is it takes really long time to get good at it. Where in two or three years of saying taking MMA or boxing you be really good to fight most 90% people on the streets. Where to be really good with wing chun you be looking at closer to 8 years.
> 
> Boxing is not better than wing chun it just that boxing you can be really good at it in like half of the time. Where wing chun takes a really long time to get good at it.


This hasn't been my experience.   Competition is optional.  Whether you compete or not, training with competitors is very valuable.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> This hasn't been my experience.   Competition is optional.  Whether you compete or not, training with competitors is very valuable.



Yeah ditto.  

My coach for example takes the kids class.


----------



## Tez3

moonhill99 said:


> When you join MMA gym or boxing gym in 6 months to year they will want to put your in amateur fighting match. Their main money making is base on fights.



Nope. We don't want to put you in an amateur fight and we don't make money from fights either. Many people train MMA because they want to, they may go on to fight but I know many who don't. Fight purses ( which amateurs don't get btw) are quite small, the money gyms make is from the classes they put on.


----------



## lklawson

moonhill99 said:


> I don't think you can join MMA gym or boxing gym just for self-defense or to learn how to be good fighter!!


Around here you can.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## moonhill99

Tez3 said:


> Nope. We don't want to put you in an amateur fight and we don't make money from fights either. Many people train MMA because they want to, they may go on to fight but I know many who don't. Fight purses ( which amateurs don't get btw) are quite small, the money gyms make is from the classes they put on.



Some people may want to fight but don't like the public viewing and the public trash talking about your.

But than some people there may make fun of you that you are too scared and too weak to fight.


----------



## Tez3

moonhill99 said:


> Some people may want to fight but don't like the public viewing and the public trash talking about your.
> 
> But than some people there may make fun of you that you are too scared and too weak to fight.




You are confusing the theatre of the televised professional fights with real life. I've been to hundreds of fight nights, watched thousands of fights, reffed, cornered and judged fights and there is actually a great camaraderie among fighters. The trash talk is for the media to promote certain promotions, in the normal fight nights held every weekend in many countries there is the atmosphere that you will find in any martial arts competitions, there's nerves certainly, there's always a bit of fear usually of letting people and yourself down, there's excitement but after their fight the two fighters often have to be moved away from the side of the cage because they are chatting about their fight and are in the way! The typical conversation is 'wow that was a good move you did on me there' 'thanks this is how I did it' they then go on to re-enact the fight showing each other the moves, how to get out of them etc then they go off, get changed and come back to have a drink with each other. Yes that is typical of fight nights and you must separate the real thing from what the big promotions put on as a show.


----------



## drop bear

moonhill99 said:


> Some people may want to fight but don't like the public viewing and the public trash talking about your.
> 
> But than some people there may make fun of you that you are too scared and too weak to fight.



That may be the case.  But then you would never hear about the fights from that sort of person.

Basically if you hear a guy bbragging he has had 200 fights but none of them were in public because he did not want to brag. 

He is probably lying.


----------



## Juany118

One martial art isn't any better IF you adopt the mind set appropriate to the Martial Art in question.  In regards to the OP, MMA and Wing Chun are different.  MMA takes some time to feel out the opponent in my experience.  It's a sport, it's about winning.  Now that period may just be seconds, but you still feel out the bad guy/opponent.  Whether you to striker mode, take down mode, that is all based on how you felt out the opponent.  It is also designed for that caged Octagon.

Wing Chun, for it to really work as intended, you just need to, out of the gate go for it.  Flood that SOB.  If he is bigger and stronger don't just charge straight him, zone left or right but be relentless.  You aren't thinking about winning you are thinking about destroying, ending the fight as quickly and with as much finality as possible.  If your opponent launches the first attack, you still do the above, but your direction will be dictated by his initial attack.  You flow and adapt to him, kinda like a wave flowing and adapting to rocks along a coast line.

Neither is better IF you apply the proper mindset.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> One martial art isn't any better IF you adopt the mind set appropriate to the Martial Art in question.


That kinda depends on your goals.



> In regards to the OP, MMA and Wing Chun are different.


Um... What?  The whole point of MMA was to try to answer the question of "which martial art is better."  (that's how it was billed, anyway)



> Whether you to striker mode, take down mode, that is all based on how you felt out the opponent.  It is also designed for that caged Octagon.


No it isn't.  In MMA, Striking vs Grappling or GNP (Ground and Pound) vs SNB (Sprawl and Brawl) are simply strategies used to beat the opponent and may be applied broadly or switched multiple times during a fight.  There's also lots of anecdotal evidence that these same strategies apply equally well in "street fights."



> Neither is better IF you apply the proper mindset.


Mindset is important for winning a fight, or at least for persevering.  But mindset can't always overcome poor training, poor strategies, or ineffective technique.

The will to live, to persevere, to survive can carry a person through a lot.  But it only goes so far.  It won't carry one through a severed aorta, a bullet in the heart, KTFO, choked to unconsciousness, or just beaten down by overwhelming strength or numbers..  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> That kinda depends on your goals.
> 
> Um... What?  The whole point of MMA was to try to answer the question of "which martial art is better."  (that's how it was billed, anyway)
> 
> No it isn't.  In MMA, Striking vs Grappling or GNP (Ground and Pound) vs SNB (Sprawl and Brawl) are simply strategies used to beat the opponent and may be applied broadly or switched multiple times during a fight.  There's also lots of anecdotal evidence that these same strategies apply equally well in "street fights."
> 
> Mindset is important for winning a fight, or at least for persevering.  But mindset can't always overcome poor training, poor strategies, or ineffective technique.
> 
> The will to live, to persevere, to survive can carry a person through a lot.  But it only goes so far.  It won't carry one through a severed aorta, a bullet in the heart, KTFO, choked to unconsciousness, or just beaten down by overwhelming strength or numbers..
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



On your first point I was simply answering to the OP.  The noted MMA.  It does not have a deeper philosophy you can delve into, it is about beating the enemy.  So since the Op asked about MMA in comparison that statement was born... I  essence "he wants to know what art kicks more ***".  

To the next every Martial Art and fighting system (I had a KM instructor say "I don't teach a martial art, it's a fighting system) has said their's is the best since the dawn of Martial Arts.  None have proven that to date.  There is no "special sauce" in an art, it is what art is special to you. (Fits you, draws your passion etc.)

Next absolute agreement.  My point was to say that mindset is but the core, if you see Martial Arts as actual fighting arts.  You need to build on that with skill, training, experience.  But without the right mindset training can get crushed in the rush of panic.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> On your first point I was simply answering to the OP.  The noted MMA.  It does not have a deeper philosophy you can delve into, it is about beating the enemy.


Which is 4/5ths of the rest of the martial arts in the world, to be honest.



> Next absolute agreement.  My point was to say that mindset is but the core, if you see Martial Arts as actual fighting arts.  You need to build on that with skill, training, experience.


Fair enough.  



> But without the right mindset training can get crushed in the rush of panic.


That's the point of training.  Even without "the right mindset" training takes over.  Humans drop back to what I call "robo-droid."  Robo-droid will repetitively do whatever it is he's been programmed to do.  Programming robo-droid isn't hard but it takes lots of time and repetitions.  If robo-droid isn't properly programmed he may sit there in an infinite loop trying to get a handle on whatever is going on around him, always a few tics behind (OODA theory).  A lot of modern training theory is to take advantage of base human instincts and to help use "anger" or "survival instinct" to program robo-droid.  This is particularly true of most modern military training.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> On your first point I was simply answering to the OP. The noted MMA. It does not have a deeper philosophy you can delve into, it is about beating the enemy. So since the Op asked about MMA in comparison that statement was born... I essence "he wants to know what art kicks more ***".



Beating the enemy is a deeper philosophy. Because it requires you to constantly beat yourself.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Beating the enemy is a deeper philosophy. Because it requires you to constantly beat yourself.



Okay, let me rephrase, you got me .  It has a singular purpose, it was designed to step into a octagon and defeat that opponent there.  Is it effective on the street as well?  Yes, but thus fafarost of the modern MMA v X art have used MMA rules and today many of the moves of these other arts that could be effective are hindered by the cage and rules of the match.  So, imo, without real evidence we have to apply the same rule to MMA v X that we would Wing Chun v X or Karate v X, namely it's the artist not the art.

You can't even use the Gracie's as an example.  When they basically started MMA they invited their opponents and since part of their point was to sell BJJ they invited dang good fighters of other arts but not the best either.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Okay, let me rephrase, you got me .  It has a singular purpose, it was designed to step into a octagon and defeat that opponent there.  Is it effective on the street as well?  Yes, but thus fafarost of the modern MMA v X art have used MMA rules and today many of the moves of these other arts that could be effective are hindered by the cage and rules of the match.  So, imo, without real evidence we have to apply the same rule to MMA v X that we would Wing Chun v X or Karate v X, namely it's the artist not the art.
> 
> You can't even use the Gracie's as an example.  When they basically started MMA they invited their opponents and since part of their point was to sell BJJ they invited dang good fighters of other arts but not the best either.



So the successful mmaers at the moment train the systems they do by coincidence?

Because it is the artist not the art.

Rather than the system contributing to their success.

And downward elbows would completely change the game.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So the successful mmaers at the moment train the systems they do by coincidence?
> 
> Because it is the artist not the art.
> 
> Rather than the system contributing to their success.
> 
> And downward elbows would completely change the game.



No what I am saying is MMA competitors are training in MMA because it is optimized for that specific environment.  A Wing Chun guy, in the octagon, tied to the rules of an MMA fight, would be at a disadvantage to be sure.  I simply believe the jury is still out when it comes to MMA v whatever, outside of the octagon and with the rules removed in a real hostile encounter where there are no gloves, no target is out of bounds etc.  

I won't lie, I could be the best Wing Chun guy on the planet, but if all I knew was Wing Chun I would be VERY hesitant to put on gloves and step into that octagon, that said running into an MMA guy on the street I wouldn't have that same hesitancy because I would have access to a lot of maneuvers I could not use under the MMA rules.  Being able to go for the eye, groin, throat, small joint manipulation, the back of the head etc opens up a lot of avenues to balance the scales and make this, imo, a matter of on the street, not in the octagon, there is not enough data to overturn the old rule of its the fighter, not the art. /Shrug


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Which is 4/5ths of the rest of the martial arts in the world, to be honest.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> That's the point of training.  Even without "the right mindset" training takes over.  Humans drop back to what I call "robo-droid."  Robo-droid will repetitively do whatever it is he's been programmed to do.  Programming robo-droid isn't hard but it takes lots of time and repetitions.  If robo-droid isn't properly programmed he may sit there in an infinite loop trying to get a handle on whatever is going on around him, always a few tics behind (OODA theory).  A lot of modern training theory is to take advantage of base human instincts and to help use "anger" or "survival instinct" to program robo-droid.  This is particularly true of most modern military training.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I think it has to be the right training though.  To many places just teach the moves.  Yes in training, at home practicing they become automatic, but then biology kicks in.  If you lack the mind set and aren't conditioned to what happens when fight/flight kicks in and your heart rate climbs you start getting tunnel vision and lose fine motor skills.  So your perception becomes limited and even with the muscle memory your limbs just don't move as fast as you want or even in the way you want.

The military and LE certainly use stress training (though LE no where near as much as they should due to budget stuff) but one of the reasons I ended up at my current school isn't really because I said "I want to learn Wing Chun and Kali", it was because I had been failing to find a place that taught "combative" martial arts and had a focus on training you to adapt to fight/flight dynamic.  I live in the greater Philly area as well so it's not like there is a dirty of schools around here.  

Of course the schools in your area may be different.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No what I am saying is MMA competitors are training in MMA because it is optimized for that specific environment.  A Wing Chun guy, in the octagon, tied to the rules of an MMA fight, would be at a disadvantage to be sure.  I simply believe the jury is still out when it comes to MMA v whatever, outside of the octagon and with the rules removed in a real hostile encounter where there are no gloves, no target is out of bounds etc.
> 
> I won't lie, I could be the best Wing Chun guy on the planet, but if all I knew was Wing Chun I would be VERY hesitant to put on gloves and step into that octagon, that said running into an MMA guy on the street I wouldn't have that same hesitancy because I would have access to a lot of maneuvers I could not use under the MMA rules.  Being able to go for the eye, groin, throat, small joint manipulation, the back of the head etc opens up a lot of avenues to balance the scales and make this, imo, a matter of on the street, not in the octagon, there is not enough data to overturn the old rule of its the fighter, not the art. /Shrug



Wait a sec.  

If you want to get all sciencey then you need to suply enough data to support your statement that it is the individual not the art. 

Not the other way round.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> hink it has to be the right training though. To many places just teach the moves. Yes in training, at home practicing they become automatic, but then biology kicks in. If you lack the mind set and aren't conditioned to what happens when fight/flight kicks in and your heart rate climbs you start getting tunnel vision and lose fine motor skills. So your perception becomes limited and even with the muscle memory your limbs just don't move as fast as you want or even in the way you want.



Didn't you just say it was the individual not the system?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Didn't you just say it was the individual not the system?



Yes, I wasn't talking about the system itself, the manner of strikes, grappling etc., I was talking about how the instructor helps make the "warrior's mind" so to speak.  It doesn't matter what Martial art you use, if you don't have the right mind set and an ability to control and/or cope with the effects of the hormonal cascade that comes from fight or flight, the art is irrelevant.  One of the ways to do this involves training BUT it is not a training specific to any art.  

I'll use an example a method of fire arms training.  Instead of just going up and putting holes in paper; sprint for 25 yards to the 15 yard line, drop and do 15-20 push-ups as fast as possible. Stand up and wait to draw and fire until the range officer yells "threat!!!" From the call of threat you have 3 seconds to put 2 rounds on target.  Now that actual skill in firearms (martial art) doesn't start until after you hear "threat"...everything else is just an exercise to get your body under stress.  The first time you do this exercise, if you have no other stress training, I can almost guarantee that you will not hit the kill zone and likely not get both rounds in the silhouette.  

The same, in my experience applies to the Martial Arts.  Many, if not all, of the tools to help teach the student to deal with this physiological dynamic though can be used across all Martial Arts, regardless of the mechanics of them.  

You can do some training wearing a Halloween mask to simulate tunnel vision (which the exercise I noted above can't create as the tunnel vision comes from a HUGE adrenaline dump brought about by legitimate fight/flight).  This teaches you to use scanning techniques.   While Martial Arts have done this for centuries the modern military community actually speaks to the use ofhttp://loadoutroom.com/2778/tactical-breathing/ to help moderate the impact the stress and adrenaline dump have on your heart beat and this then Moderates the degree of tunnel vision and loss of fine motor skills.  While learned these are can be learned independent of any specific art and they have a measurable impact on the individual.

As for the idea of proving that it is the art and not the fighter, you are essentially asking me to prove a negative, to an extent.  There is no metric  on which to reasonably compare due to all of the variables that go into any fight.  The combination of skill along with relative size and strength, the way the encounter starts (sudden attack or on "the bell"), confined space or open space, actual experience not simply in the Martial Art, or even competition but in "real" (for lack of a better term) fighting, there are a multitude of variables. 

The only way to come up with an objective metric would be to run a controlled experiment.  To do this you would need identical twins, have them go through the same physical training, get the same experience in their respective martial arts, throw them into the same incidents so they share the same experience in "real" fights etc.  This kind of "control" is impossible.

So all we can do is gather the data we can.  We have accounts of every Martial Art, including MMA, having its practitioners lose in street fights against other styles.  MMA guys have been knocked out by boxers, as an example. 

It's not only that though.  As a simple matter of logic, if someone claims to have built a better mouse trap, it is that person's obligation to prove it is objectively better.  See above however because just as I admit it's impossible to prove my theory to a 100% degree of scientific certainty, the guy who says he has the better mouse trap can't prove that either because creating the control is impossible.


----------



## Juany118

On a side note, if the art you take involves knife training like Kali you can use these to help stimulate fight or flight response. Shocknife®. My current Sifu teaches both Kali and Wing Chun and keeps hemming and hawing about getting these.  When you know you will get hit with over 7000 volts if you get hit and you see and hear the sparking... yeah that gets the heart racing.  I suppose any art could use it though since most teach some for of disarm.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I'll use an example a method of fire arms training. Instead of just going up and putting holes in paper; sprint for 25 yards to the 15 yard line, drop and do 15-20 push-ups as fast as possible. Stand up and wait to draw and fire until the range officer yells "threat!!!" From the call of threat you have 3 seconds to put 2 rounds on target. Now that actual skill in firearms (martial art) doesn't start until after you hear "threat"...everything else is just an exercise to get your body under stress. The first time you do this exercise, if you have no other stress training, I can almost guarantee that you will not hit the kill zone and likely not get both rounds in the silhouette.



That is the system affecting success not the individual.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> On a side note, if the art you take involves knife training like Kali you can use these to help stimulate fight or flight response. Shocknife®. My current Sifu teaches both Kali and Wing Chun and keeps hemming and hawing about getting these.  When you know you will get hit with over 7000 volts if you get hit and you see and hear the sparking... yeah that gets the heart racing.  I suppose any art could use it though since most teach some for of disarm.



At $400 bucks a pop. I will just stick with the aluminium knives.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> As for the idea of proving that it is the art and not the fighter, you are essentially asking me to prove a negative, to an extent. There is no metric on which to reasonably compare due to all of the variables that go into any fight. The combination of skill along with relative size and strength, the way the encounter starts (sudden attack or on "the bell"), confined space or open space, actual experience not simply in the Martial Art, or even competition but in "real" (for lack of a better term) fighting, there are a multitude of variables



No.

If it is the fighter and not the art. Then why do you see people who have been trained in a skill better at that skill?

It would work out that training anything at the same intensity has the same benifits.

It would also remove your argument that you could beat a mma fighter on the stree due to some training you do that they don't.

So you would need to remove your paradoxicall statements to make that statement work.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> That is the system affecting success not the individual.



When you do this kind of training, and the other training aids I noted, it does effect the individual though.  The mask, as an example, when used regularly scanning becomes second nature as does regularly practicing controlled breathing, both at rest and under stress.  All of these things involve using your muscles and these muscles can develop muscles memory just as the limbs you use to fight do, it's simply a memory that is not specific to any particular art.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> When you do this kind of training, and the other training aids I noted, it does effect the individual though.  The mask, as an example, when used regularly scanning becomes second nature as does regularly practicing controlled breathing, both at rest and under stress.  All of these things involve using your muscles and these muscles can develop muscles memory just as the limbs you use to fight do, it's simply a memory that is not specific to any particular art.




So it is the system not the individual.

I am getting lost here. Which one is it?

It is specific to itself. You have picked one specific method of training.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> At $400 bucks a pop. I will just stick with the aluminium knives.


i would never buy one BUT if the Sifu wants to spend the clubs money on them, it's not my wallet lol.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> If it is the fighter and not the art. Then why do you see people who have been trained in a skill better at that skill?



Doesn't this prove my point?  If "Bob" and I both get the same amount of training, get into the same street fights etc and Bob is still better than me isn't heir something about him, the fighter that is the difference.



> It would work out that training anything at the same intensity has the same benifits.


. 

Actually not true, as an example it is proven that there are physiological differences that make people better suited than others.  The differences between fast twitch and slow twitch muscles.  I am also an avid cyclist.  Miguel Indurain has a documented 7.8 liter lung capacity vs the 6 liter average.   If strength in important you have people like me, I will never have it.  In the Army I feel like a champ and was pumping iron everyday, at one point with a personal trainer, my metabolism was simply not suited to gaining muscle mass in any major way .   Add to that those people that simply have a natural talent.

Ultimately there are too many variables to make a 100% confirmed statement in either direction, so all we have is anecdotal evidence.  There we see MMA is where to bet in the Octagon, on the street you bet on the person.

But again that is simply my subjective conclusion.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Doesn't this prove my point? If "Bob" and I both get the same amount of training, get into the same street fights etc and Bob is still better than me isn't heir something about him, the fighter that is the difference



No. The idea that someone is naturally athletic and will take more advantage of training  over someone who isn't.

Is completely different to it is not the style it is the individual.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No. The idea that someone is naturally athletic and will take more advantage of training  over someone who isn't.
> 
> Is completely different to it is not the style it is the individual.



It's the same, if you look at people holistically.  Lets say we are both studying Kali and you are naturally stronger, have a slightly fast natural reaction time etc.  We spend the same amount of time training.  Barring bad luck chances are you will beat me Everytime.  Experience + dedication to training are not, imo, the only measures of a Martial Artist.  You also must + the natural physical attributes of the Martial Artist, for these are also part of what makes the individual, at least imo.


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> Beating the enemy is a deeper philosophy. Because it requires you to constantly beat yourself.


My friend, I'm happy to help you with your philosophy.  Stand there, don't move, and I'll take this here stick...



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> You can't even use the Gracie's as an example.  When they basically started MMA they invited their opponents and since part of their point was to sell BJJ they invited dang good fighters of other arts but not the best either.


I assume that means you're unfamiliar with "The Gracie Challenge."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear

lklawson said:


> My friend, I'm happy to help you with your philosophy.  Stand there, don't move, and I'll take this here stick...
> 
> 
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Today is a good opus day.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> It's the same, if you look at people holistically.  Lets say we are both studying Kali and you are naturally stronger, have a slightly fast natural reaction time etc.  We spend the same amount of time training.  Barring bad luck chances are you will beat me Everytime.  Experience + dedication to training are not, imo, the only measures of a Martial Artist.  You also must + the natural physical attributes of the Martial Artist, for these are also part of what makes the individual, at least imo.




But you are also claiming the system has no effec. Which is hoohey.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> I assume that means you're unfamiliar with "The Gracie Challenge."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I was referring to a specific period of time when they were personally inviting people to Matches when MMA was barely in its infancy.  I purposefully committed the Gracie Challenge stuff, especially as it relates to the Pride fights, simply because they didn't involve drastically different styles facing off (example  Sakuraba vs Royler).  Since the conversation here is about opposing styles, it didn't seem overly relevant.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But you are also claiming the system has no effec. Which is hoohey.



Yes but only because of the variables that the human element brings in.  Even all the physicality in the world can be beaten by smarter fighting.  I have come out on top more than once simply because I knew the other guy was stronger, and were trained (two boxers and an MMA guy) but I judged based on their life style (smoking, a bit of a beer gut etc) that I had more endurance, so I simply did things that minimized their strength, but kept them in my sphere of control until they tired themselves out.

In the end the individual fighter brings so much to the table that the individual style of fighting is irrelevant if relative skill in that style is equal.  Because of this arguing which style is better becomes an exercise in futility.  

Because of this if you want to pick a fighting style for yourself it's better to simply look at how much time you have to train (some have higher learning curves), what your body type is, some rely on muscle strength, where others are more about overall structure, speed whatever.  What is your temperament, some martial arts are more outwardly aggressive than others etc. What is your purpose for learning martial arts in the first place?

Even if one style was somehow objectively quantified as superior in a general sense but it did not "fit" you as a person, you could end up being less effective as an individual than if you had chosen an "inferior" art.

Example:. I used to take Aikido with a Sensible who taught it as a fighting art.  There were applicable moves and it fit my general body type BUT there were two issues but work related.  Where I work I have had lots of encounters in narrow hall ways and confined spaces, Aikido often needs "room to maneuver", additionally there are times I need to be a bit more on the offensive and while Aikido can be offensive, that is only a small part of the art, a lot of it is waiting for the other guy to make the first move.

So I went looking.  A lot of arts have a lot of kicking.  Due to the gear I wear, that was right out.  Others have a lot of ground fighting, same reason, right out.  

So I chose my school because I am a naturally skinny guy.  In terms of unarmed striking both Wing Chun and Kali are about using proper structure to attack, to defend it's about deflection and avoidance vs hard blocking (do not meet force with force)  I am pretty quick so the principle of simultaneously attacking while defending works.  They both also have various joint locks and takedowns that are work relevant as is the stick work of Kali. 

I thought about MMA, it is definitely an effective art but wouldn't have fit me well.  It is more strength oriented in how the strikes and defenses are applied.  There is also practically a goal of the take down for submissions (at least the instructor near me), but due to all the gear I wear at work it wouldn't make a lot of sense and could even hinder me in getting to and using important tools.

So in terms of what I had available I picked the school that will make me most effective. /Shrug


----------



## Hanzou

There's a very good reason you don't see WC guys fighting like WC guys in the octagon.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> There's a very good reason you don't see WC guys fighting like WC guys in the octagon.



Oh absolutely, and I think already been covered a couple times in the 20 odd pages we have here.  But to summarize the different ideas posted before.  Some of the managers in traditional WC that can be used to hinder a take down are not permitted by the rules, some of the managers taught that can get you out of a take down are also against the rules.  Because of those rules you would then need room to maneuver to try an avoid the takedown completely but the Octagon itself prohibits that.

MMA is purpose built for the Octagon, anyone trying to use a "pure" traditional Martial Art enters that cage at their own peril.  The street however in a "real" no holds barred hostile encounter, that is a different world.


----------



## Juany118

PS edited the above to include a summary.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> I was referring to a specific period of time when they were personally inviting people to Matches when MMA was barely in its infancy.  I purposefully committed the Gracie Challenge stuff, especially as it relates to the Pride fights, simply because they didn't involve drastically different styles facing off (example  Sakuraba vs Royler).  Since the conversation here is about opposing styles, it didn't seem overly relevant.


Ummm... what?

The Gracie Challenge has been going on since like the 1920s or 1930s and they've had challengers ranging from Karateka to Boxers and everything in between, all *WELL* before UFC 1.

And, yeah, as I already wrote, one of the important points of MMA, never mind only WC vs MMA, was about opposing styles.  UFC 1 proved that.  Style vs Style.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Ummm... what?
> 
> The Gracie Challenge has been going on since like the 1920s or 1930s and they've had challengers ranging from Karateka to Boxers and everything in between, all *WELL* before UFC 1.
> 
> And, yeah, as I already wrote, one of the important points of MMA, never mind only WC vs MMA, was about opposing styles.  UFC 1 proved that.  Style vs Style.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I know but since this is about MMA, I am focusing on the sons who got MMA as we know it off the ground.  I could go into how Helio lost his challenges to Judo (got his arm broke)  and  how on a school vs school challenge Gracie Academy lost.  That imo wouldn't be relevant to the conversation here however because Helio eventually even stopped engaging in matches that involved striking and zero striking takes us away from the MMA realm does it not.  So felt taking us to the modern era where the results are more mixed and involve striking vs BJJ made the most sense in an MMA argument.  

I then jumped to the Sakuraba fight because before that one, to my knowledge, you had a lot of challenge fights that never happened, each side blaming the other for why they didn't.  That would have muddied the waters even more.

I agree that the Gracies were always about Challenging other arts, my point was that at no point did they manage to prove that one was better than the other.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> I agree that the Gracies were always about Challenging other arts, my point was that at no point did they manage to prove that one was better than the other.


I don't recall suggesting that they proved anything much in this thread, only that an important basis of MMA was style vs style in order to prove that one style is better.  Whether or not that goal was met, it still was a stated goal.  It's largely what made viewers want to watch the UFC matches.  Ever has it been so.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> I don't recall suggesting that they proved anything much in this thread, only that an important basis of MMA was style vs style in order to prove that one style is better.  Whether or not that goal was met, it still was a stated goal.  It's largely what made viewers want to watch the UFC matches.  Ever has it been so.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Okay, I see your point, I misunderstood where you were going.
I would also agree that, in the beginning, this was very much the case, now not so much.  Imo once the rules, that led to the Unified Rules of MMA, started getting passed in the early 2000's more than a few maneuvers that various traditional martial arts could bring to bare became verboten.  This has reduced the argument inside MMA, again just my opinion, to being more about simply striking vs grappling in general and not about specific styles of either.


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> Oh absolutely, and I think already been covered a couple times in the 20 odd pages we have here.  But to summarize the different ideas posted before.  Some of the managers in traditional WC that can be used to hinder a take down are not permitted by the rules, some of the managers taught that can get you out of a take down are also against the rules.  Because of those rules you would then need room to maneuver to try an avoid the takedown completely but the Octagon itself prohibits that.
> 
> MMA is purpose built for the Octagon, anyone trying to use a "pure" traditional Martial Art enters that cage at their own peril.  The street however in a "real" no holds barred hostile encounter, that is a different world.



And what rules in particular do you feel hinder the success of WC in MMA?


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> And what rules in particular do you feel hinder the success of WC in MMA?



The rules I speak of don't just hinder WC but banning certain targets I think is an issue.  I remember one time at work I had an MMA trained guy attempt a take down on me, the way I defeated it?  Punches and Elbow strikes to the back of his head/neck/spine.  That would be a DQ in MMA.  If he would have gotten me down my next step would have been to go for his eyes,  either with Bil Gee or punches (we focus on using the bottom two knuckles) or I would be striking/grabbing the throat, all of which are DQ offenses.

Note this doesn't just effect WC, many arts teach some or all of these maneuvers, but the rules outlawing these maneuvers removes a number of methods that can be used to stop/mitigate the threat of a take down and ground fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The rules I speak of don't just hinder WC but banning certain targets I think is an issue.  I remember one time at work I had an MMA trained guy attempt a take down on me, the way I defeated it?  Punches and Elbow strikes to the back of his head/neck/spine.  That would be a DQ in MMA.  If he would have gotten me down my next step would have been to go for his eyes,  either with Bil Gee or punches (we focus on using the bottom two knuckles) or I would be striking/grabbing the throat, all of which are DQ offenses.
> 
> Note this doesn't just effect WC, many arts teach some or all of these maneuvers, but the rules outlawing these maneuvers removes a number of methods that can be used to stop/mitigate the threat of a take down and ground fighting.




Ha.

Downward elbows.

Called it.






See those elbows? perfectly fine. They are not 12 to 6.


----------



## Juany118

> Ha.
> 
> Downward elbows.
> 
> Called it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See those elbows? perfectly fine. They are not 12 to 6.



It's the target that matters not the direction.  If you notice there he is targeting the kidneys.

Yep that hurts!!!! However back of the head, neck and spine shots are illegal in MMA and those are the spots with easy access for max force blows if you are facing the guy trying a take down similar to this, which is what I faced (he was a little more sprawled out).  Then if he got me down (didn't come to that), since he was stronger, my best options would have been eyes, groin or throat, which are also illegal targets in the octagon


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> The rules I speak of don't just hinder WC but banning certain targets I think is an issue.  I remember one time at work I had an MMA trained guy attempt a take down on me, the way I defeated it?  Punches and Elbow strikes to the back of his head/neck/spine.  That would be a DQ in MMA.  If he would have gotten me down my next step would have been to go for his eyes,  either with Bil Gee or punches (we focus on using the bottom two knuckles) or I would be striking/grabbing the throat, all of which are DQ offenses.
> 
> Note this doesn't just effect WC, many arts teach some or all of these maneuvers, but the rules outlawing these maneuvers removes a number of methods that can be used to stop/mitigate the threat of a take down and ground fighting.



Let me make sure I understand this;

You're saying that a single type of (possible) take down defense completely shuts down the entire Wing Chun curriculum? In other words, the reason we don't see all the trapping and hand techniques from Wing Chun within MMA is because WC guys aren't allowed to do downward elbow strikes to the spine or back of the head during a takedown?

What if they don't do a double leg takedown or a tackle? What if they do something like this;






An elbow strike to the spine isn't going to save you from that.

Why don't WC guys simply learn MMA style takedown defenses?

The inability to do ONE type of defense against ONE type of takedown doesn't explain the complete absence of WC within MMA.

And eye gouges while someone is on top of you dropping elbows and punches to your face? Seriously?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> It's the target that matters not the direction.  If you notice there he is targeting the kidneys.
> 
> Yep that hurts!!!! However back of the head, neck and spine shots are illegal in MMA and those are the spots with easy access for max force blows if you are facing the guy trying a take down similar to this, which is what I faced (he was a little more sprawled out).  Then if he got me down (didn't come to that), since he was stronger, my best options would have been eyes, groin or throat, which are also illegal targets in the octagon



If he gets you down he is going to throw downward elbows into your face while eyegouging you. Which would seriously suck. 

This is the fun thing about rules. It is all well and good when you are going schoolyard on them.  But they do have the same opportunity to do it back.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> Let me make sure I understand this;
> 
> You're saying that a single type of (possible) take down defense completely shuts down the entire Wing Chun curriculum? In other words, the reason we don't see all the trapping and hand techniques from Wing Chun within MMA is because WC guys aren't allowed to do downward elbow strikes to the spine or back of the head during a takedown?
> 
> What if they don't do a double leg takedown or a tackle? What if they do something like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An elbow strike to the spine isn't going to save you from that.
> 
> Why don't WC guys simply learn MMA style takedown defenses?
> 
> The inability to do ONE type of defense against ONE type of takedown doesn't explain the complete absence of WC within MMA.
> 
> And eye gouges while someone is on top of you dropping elbows and punches to your face? Seriously?




I am saying that limiting targets in general, not just the head/neck/spine limits many arts.  So yes, the guy does that and gets you down.  But once down, on the street, you can go for his groin out do small joint manipulations, both of which are out of bounds.  You could go for the eyes before he flipped you over into the submission hold.

It's the totality of the "no go" targets that IMO is the limiting factor, no single one on its own.  There are a number of MAs that are designed around the idea of not sizing up, testing and looking for openings, rather they are about going in with, basically, brutal force striking at the most vulnerable areas of the human body.

Also yeah I might not be able to eye gouge on the bottom but just reach up and grab a throat?  Do a fast finger thrust to the eyes?  Grab/strike groin? These are doable (such as when I grabbed a guys throat, not larynx was pressure to carotid and jugular, while he was punching me in the groin...lack of O2 to the brain beats an attempt at pain compliance).  Now if these rules didn't exist MMA as an Art would be completely different of course, but that is really my point.  MMA as an Art exists as it does because of the rules forcing a specific evolution.  Those rules negatively impact other arts that evolved in an environment without rules.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If he gets you down he is going to throw downward elbows into your face while eyegouging you. Which would seriously suck.
> 
> This is the fun thing about rules. It is all well and good when you are going schoolyard on them.  But they do have the same opportunity to do it back.



Well in my experience, people who really train, fight like they train.  The MMA trainers in my area train competition MMA so no eye gouging, just like in the octagon.  That was also what I and Hanzou were talking about specifically, what about being in the Octagon limits an art.  I just made an "I can't do this in the Octagon BUT I can do it on the street" argument.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Grab/strike groin?


Joe Son






Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> I am saying that limiting targets in general, not just the head/neck/spine limits many arts.  So yes, the guy does that and gets you down.  But once down, on the street, you can go for his groin out do small joint manipulations, both of which are out of bounds.  You could go for the eyes before he flipped you over into the submission hold.



I'm sorry, but everything you typed here is pure nonsense. The common result of a takedown in both MMA and "da streetz" is the mounted position, in which a person is sitting either on your chest, or on your stomach, and raining down blows on your face. Are you seriously saying that your answer to that situation is reaching for his groin or trying to catch his hand in order to bend his fingers back? I have yet to see ANYONE get out of that situation with an eye poke, a groin grab, or bending their fingers. They either roll over to their stomach, put up their hands to block the hits, get knocked out, are skilled enough to escape, or the assailant feels guilty because of the damage they're inflicting and walks away.

Do you honestly believe that ground grappling would have remained as prevalent as it is in both MMA and self defense if a bunch of school yard tricks could stop it? I mean, why spend years learning Bjj if all you need are eye pokes and dick grabs to counter the entire system? I can't believe people actually believe this stuff.





> It's the totality of the "no go" targets that IMO is the limiting factor, no single one on its own.  There are a number of MAs that are designed around the idea of not sizing up, testing and looking for openings, rather they are about going in with, basically, brutal force striking at the most vulnerable areas of the human body.
> 
> Also yeah I might not be able to eye gouge on the bottom but just reach up and grab a throat?  Do a fast finger thrust to the eyes?  Grab/strike groin? These are doable (such as when I grabbed a guys throat, not larynx was pressure to carotid and jugular, while he was punching me in the groin...lack of O2 to the brain beats an attempt at pain compliance).  Now if these rules didn't exist MMA as an Art would be completely different of course, but that is really my point.  MMA as an Art exists as it does because of the rules forcing a specific evolution.  Those rules negatively impact other arts that evolved in an environment without rules.



LoL! You're going to reach up from the bottom of a mount and go for a throat grab? Don't you understand that a trained submission grappler would LOVE for you to do that while they're on top of you? Don't you understand that a grappler on top of you is in a dominant position and has far more control over the situation than you do from the bottom?

What am I saying, of course you don't.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> I'm sorry, but everything you typed here is pure nonsense. The common result of a takedown in both MMA and "da streetz" is the mounted position, in which a person is sitting either on your chest, or on your stomach, and raining down blows on your face. Are you seriously saying that your answer to that situation is reaching for his groin or trying to catch his hand in order to bend his fingers back? I have yet to see ANYONE get out of that situation with an eye poke, a groin grab, or bending their fingers. They either roll over to their stomach, put up their hands to block the hits, get knocked out, are skilled enough to escape, or the assailant feels guilty because of the damage they're inflicting and walks away.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that ground grappling would have remained as prevalent as it is in both MMA and self defense if a bunch of school yard tricks could stop it? I mean, why spend years learning Bjj if all you need are eye pokes and dick grabs to counter the entire system? I can't believe people actually believe this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoL! You're going to reach up from the bottom of a mount and go for a throat grab? Don't you understand that a trained submission grappler would LOVE for you to do that while they're on top of you? Don't you understand that a grappler on top of you is in a dominant position and has far more control over the situation than you do from the bottom?
> 
> What am I saying, of course you don't.



Well since I have been in more than one real street fight I think I can say with confidence these things can work.

Now, as with every technique will they always work against every opponent?  Of course not.  My only point is to say this.

The rules of MMA, the gloves and the Octagon itself disadvantage many arts that did not evolve with those rules in mind.  In the Octagon, MMA with always have the edge.  On the street however, where there can be more room to maneuver and people of other Arts don't have to worry about the rules, that can limit how they are trained to strike and/grapple the scales become far more balanced.  I am not saying someone doing Wing Chun, Karate, Kali, whatever will now miraculously beat the MMA guy (I think you might be under the impression that is what I am saying) on the street, just that it becomes far more a question of the fighter and not the Art.  Full list of fouls noted in the following response.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Joe Son
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


That was UFC 4, in 1994.  Groin shots have been against the rules for some time now as have 12-6 elbows actually (forgot about that change). These rules have been in place since the mid 2000s.  These rules were a double edged sword for different fighters, in the eyes of some.  In terms of fouls, they hurt people who leaned too hard towards striking.  Small joint manipulation fouls and the imposition of short rounds, hurt the "tire em out, wait em out" style of people who leaned hard towards grappling like the Gracie's back in the day.  

Don't get me wrong MMA is a dang effective Art for the people who put the time and effort into it, all I am saying is that in the Octagon with the gloves on and the rules in place it gains an advantage over other arts because MMA was designed with those rules in mind.  I am actually struggling to understand why this idea is controversial tbh.

Rules and Regulations - Unified Rules and Other MMA Regulations


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well in my experience, people who really train, fight like they train.  The MMA trainers in my area train competition MMA so no eye gouging, just like in the octagon.  That was also what I and Hanzou were talking about specifically, what about being in the Octagon limits an art.  I just made an "I can't do this in the Octagon BUT I can do it on the street" argument.



So we are back to the system and not the individual.

Ok.  People fight how they train.  Does that mean you do simulated eye gouges in the street or do you do real eye gouges in the class room. 

Another classic paradox again.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So we are back to the system and not the individual.
> 
> Ok.  People fight how they train.  Does that mean you do simulated eye gouges in the street or do you do real eye gouges in the class room.
> 
> Another classic paradox again.



Not really.  Why?  Look at the systems Holistically.  Wing Chun, as an example, has Chin Na incorporated into, which can be used to take down people BUT it doesn't have the breadth of take downs, nor the ground fighting training that MMA does.  So the maneuvers I note are more simply a counter balance to the more expansive training in grappling/ground fighting an MMA has at there disposal, used to potentially escape from the strength of another art.  Whether it helps you to escape, comes down to who is better at exercising the opposing technique.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Juany118 said:


> Well in my experience, people who really train, fight like they train. The MMA trainers in my area train competition MMA so no eye gouging, just like in the octagon





drop bear said:


> Ok. People fight how they train. Does that mean you do simulated eye gouges in the street or do you do real eye gouges in the class room.
> 
> Another classic paradox again.



The way I deal with this is to train simulated eye gouges, groin slaps, etc but I drill them within the same structure that I use to apply real strikes, throws, etc in sparring. If I were to ever have to use these techniques in a real fight this should maximize my odds of actually pulling them off for real. Even if I were to fail, I would still be operating within the same control structure that I know helps protect me from damage and allows me to execute the techniques that I have successfully applied to resisting opponents hundreds of times.

The last couple of times I met with @yak sao I showed him some of the drills I use to practice eye gouges, head butts, elbows, groin strikes, and the like. You can ask him what his opinion is of my approach from a Wing Tsun perspective.


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> The way I deal with this is to train simulated eye gouges, groin slaps, etc but I drill them within the same structure that I use to apply real strikes, throws, etc in sparring. If I were to ever have to use these techniques in a real fight this should maximize my odds of actually pulling them off for real. Even if I were to fail, I would still be operating within the same control structure that I know helps protect me from damage and allows me to execute the techniques that I have successfully applied to resisting opponents hundreds of times.
> 
> The last couple of times I met with @yak sao I showed him some of the drills I use to practice eye gouges, head butts, elbows, groin strikes, and the like. You can ask him what his opinion is of my approach from a Wing Tsun perspective.



And this is kinda where I have been heading, it's not about the specific art butnthe practitioner.  If you want to fight real world you sometimes have to go outside a specific art.  One of the reasons I like my school is we train not only in WC but Inosanto Kali.  WC doesn't have ground fighting really but IK does teach it along with transitions to and from.  It's on me to integrate the two together though into something that works for my purposes.

Now MMA has tried to combine the best of many different arts BUT when it is taugh it is taught with MMA rules in mind.  It is up to the individual practitioner to go beyond what his formal training provides him but few do because they have never been in a real fight or flight situation and, tbh, good for them.  No one should ever be in such a situation.

Btw, your Sig is true beyond belief. Cheers sir.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> The way I deal with this is to train simulated eye gouges, groin slaps, etc but I drill them within the same structure that I use to apply real strikes, throws, etc in sparring. If I were to ever have to use these techniques in a real fight this should maximize my odds of actually pulling them off for real. Even if I were to fail, I would still be operating within the same control structure that I know helps protect me from damage and allows me to execute the techniques that I have successfully applied to resisting opponents hundreds of times.
> 
> The last couple of times I met with @yak sao I showed him some of the drills I use to practice eye gouges, head butts, elbows, groin strikes, and the like. You can ask him what his opinion is of my approach from a Wing Tsun perspective.



Yeah. Functional core basics and the put schoolyard on top.

And i will happily go schoolyard if the guy i am training with wants to. The joy of mma there is there is a pressure point and striking system already incorporated. So eyegouges are not that big a suprise. I am already getting forearms and heads and chins grinding me

My go to defence for a can opener is a bit of knuckle in the eyeball. 

But it would means you dont fight the way you train. It means everybody trains for a simulated environment.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Now MMA has tried to combine the best of many different arts BUT when it is taugh it is taught with MMA rules in mind. It is up to the individual practitioner to go beyond what his formal training provides him but few do because they have never been in a real fight or flight situation and, tbh, good for them. No one should ever be in such a situation.



Mma guys and sport fighters in general spend as much time in street fights as all these street specific systems.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Functional core basics and the put schoolyard on top.
> 
> And i will happily go schoolyard if the guy i am training with wants to. The joy of mma there is there is a pressure point and striking system already incorporated. So eyegouges are not that big a suprise. I am already getting forearms and heads and chins grinding me
> 
> But it would means you dont fight the way you train. It means everybody trains for a simulated environment.



Not really.  Look at your Martial Arts like Academics for a minute.  I am a Police Officer now but originally studied to be a History Teacher.  I also had a love of philosophy and political science.  While doing student teaching my knowledge of the last 2 allowed be to put into context how the history that was in books.  It didn't mean I was training for other things, it just meant I didn't get myopic on what I chose to "major" in.  It was about Me the Teacher (read Martial Artist) refusing to limit myself to one specific mindset.


drop bear said:


> Mma guys and sport fighters in general spend as much time in street fights as all these street specific systems.



Yes, but they usually find themselves, not just MMA but most martial artists who get into street fights, in a testosterone driven brawl with someone, likely untrained, who is only looking to show how tough they are.  Every boxer or MMA guy I have encounters on the street, who thought they could cold cock me before I got to a tool later said "damn, I assumed you were like everyone else and had to use one of those things on your belt."

Again this isn't to say MMA is worse than any other art.  Only that the artist makes a difference.  Whether it be their assumptions, self imposed limitations, etc.  But in the end the Art can only go so far as the person learning it allows it to.


----------



## Nobody Important

Spinoza said:


> I haven't. Did WC not have anti-grappling methods before then? They've developed new anti-grappling training in response to modern MMA?
> 
> Has WC not had representation in lei tai matches? I haven't checked to be sure, but I'd be very surprised if that were true.


Wing Chun unfortunately, has not proven it's effectiveness in any full contact fighting arena. This is a sad truth. For all the bravado and claims of theoretical superiority spouted by chunners, one has yet to step up and prove the claim. There are hundreds of videos of Wing Chun practitioners getting their backsides handed to them because they drank the kool-aid given to them. Theory does not make a fighter nor will it protect you. This is a shame as Wing Chun has some very good concepts, the problem lies in individuals who over complicate and adhere to the dogmatic law of their sifu and limit defense training to over stylized drills. Fighting is organic and cannot be approached with a structured set of responses. Many chunners are too over analytical for their own good and get lost in the theory.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Not really.  Look at your Martial Arts like Academics for a minute.  I am a Police Officer now but originally studied to be a History Teacher.  I also had a love of philosophy and political science.  While doing student teaching my knowledge of the last 2 allowed be to put into context how the history that was in books.  It didn't mean I was training for other things, it just meant I didn't get myopic on what I chose to "major" in.  It was about Me the Teacher (read Martial Artist) refusing to limit myself to one specific mindset.
> 
> 
> Yes, but they usually find themselves, not just MMA but most martial artists who get into street fights, in a testosterone driven brawl with someone, likely untrained, who is only looking to show how tough they are.  Every boxer or MMA guy I have encounters on the street, who thought they could cold cock me before I got to a tool later said "damn, I assumed you were like everyone else and had to use one of those things on your belt."
> 
> Again this isn't to say MMA is worse than any other art.  Only that the artist makes a difference.  Whether it be their assumptions, self imposed limitations, etc.  But in the end the Art can only go so far as the person learning it allows it to.



Ok.  So it is the individual again not the art. 

So then what happened to arts training illegal moves giving the advantage?


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Wing Chun unfortunately, has not proven it's effectiveness in any full contact fighting arena. This is a sad truth. For all the bravado and claims of theoretical superiority spouted by chunners, one has yet to step up and prove the claim. There are hundreds of videos of Wing Chun practitioners getting their backsides handed to them because they drank the kool-aid given to them. Theory does not make a fighter nor will it protect you. This is a shame as Wing Chun has some very good concepts, the problem lies in individuals who over complicate and adhere to the dogmatic law of their sifu and limit defense training to over stylized drills. Fighting is organic and cannot be approached with a structured set of responses. Many chunners are too over analytical for their own good and get lost in the theory.


But there are Sifu's out there like mine who say (direct quote)"don't drink the kool-aid, there is no secret sauce" and teach WC, as combative, with the experience of someone who had actually applied MA concepts on the street.  A perfect example is tonight.  We had a guest instructor who is 110% traditional Wing Chun.  He step away to talk to other students, he said "in real life, you won't do that half.  The first half works, the second half do this, it has a better chance of disabling your opponent.". Was it WC?  Yep.  Was it the standard "flood the center with punches to the face?" NOPE.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Not really. Look at your Martial Arts like Academics for a minute. I am a Police Officer now but originally studied to be a History Teacher. I also had a love of philosophy and political science. While doing student teaching my knowledge of the last 2 allowed be to put into context how the history that was in books. It didn't mean I was training for other things, it just meant I didn't get myopic on what I chose to "major" in. It was about Me the Teacher (read Martial Artist) refusing to limit myself to one specific mindset.



Sorry what?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Ok.  So it is the individual again not the art.
> 
> So then what happened to arts training illegal moves giving the advantage?



You love strawmen arguments but I will bite.  The difference is this.  To actually hard core go for another human's eyes, throat, groin... I mean hard core, not just a "cup check" or a poke, requires a degree of aggression that emotionally stable humans have to develop.  It doesn't come with Martial Arts training, it comes from actually being is situations where you aren't saying "I might lose this fight" but rather being either in situations where you have had to say "I might die here" or where the training you get is constant non-stop military training where you act in such a violent manner without any such consideration.

Note I said emotionally stable.  Sadly I have met people with neither the training or experience, they were just broken because, as social animals, humans find it FAR easier to do major damage at range than face to face.  That isn't my idea btw, but the conclusions of modern psychological science.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Sorry what?



Are you going to respond to the same post twice?  Really?  I get it, you like MMA, you think it is good enough to overcome a skill/talent deficiency.  I disagree.  Can we just agree to disagree on the art vs practitioner argument and move on?


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> But there are Wife's out there like mine who say (direct quote)"don't drink the kool-aid, there is no secret sauce" and teach WC, as combative, with the experience of someone who had actually applied MA concepts on the street.  A perfect example is tonight.  We had a guest instructor who is 110% traditional Wing Chun.  He step away to talk to other students, he said "in real life, you won't do that half.  The first half works, the second half do this, it has a better chance of disabling your opponent.". Was it WC?  Yep.  Was it the standard "flood the center with punches to the face?" NOPE.


Being a WC practitioner I can say that it works well against uneducated individuals if you have an aggressive fighting mentality. It begins to fall apart when those that can recognize what is being done have the same mentality. I believe WC is more concept than anything else, a tool kit to help elevate a simpler but effective method like boxing or judo. Many chunners will disagree, but that's ok. WC is fine motor skill primarily. Fine motor skill is high maintenance at high cost and length of time to acquire ability. Unlike gross motor skilled arts like boxing and judo. In situations of high stress fine motor skills are the first to go unlike gross motor skills which remain. This is the primary reason the art fails the practitioner.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Are you going to respond to the same post twice?  Really?  I get it, you like MMA, you think it is good enough to overcome a skill/talent deficiency.  I disagree.  Can we just agree to disagree on the art vs practitioner argument and move on?



So far you have said it Is both. It is the art when it is in your favour and the practitioner when it isn't.

Any good training will improve the ability of the practitioner. Not just mma. There is good training and bad training.

And you can use that to compare martial arts style.

Now people are different and will have different rates of success. So a talented person in a bad style can be better than a gumby in a good style.

But you  can't make people inherently better. All you can do is train them in the best system so they get the most out of their natural ability.

That is why you can't discuss martial arts at the moment without constantly changing your stance. You basic premise falls apart at this level.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Being a WC practitioner I can say that it works well against uneducated individuals if you have an aggressive fighting mentality. It begins to fall apart when those that can recognize what is being done have the same mentality. I believe WC is more concept than anything else, a tool kit to help elevate a simpler but effective method like boxing or judo. Many chunners will disagree, but that's ok. WC is fine motor skill primarily. Fine motor skill is high maintenance at high cost and length of time to acquire ability. Unlike gross motor skilled arts like boxing and judo. In situations of high stress fine motor skills are the first to go unlike gross motor skills which remain. This is the primary reason the art fails the practitioner.



I can actually agree with this to an extent.  My entire point here has been to say, in the end the specific art doesn't matter, it is the fighter that makes the difference, in the context of the art.  Personally, while I study WC and Inosanto Kali, I prefer IK.  I find the IK far easier because it is more about flow.  However one guy I study with finds the WC easier, maybe he is a robot but that fine muscle control, as you call it, is second nature to him but flow doesn't.  Our bodies are no different than our heads.  I suck at math but concepts in words, history, literature?  Second nature.

Throughout here I wasn't talking about WC vs MMA as much as you need to pick the right Art for you.  It is that pairing, irl that makes the difference.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So far you have said it Is both. It is the art when it is in your favour and the practitioner when it isn't.
> 
> Any good training will improve the ability of the practitioner. Not just mma. There is good training and bad training.
> 
> And you can use that to compare martial arts style.
> 
> Now people are different and will have different rates of success. So a talented person in a bad style can be better than a gumby in a good style.
> 
> But you  can't make people inherently better. All you can do is train them in the best system so they get the most out of their natural ability.
> 
> That is why you can't discuss martial arts at the moment without constantly changing your stance. You basic premise falls apart at this level.




I have never changed my stance.  In the end the WHOLE of a Martial Art is not as important as the practitioner.  You have jump on my mention of a specific technique here and there but in doing so miss the entire point of Martial Arts.  No martial is measured by a specific technique. If I was to use your method I would simply say "MMA sucks irl because the two leg take down leaves you vulnerable to 12-6 elbow strikes to the head and neck." But MMA has more to offer than that does it not?

You have been so desperate to defend a specific style that you cherry pick statements out of total context.  As such sir we are are done.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I have never changed my stance.  In the end the WHOLE of a Martial Art is not as important as the practitioner.  You have jump on my mention of a specific technique here and there but in doing so miss the entire point of Martial Arts.  No martial is measured by a specific technique. If I was to use your method I would simply say "MMA sucks irl because the two leg take down leaves you vulnerable to 12-6 elbow strikes to the head and neck." But MMA has more to offer than that does it not?
> 
> You have been so desperate to defend a specific style that you cherry pick statements out of total context.  As such sir we are are done.



If you were to use my style you would take apart my basic premise as illogical.

If it is not the style but the individual why does the rule set matter?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If you were to use my style you would take apart my basic premise as illogical.
> 
> If it is not the style but the individual why does the rule set matter?



No need to do so.  Here is a fact of logic, it cuts across all arguments.  When one side has to take individual statements out of the context, the person doing so is simply trying to create the appearance of a logical and solid defense.  It matters not the topic.  This fallacy you are engaged predates Christ in the Western world and goes back to Socrates and beyond.

As I said previously, when someone claims to have a better Mouse trap it is, according to basic rules of logic, their duty to prove that it is better.  The is a fact of logic and life, for as long as reason has been recorded.  It doesn't matter if it is applied to a science of astronomy, physics or warfare such as the martial arts.

As such I actually have nothing to prove because until my life time your point of view did not even vaguely exist.  It is you who has to provide proof.

Do you have any or just more "gotcha" statements out of context and ad hominems?  Sorry if this sounds harsh but the Martial Arts have existed in one form or another since human kind has existed.  Since then every art has claimed to be the superior art.  Since that claim was first made NO art has managed to prove that the art, and not the practitioner, was superior. 

It's the job of the MMA defender, a defender of an art born in my lifetime, to disprove thousands of year of history.

Again I am not saying MMA is bad, only that in the final equation it is the practitioner that matters and millennia of debate, success and failure, to support it.  So again, the burden is on you, if you wish a logical debate.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No need to do so.  Here is a fact of logic, it cuts across all arguments.  When one side has to take individual statements out of the context, the person doing so is simply trying to create the appearance of a logical and solid defense.  It matters not the topic.  This fallacy you are engaged predates Christ in the Western world and goes back to Socrates and beyond.
> 
> As I said previously, when someone claims to have a better Mouse trap it is, according to basic rules of logic, their duty to prove that it is better.  The is a fact of logic and life, for as long as reason has been recorded.  It doesn't matter if it is applied to a science of astronomy, physics or warfare such as the martial arts.
> 
> As such I actually have nothing to prove because until my life time your point of view did not even vaguely exist.  It is you who has to provide proof.
> 
> Do you have any or just more "gotcha" statements out of context and ad hominems?  Sorry if this sounds harsh but the Martial Arts have existed in one form or another since human kind has existed.  Since then every art has claimed to be the superior art.  Since that claim was first made NO art has managed to prove that the art, and not the practitioner, was superior.
> 
> It's the job of the MMA defender, a defender of an art born in my lifetime, to disprove thousands of year of history.
> 
> Again I am not saying MMA is bad, only that in the final equation it is the practitioner that matters and millennia of debate, success and failure, to support it.  So again, the burden is on you, if you wish a logical debate.



If the individual is the determining factor in success. Then you are saying all martial arts training and the thousands of years of its history is redundant.

Yet as people train in martial arts they do tend to get better at it.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If the individual is the determining factor in success. Then you are saying all martial arts training and the thousands of years of its history is redundant.
> 
> Yet as people train in martial arts they do tend to get better at it.



Wrong, what I am saying is this.  Since Homo Sapien has walked the earth our two arms and two legs can only move in so many ways. 

Do you honestly think that miraculously in the 20th century, with the gun rules the day, that thousands of years of unarmed combat can be supplanted?  

I am sorry but that simply beggars logic.  Basically you are saying "martial arts were in suspended animation for hundreds of years UNTIL MMA was born in my lifetime"

Do you see how arrogant that sounds?  That thousands of years of combat evolution stops....until one in our lifetime is born?


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> Well since I have been in more than one real street fight I think I can say with confidence these things can work.



They can work, but not in the context you originally applied them, which was against a martial artist skilled in grappling aka a Mixed Martial Artist.

Remember, your original premise here wasn't your personal street fighting prowess against random "MMA guys", but that the reason WC is absent in MMA is because they're not allowed to fight dirty.




> The rules of MMA, the gloves and the Octagon itself disadvantage many arts that did not evolve with those rules in mind.  In the Octagon, MMA with always have the edge.  On the street however, where there is more room to maneuver and people of other Arts don't have to worry about the rules the scales get better balanced.  I am not saying someone doing Wing Chun, Karate, Kali, whatever will now miraculously beat the MMA guy (I think you might be under the impression that is what I am saying).  All I am saying is that under those circumstances the MMA guy no longer has an environmental (for lack of a better term) advantage.  On the street it will come down to who is the better fighter end of story.



Keep in mind that NHBs have been around for decades, and several have had minimal rulesets. The original UFCs were such contests, and the styles that dominated those contests are still mainstays in the sport today.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Wrong, what I am saying is this.  Since Homo Sapien has walked the earth our two arms and two legs can only move in so many ways.
> 
> Do you honestly think that miraculously in the 20th century, with the gun rules the day, that thousands of years of unarmed combat can be supplanted?
> 
> I am sorry but that simply beggars logic.  Basically you are saying "martial arts were in suspended animation for hundreds of years UNTIL MMA was born in my lifetime"
> 
> Do you see how arrogant that sounds?  That thousands of years of combat evolution stops....until one in our lifetime is born?



It is like we are having different conversions.

Ok. Fine the argument you are imaging we are having.

I can see mma work because they have a vehicle called the UFC that allows me to see it work. This allows me a consistant measure of performance with the most variables.

It has been the only recorded example of a multi style competition that has attracted top martial artists.from around the world. So I can remove the rationalisations ,stories and excuses that martial arts make about their own superiority and see for my self  what works.

We have never had access to this sort of information before and it is arrogant to ignore it.

So to say martial arts had hit a peak of performance is a fair comment that is not arrogant at all. If you consider the refinement of martial arts is based not on the time spent doing it but the numbers of practitioners  combining to create it. Then we can  look at mma as a great evolutionary step forwards.

We are talking about a martial arts competition that 2 million people watched.

I have been around. i saw when kickboxing and muay thai created the great leap forwards in striking. It changed the whole landscape of martial arts. 

I remember when you couldn't get gloves that you could train stand up and grappling at all well. (those horrible bruce lee things dont count)

These are progressions we just did not have a thousand years ago.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> Now MMA has tried to combine the best of many different arts BUT when it is taugh it is taught with MMA rules in mind.


You should train 2 different set of techniques. One that you use in friendly sport and one that you use in "unfriendly challenge".

The question is

- if a MMA guy also trains illegal techniques (such as hit on the back of the head, fingers across eyes, ...),
- does a WC guy also train sport techniques (such as jab, cross, side kick, roundhouse kick, shoulder lock, elbow lock, hip throw, single leg, side mount, leg bar, ...)?

IMO, the issue is most MMA guys will train a full set of the fighting tools. 

such as:

- jab, cross, uppercut, hook, ...
- front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, leg block, single leg, double legs, ...
- full mount, side mount, arm bar, leg bar, ...

But most of the WC guys will only train a s subset of those tools.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You should train 2 different set of techniques. One that you use in friendly sport and one that you use in "unfriendly challenge".
> 
> The question is
> 
> - if a MMA guy also trains illegal techniques (such as hit on the back of the head, fingers across eyes, ...),
> - does a WC guy also train sport techniques (such as jab, cross, side kick, roundhouse kick, shoulder lock, elbow lock, hip throw, single leg, side mount, leg bar, ...)?
> 
> IMO, the issue is most MMA guys will train a full set of the fighting tools.
> 
> such as:
> 
> - jab, cross, uppercut, hook, ...
> - front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, ...
> - finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
> - hip throw, leg block, single leg, double legs, ...
> - full mount, side mount, arm bar, leg bar, ...
> 
> But most of the WC guys will only train a s subset of those tools.




Well first a lot of WC guys mix in other arts like say Kali I think the above misses a point.  How Martial Arts evolve.  Martial Arts, including MMA, evolve based on the environment they find themselves being born and growing in, and also account for the physical attributes of those helping to create/perfect them.  I think this is missed.

Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu.  It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.  Punching an armed and armored opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.  The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind and developed defenses against multiple avenues of attack in that context.  FMA has angles of attack whose original purpose was for a blade to get around a Spanish breast plate.  You have striking arts designed for smaller people to be able to take on larger people.  For that to happen you have to move brutally, no gloves to soften the blow and also attack weak points.

This applies to almost all traditional MAs.  Now the problem arises when you try to take these MAs out of that original context.  You put an art designed for the battle field and tell the art that used small joint manipulation to disable a hand or a thrust to the eye to take down a bigger attacker "you can't do that" the art will be handicapped.  As these arts evolved without those rules, MMA evolved into what we see today because they existed.  

If you are going to study Martial Arts it should be because it suits your purposes. I do what you say, I actually study practice 3 techniques but I have practical reasons for doing so. I studied, and still practice, certain Aikido techniques because they are "softer" than many arts but still control and I don't want to injure a mental health patient and right out of the gate I don't want to be injuring suspects.  I study WC along side Inosanto Kali now.  Kali makes me better with one of my tools, I have also always felt the best way to defend against weapons is to know how to use them and every encounter in a home I face the potential of a knife, a stick what have you.  Both of the later help because if the "soft" methods don't work and my tools either fail or are unavailable I need to go hard straight up, eliminate the threat ASAP.  Now I lucked out, my teacher teacher WC and Kali in the same class.  If he only taught Kali that would work for my purposes so I would likely only take that.  It has the striking, the grappling, ground fighting and weapons.
That said most arts have defenses against the other arts. That said in studying two arts at the same time I have been able to see "hey WC can do this but Kali can counter it if applied correctly.  Kali can do that and WC has a counter to it as well.  There is no special sauce." I would be fully confident, using either in unarmed combat against anyone.  Don't know in armed combat, I haven't gotten feel enough into WC to be able to say whether the weapons use is matched.  That is basically where I am coming from here.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It is like we are having different conversions.
> 
> Ok. Fine the argument you are imaging we are having.
> 
> I can see mma work because they have a vehicle called the UFC that allows me to see it work. This allows me a consistant measure of performance with the most variables.
> 
> It has been the only recorded example of a multi style competition that has attracted top martial artists.from around the world. So I can remove the rationalisations ,stories and excuses that martial arts make about their own superiority and see for my self  what works.
> 
> We have never had access to this sort of information before and it is arrogant to ignore it.
> 
> So to say martial arts had hit a peak of performance is a fair comment that is not arrogant at all. If you consider the refinement of martial arts is based not on the time spent doing it but the numbers of practitioners  combining to create it. Then we can  look at mma as a great evolutionary step forwards.
> 
> We are talking about a martial arts competition that 2 million people watched.
> 
> I have been around. i saw when kickboxing and muay thai created the great leap forwards in striking. It changed the whole landscape of martial arts.
> 
> I remember when you couldn't get gloves that you could train stand up and grappling at all well. (those horrible bruce lee things dont count)
> 
> These are progressions we just did not have a thousand years ago.



First I agree the MA always evolve, they have for thousands of years.  The thing is in all those thousands of year, ultimately, no art has proven to be superior to another, in and of itself because of the human equation.

MMA, at least imo, used to be exactly what you speak of, but in reality not so much now.  MMA used to refer to a venue, not an Art.  The introduction of weight classes, limited length rounds, gloves, fouls for hitting specific targets and techniques, all of this has slowly overtime made MMA basically an art unto itself.  This, again just my opinion, has made the Martial Art vs Martial Art reputation of MMA a thing largely of the past. 

Now you may see a specific art noted as where they started to learn their striking or grappling from, but in the end we see, largely, the same strikes and take downs etc. Clearly their is different preferences as to strike more/grapple more, skill in technique application, but it's not like it was before the rules were instituted.

As I have said through, inside that Octagon if you dont MMA, I wish ya luck but betting on the other guy.  However saying that because that is how it works in the Octagon does not say that is how it will work on the street, because once you throw out the rules you have too many variables to account for.   

Again I do NOT say that MMA is worse on the street than other arts, I just say that MMA, as we know it today, has evolved in a specific environment and that to say it's superiority in that specific environment means it will be superior outside of that specific environment is flawed logic.  Many a martial art, even when created in the same environment as others with the intent of being "superior" has failed to prove it is better.  It is simply impossible to do so because of the countless variables that suddenly cascade in a fight where there are no rules.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> They can work, but not in the context you originally applied them, which was against a martial artist skilled in grappling aka a Mixed Martial Artist.
> 
> Remember, your original premise here wasn't your personal street fighting prowess against random "MMA guys", but that the reason WC is absent in MMA is because they're not allowed to fight dirty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that NHBs have been around for decades, and several have had minimal rulesets. The original UFCs were such contests, and the styles that dominated those contests are still mainstays in the sport today.



Oh I will never say that every technique always works.  My actual premise throughout here is that, on the street, there are simply to many variables to say one MA is superior to another, so I would never claim something that has worked for me against person A will definitely succeed against person B, i will only say that it has work and so CAN work against other people BUT the use of the word "can" implies the possibility of failure as well.

The thing about WC and why I like supplementing it with Inosanto Kali, is that WC is very much a MA where you have to be willing to commit to going all in with offensive brutality.  The defenses are basically designed to deflect so you can either A) open, almost like a wedge, the enemy's center, or B) allow you to get to the opponent's blind side fast enough that you are striking before he adapts. If you can't commit to preemptive action, it's likely not the art for you.  I can't always legally justify such preemptive action so I can't always use WC in the way it is fully intended.

The only reason I ended up in the one scenario I described is because I was initially preoccupied with another subject.  If I hadn't heard the chair get shoved out of the way I would not have even been facing that take down.  That situation, imo, while I came out on top, was actually a tactical failure on my part.  If however I was facing that guy, the minute he started moving towards me aggressively I would have been justified in going on the offensive, and who knows, he may never have even gotten down to my legs.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> First I agree the MA always evolve, they have for thousands of years.  The thing is in all those thousands of year, ultimately, no art has proven to be superior to another, in and of itself because of the human equation.
> 
> MMA, at least imo, used to be exactly what you speak of, but in reality not so much now.  MMA used to refer to a venue, not an Art.  The introduction of weight classes, limited length rounds, gloves, fouls for hitting specific targets and techniques, all of this has slowly overtime made MMA basically an art unto itself.  This, again just my opinion, has made the Martial Art vs Martial Art reputation of MMA a thing largely of the past.
> 
> Now you may see a specific art noted as where they started to learn their striking or grappling from, but in the end we see, largely, the same strikes and take downs etc. Clearly their is different preferences as to strike more/grapple more, skill in technique application, but it's not like it was before the rules were instituted.
> 
> As I have said through, inside that Octagon if you dont MMA, I wish ya luck but betting on the other guy.  However saying that because that is how it works in the Octagon does not say that is how it will work on the street, because once you throw out the rules you have too many variables to account for.
> 
> Again I do NOT say that MMA is worse on the street than other arts, I just say that MMA, as we know it today, has evolved in a specific environment and that to say it's superiority in that specific environment means it will be superior outside of that specific environment is flawed logic.  Many a martial art, even when created in the same environment as others with the intent of being "superior" has failed to prove it is better.  It is simply impossible to do so because of the countless variables that suddenly cascade in a fight where there are no rules.



Why dosent the human equation effect the outcome of what happens in the octagon? I mean you suggest you need to know mma to be successful but if the human equation is as you suggest. You actually don't. Learning the trumpet would be fine if you were athletic enough. 

Now if you argue that because of the countless variables in a street fight make it impossible to determine what will work and what won't.

Preparing for a street fight using any martial arts should be impossible.

I mean it is not like wing chun covers these variables either. And doesn't work to the same standard when the variables are reduced.

You are suggesting mma is not the be all and end all of fightin. That is correct. But you haven't offered an alternative.

     .


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Why dosent the human equation effect the outcome of what happens in the octagon? I mean you suggest you need to know mma to be successful but if the human equation is as you suggest. You actually don't. Learning the trumpet would be fine if you were athletic enough.
> 
> Now if you argue that because of the countless variables in a street fight make it impossible to determine what will work and what won't.
> 
> Preparing for a street fight using any martial arts should be impossible.
> 
> I mean it is not like wing chun covers these variables either. And doesn't work to the same standard when the variables are reduced.
> 
> You are suggesting mma is not the be all and end all of fightin. That is correct. But you haven't offered an alternative.
> 
> .



Asked and answered.  It does, the same as the street, MMA v MMA.  However if not doing MMA, there are issues because many MA's have counters, to MMA maneuvers that are considered fouls, use tactics that the round system penalizes etc.  That's the whole point about environment.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Asked and answered.  It does, the same as the street, MMA v MMA.  However if not doing MMA, there are issues because many MA's have counters, to MMA maneuvers that are considered fouls, use tactics that the round system penalizes etc.  That's the whole point about environment.



Ok.  But you have conceded that the counters that do fall within the rules.  Dont work as well as counters from a successful mma fighter. 

This was your comment that you would not rate in a mma match. 

By this the best way to street would be mma and then add non rules tactics. Not have a system that throws out huge elements of fighting like punching kicling and grappling in favor of eyegouges and downward elbows.


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> Oh I will never say that every technique always works.  My actual premise throughout here is that, on the street, there are simply to many variables to say one MA is superior to another, so I would never claim something that has worked for me against person A will definitely succeed against person B, i will only say that it has work and so CAN work against other people BUT the use of the word "can" implies the possibility of failure as well.
> 
> The thing about WC and why I like supplementing it with Inosanto Kali, is that WC is very much a MA where you have to be willing to commit to going all in with offensive brutality.  The defenses are basically designed to deflect so you can either A) open, almost like a wedge, the enemy's center, or B) allow you to get to the opponent's blind side fast enough that you are striking before he adapts. If you can't commit to preemptive action, it's likely not the art for you.  I can't always legally justify such preemptive action so I can't always use WC in the way it is fully intended.
> 
> The only reason I ended up in the one scenario I described is because I was initially preoccupied with another subject.  If I hadn't heard the chair get shoved out of the way I would not have even been facing that take down.  That situation, imo, while I came out on top, was actually a tactical failure on my part.  If however I was facing that guy, the minute he started moving towards me aggressively I would have been justified in going on the offensive, and who knows, he may never have even gotten down to my legs.



Again we're losing sight of the main thrust of your original argument, which is the reason WC is absent from MMA is because dick shots and elbows to the spine are illegal. I want you to really think about that because it is very important to recognize what you're saying here. You're saying that without those moves the entirety of WC is heavily neutralized to the point of near ineffectiveness.

Your argument is akin to saying that a holistic grappling style is ineffective because it enters a competition that bans toe holds and heel hooks. No one would buy that argument.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But you have conceded that the counters that do fall within the rules.  Dont work as well as counters from a successful mma fighter.
> 
> This was your comment that you would not rate in a mma match.
> 
> By this the best way to street would be mma and then add non rules tactics. Not have a system that throws out huge elements of fighting like punching kicling and grappling in favor of eyegouges and downward elbows.



I never said that non-MMA counters (that are considered fouls) are inferior to those counters in MMA on the street. 

As for you last, that has clearly been your opinion throughout, and it might even be true for you personally, I disagree.  My entire point throughout has been to say that, when dealing with trained fighters on the street where there is no rule system to limit targets, time, room to maneuver etc, it is the fighter not the art that determines victory vs when you have a system of rules.  Under the later the art designed with the rules in mind gains a distinct advantage.

Let's use a more obvious example.  Boxing vs Asian Martial Arts. In the boxing ring the boxer has a clear advantage if the Asian style fighter follows those rules.  The big gloves will limit the number of hand strikes, they won't be able to use locks, kicking techniques, elbows, knees etc.  While not as drastic the same applies when you enter the Octagon


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I never said that non-MMA counters (that are considered fouls) are inferior to those counters in MMA on the street.
> 
> As for you last, that has clearly been your opinion throughout, and it might even be true for you personally, I disagree.  My entire point throughout has been to say that, when dealing with trained fighters on the street where there is no rule system to limit targets, time, room to maneuver etc, it is the fighter not the art that determines victory vs when you have a system of rules.  Under the later the art designed with the rules in mind gains a distinct advantage.
> 
> Let's use a more obvious example.  Boxing vs Asian Martial Arts. In the boxing ring the boxer has a clear advantage if the Asian style fighter follows those rules.  The big gloves will limit the number of hand strikes, they won't be able to use locks, kicking techniques, elbows, knees etc.  While not as drastic the same applies when you enter the Octagon



You point that it is the individual not the art seems to jump around a lot depending on what point you are trying to make.

I dont think it is a real point.  And you cant stay consistent with it.

Boxing has better punching than asian martial arts.  This is why in a competition limited to punching boxers.  (not the individual) win.

Boxers plus punching equals better.  Now asian martial arts may have other elements that boxing does not have.  But there they are deficit.

So we add kicks and trapping and locks and what do we get?

Boxing plus kicking plusr trapping plus locks.  Not asian martial arts.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> Again we're losing sight of the main thrust of your original argument, which is the reason WC is absent from MMA is because dick shots and elbows to the spine are illegal. I want you to really think about that because it is very important to recognize what you're saying here. You're saying that without those moves the entirety of WC is heavily neutralized to the point of near ineffectiveness.
> 
> Your argument is akin to saying that a holistic grappling style is ineffective because it enters a competition that bans toe holds and heel hooks. No one would buy that argument.



First... not just WC, but many a traditional Martial Art that is heavily weighted towards striking, because these arts developed to mitigate grappling and avoid/escape a ground game.  I only named WC because it was in the OP.

Second as I am referring to more than just WC, it's not just the fouls (which is an extensive list) but the Octagon itself that creates issues and the gloves.  Also the round system has an impact.

Now are these traditional arts completely crippled?  No, but any competition at the the professional level is all about marginal gains and losses.  Now obviously in MAs there isnt a lot of scientifically verifiable data so I will use cycling.  A Tour D France cyclist with produce 200-300 watts on a 4 hour stage.  The right tires and inflation can save 20 watts, an aero helmet 12 watts, aero road race bike (not time trial bike) 7 watts, aero wheels as much as 50 watts skin suit vs Jersey and bibs, as much as 10-15 watts.  Now every company has their own claims for secret sauce that makes their design  better BUT they are all designed to do the same thing, beat the other guy. 

Individually it doesn't seem like much but in aggregate they make a difference.  So now take two cyclists (fighters) who put out the same watts.  Have one guy with all of it, take away some of the tools from the other guy, who wins?  

The Martial Arts are similar.  They were all designed to beat the other guy.  They came up with tools based on their own "special sauce" to achieve that goal.  They are designed for the practitioner to have access to all of the ingredients in that special sauce.  If you don't have access to all of the ingredients, especially at the top level, there is no use in entering that competition if your goal is winning


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> First... not just WC, but many a traditional Martial Art that is heavily weighted towards striking, because these arts developed to mitigate grappling and avoid/escape a ground game.  I only named WC because it was in the OP.



Well that's not necessarily true. Muay Thai for example is heavily weighted towards striking, is older than most "traditional" martial arts, and does just fine in a MMA environment. In fact, one of the great rivalries in NHB history is the rivalry between Bjj and Muay Thai fighters in Brazil which led to some truly epic fights.



> Second as I am referring to more than just WC, it's not just the fouls (which is an extensive list) but the Octagon itself that creates issues and the gloves.  Also the round system has an impact.



You do know that there are MMA competitions without gloves and octagons right? Also the original UFCs didn't have rounds, and we still didn't see Kung Fu guys dominate. Some tried of course, but they didn't get very far.


----------



## Ironbear24

Ignore the penis size contest and pick the one you like better.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> Well that's not necessarily true. Muay Thai for example is heavily weighted towards striking, is older than most "traditional" martial arts, and does just fine in a MMA environment. In fact, one of the great rivalries in NHB history is the rivalry between Bjj and Muay Thai fighters in Brazil which led to some truly epic fights.
> 
> I am focusing only on the MMA in the Octagon obviously.  Yes I am aware there is still some "no holds barred" MMA out there that follows the rules of the old school stuff the
> 
> You do know that there are MMA competitions without gloves and octagons right? Also the original UFCs didn't have rounds, and we still didn't see Kung Fu guys dominate. Some tried of course, but they didn't get very far.





Hanzou said:


> Well that's not necessarily true. Muay Thai for example is heavily weighted towards striking, is older than most "traditional" martial arts, and does just fine in a MMA environment. In fact, one of the great rivalries in NHB history is the rivalry between Bjj and Muay Thai fighters in Brazil which led to some truly epic fights.
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that there are MMA competitions without gloves and octagons right? Also the original UFCs didn't have rounds, and we still didn't see Kung Fu guys dominate. Some tried of course, but they didn't get very far.



I know Thai has more grappling in it, but really bring that up is a strawman because I have made it clear I am not referring to any global issue.  Second yes I know there are fighting competitions one could call MMA that don't follow the MMA rules however in the US, for the fight to be considered a sanctioned bout, it follows those rules.  Yes I am familiar with the BJJ v Muay Thai rivalry as well.

Finally I NEVER said Kung Fu, or for that manner any Traditional Martial Art would dominate if/when there are no rules.  All I have said is that when the environment does not disadvantage any specific art (which consequently provides the other an advantage), it becomes far more a question of simply who is the better practitioner/tactician.  So in my argument, NO art would be dominate, particular fighters though because of their natural talent and dedication to their art may though.


----------



## Ironbear24

Juany118 said:


> I know Thai has more grappling in it, but really bring that up is a strawman because I have made it clear I am not referring to any global issue.  Second yes I know there are fighting competitions one could call MMA that don't follow the MMA rules however in the US, for the fight to be considered a sanctioned bout, it follows those rules.  Yes I am familiar with the BJJ v Muay Thai rivalry as well.
> 
> Finally I NEVER said Kung Fu, or for that manner any Traditional Martial Art would dominate if/when there are no rules.  All I have said is that when the environment does not disadvantage any specific art (which consequently provides the other an advantage), it becomes far more a question of simply who is the better practitioner/tactician



Save yourself the time. Hanzou cannot be debated with or argued with, if it is not UFC or MMA (UFC rules) he will think it's essentially garbage.


----------



## Hanzou

Juany118 said:


> I know Thai has more grappling in it, but really bring that up is a strawman because I have made it clear I am not referring to any global issue.  Second yes I know there are fighting competitions one could call MMA that don't follow the MMA rules however in the US, for the fight to be considered a sanctioned bout, it follows those rules.  Yes I am familiar with the BJJ v Muay Thai rivalry as well.



Why does it matter if its US or not? Martial Arts and MMA don't only exist in the US. If the US MMA rules are somehow hindering WC and other traditional arts, why would they be hindered outside the US where those rules don't exist?



> Finally I NEVER said Kung Fu, or for that manner any Traditional Martial Art would dominate if/when there are no rules.  All I have said is that when the environment does not disadvantage any specific art (which consequently provides the other an advantage), it becomes far more a question of simply who is the better practitioner/tactician.  So in my argument, NO art would be dominate, particular fighters though because of their natural talent and dedication to their art may though.



Except for a time grappling dominated MMA, and then it switched to kickboxing once the Bjj genie was out of the bottle. Currently in MMA its more or less a hybrid of both. Thus your analysis is incorrect. If your argument was true, we would have seen at least one Kung Fu exponent emerge in MMA and be somewhat successful. As of now we have seen *none*. And please note, when I say Kung Fu exponent, I mean someone like Machida who is very clearly utilizing Karate striking and footwork when he fights.


----------



## Ironbear24

Ok hanzou. So what's your point? Is wing chung bad because it is not in UFC? What does its absence have to do with it being a good or bad style?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Ignore the penis size contest and pick the one you like better.



Not really. penis size is when me and hanzou argue bjj vs wrestling.

But that is because both methods work. 

In fact plenty of methods work in mma.  Especially traditional ones. But if there is no evidence of a method working anywhere. Then you may have a problem.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Not really. penis size is when me and hanzou argue bjj vs wrestling.
> 
> But that is because both methods work.
> 
> In fact plenty of methods work in mma.  Especially traditional ones. But if there is no evidence of a method working anywhere. Then you may have a problem.



There is plenty of evidence that they work, the issue is you and hanzou don't approve of the evidence because it doesn't take place in an octogan.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> There is plenty of evidence that they work, the issue is you and hanzou don't approve of the evidence because it doesn't take place in an octogan.



Well competition of any sort is a better indicator than a story because it is more consistent.


----------



## Ironbear24

UFC is not the only competition.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> UFC is not the only competition.



Correct.

How does wing chun fair in sanda?


----------



## Ironbear24

Sanda is its own martial art barrowing many elements from other Chinese arts. It's basically their take on mixed martial arts. Are you asking me how does wing chun do against sanda? That would depend on the people using the arts.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Sanda is its own martial art barrowing many elements from other Chinese arts. It's basically their take on mixed martial arts. Are you asking me how does wing chun do against sanda? That would depend on the people using the arts.



Ok.  Where does wing chun exibit its effectiveness.?


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Where does wing chun exibit its effectiveness.?



Events List - SportMartialArts.com

Pretty much any "open" tournament that allows multiple styles to compete.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> How does wing chun fair in sanda?


Sanda has a lot of catching your opponent's kicking leg and take him down. IMO, WC training in this area is not emphasized enough.


----------



## Kenpoguy123

drop bear said:


> Not really. penis size is when me and hanzou argue bjj vs wrestling.
> 
> But that is because both methods work.
> 
> In fact plenty of methods work in mma.  Especially traditional ones. But if there is no evidence of a method working anywhere. Then you may have a problem.



These days mma isn't about who's better it's about who takes the most steroids and talks the most trash. I'm a fan of mma but these days it's becoming a joke the better fighters are getting passed over by clowns and pretty much all top level fighters have failed drugs tests. If you need drugs to fight well then you're a joke and a coward even the legendary an amazing Royce Gracie has been found for doing steroids.


----------



## Juany118

Ironbear24 said:


> Events List - SportMartialArts.com
> 
> Pretty much any "open" tournament that allows multiple styles to compete.


Not only this.  Wing Chun and other arts were not designed to also be a sport so you have to look at how it works in street fights.  We know WC, and Yip Man, in the West largely because it was Bruce Lee's first Martial Art.  However in Hong Kong where street fights and no glove matches between rival gangs, sorry, Martial Art Schools... were common in the Chaos of the 50's and 60's.  Yip was famous there before Bruce Lee gained fame, not because of any personal exploits (the movies are fun but insanely fictionalized) but because his students regularly won these fights against the rival schools/gangs. 

There is ONE major drawback to WC though and it definitely leads to it not being wide spread in terms of success in the West especially.  It can be learned fairly quickly (after you get over the initial "hump") BUT it also, in my experience is more perishable than some other arts.  More than a few techniques require fine vs gross motor skills you commonly find in western boxing.  The problem with fine motor skills is that, while you can build just as effective muscle memory as a gross motor skills (anyone who does combat shooting training knows what I am talking about) they require far more maintenance or they degrade relatively quickly.  This means you will have a lot of people pick it up saying to themselves "Ip Man!!!! Bruce Lee!!!!!" But not put in the continual work necessary, they then get frustrated and move to other arts.


----------



## Tez3

Kenpoguy123 said:


> These days mma isn't about who's better it's about who takes the most steroids and talks the most trash. I'm a fan of mma but these days it's becoming a joke the better fighters are getting passed over by clowns and pretty much all top level fighters have failed drugs tests. If you need drugs to fight well then you're a joke and a coward even the legendary an amazing Royce Gracie has been found for doing steroids.



I would say that like most sports these days to go and look at the grass roots, you will find better fights in your local shows. perhaps the shows aren't done with as much polish as the UFC ( though that's debatable) the tickets will be cheaper and you can watch local fighters. Unless you want to boast about seeing 'big names' rather than fighters, the smaller shows offer honest fighters with people who try hard.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> I would say that like most sports these days to go and look at the grass roots, you will find better fights in your local shows. perhaps the shows aren't done with as much polish as the UFC ( though that's debatable) the tickets will be cheaper and you can watch local fighters. Unless you want to boast about seeing 'big names' rather than fighters, the smaller shows offer honest fighters with people who try hard.



Kind of like hockey back in the day Phantoms game were a lot more fun than the Flyers.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Ok hanzou. So what's your point? Is wing chung bad because it is not in UFC? What does its absence have to do with it being a good or bad style?



I would never consider any MA bad. It only becomes "bad" when people make silly excuses for its absence in MMA/NHB, or when they develop ridiculous methods like "anti-grappling" instead of simply pushing their students to learn Bjj or wrestling. Saying that your art wasn't made for sport, and that you can stop grappling with dick grabs is dangerous and setting people up for serious problems down the road. The simple reality is that your art has a deficiency that it needs to fill. All MAs have them, but not every MA goes about it in the right way for whatever reason.

BTW, it's interesting that Juany points to Bruce Lee as an example of an effective WC user. Lee threw WC (and Kung Fu in general) under the bus as he became exposed to more fighting methods in the US. He became a pretty big proponent of boxing and various grappling methods, and tossed kata/forms out of the window. In short, he personified what the entire MA world experienced after the first UFC in 1993.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> I would never consider any MA bad. It only becomes "bad" when people make silly excuses for its absence in MMA/NHB, or when they develop ridiculous methods like "anti-grappling" instead of simply pushing their students to learn Bjj or wrestling. Saying that your art wasn't made for sport, and that you can stop grappling with dick grabs is dangerous and setting people up for serious problems down the road. The simple reality is that your art has a deficiency that it needs to fill. All MAs have them, but not every MA goes about it in the right way for whatever reason.
> 
> BTW, it's interesting that Juany points to Bruce Lee as an example of an effective WC user. Lee threw WC (and Kung Fu in general) under the bus as he became exposed to more fighting methods in the US. He became a pretty big proponent of boxing and various grappling methods, and tossed kata/forms out of the window. In short, he personified what the entire MA world experienced after the first UFC in 1993.



No I didn't point to him as an effective Wing Chun user, only that he is associated specifically with the Art.

Here is the problem.  Bruce Lee really didn't know Wing Chun completely and, it's Ip Man's fault.  (Heresy time).  Why Ip Man's fault?

1. He was traditional and refused out right to teach to foreigners.  Lee was half Caucasian and it is not unknown that this made Ip uncomfortable.
2. Ip Man's teaching style was equally traditional.  He basically showed you  technique once, used few words.  You got it or you didn't.  He was happy to answer questions, it showed the student was engaged BUT not questions? One and done AND that was if you were lucky enough to have him teach you.  Most of the teaching, when Lee joined the school, was done by senior students.

These alone would create issues.  Add to the fact Lee studied Wing Chun from 1956-57 to 1959 before his parents sent him off to the US because the cops kept showing up at their door because of all the fights he was in, you have someone with incomplete training, by no fault of his own.

Lee was incredibly gifted physically but he simply didn't know enough about Wing Chun.  It's even evidenced in his critique.  He said Wing Chun has only one range.  Not true, yes the bread and butter of many lineages is close range but it has all four ranges he said made JKD different (long/kicking, medium/punch, close/trapping, and yes grappling range, Wing Chun has Chin Na, heck it even teaches ground fighting defense it's just usually taught later once you have the first three down.  Now please note this is from my experience, the Wing Chun I learn, is Ip Man lineage via the not uncontroversial Grand Master William Cheung line) .  Second that Wing Chun is static and lacks mobility also not true.

This is not a critique of Jun Fan Gung Fu or JKD btw.  Only that sometimes you can come up with good ideas and results from a spark born of a false premise or assumptions born of the fact you don't realize your knowledge is limited.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> I would never consider any MA bad. It only becomes "bad" when people make silly excuses for its absence in MMA/NHB, or when they develop ridiculous methods like "anti-grappling" instead of simply pushing their students to learn Bjj or wrestling. Saying that your art wasn't made for sport, and that you can stop grappling with dick grabs is dangerous and setting people up for serious problems down the road. The simple reality is that your art has a deficiency that it needs to fill. All MAs have them, but not every MA goes about it in the right way for whatever reason.
> 
> BTW, it's interesting that Juany points to Bruce Lee as an example of an effective WC user. Lee threw WC (and Kung Fu in general) under the bus as he became exposed to more fighting methods in the US. He became a pretty big proponent of boxing and various grappling methods, and tossed kata/forms out of the window. In short, he personified what the entire MA world experienced after the first UFC in 1993.



That is wrong, he did use forms, he however did not use every single form and removed the ones he felt were not necessary. He kept what he preferred and tossed what he didn't like. He even had several diagrams drawn of the forms he wished to keep.

He also did not abandon Chinese arts for American arts, that is another misconception, what he did do was pick up on American arts such as boxing and wrestling and take them into his art.

My art has a defiency? What art would that be?


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> That is wrong, he did use forms, he however did not use every single form and removed the ones he felt were not necessary. He kept what he preferred and tossed what he didn't like. He even had several diagrams drawn of the forms he wished to keep.



You sure about that?



			
				Bruce Lee said:
			
		

> “I think simply to practice gung fu forms and karate katas is not a good way. Moreover, it wastes time and does not match the actual (fighting) situation.





> He also did not abandon Chinese arts for American arts, that is another misconception, what he did do was pick up on American arts such as boxing and wrestling and take them into his art.



Where did I say that he abandoned Chinese arts?



> My art has a deficiency? What art would that be?



*ALL* MAs have deficiencies.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that he abandoned Chinese arts?
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL* MAs have deficiencies.



He is referring to kata specifically, forms in the sense of kata. Everyone uses forms unknowingly in their fighting, his stance in itself is a form. His blocks are a part of a form, much of what he does and what anyone does can be found in a kata or form. 

My arts defiencies are not grappling, but that's not fair to judge it that way because I do more than one thing, but you are right, if I look at them individually they would.


----------



## Buka

Kenpoguy123 said:


> These days mma isn't about who's better it's about who takes the most steroids and talks the most trash. I'm a fan of mma but these days it's becoming a joke the better fighters are getting passed over by clowns and pretty much all top level fighters have failed drugs tests. If you need drugs to fight well then you're a joke and a coward even the legendary an amazing Royce Gracie has been found for doing steroids.



That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, bro.


----------



## Juany118

Hanzou said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that he abandoned Chinese arts?
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL* MAs have deficiencies.


Hello out of context reading.  He was talking about studying a single form, be it Wing Chun, Ryushinkan (the Okinawan art I briefly studied) what have you.

The point is he created forms, though he called them sets. Read Tao of Jeet Kun do, you will see his sketches.   He also changed them as he continued to experiment true, but, in the end as much as he wanted to break free of "forms" to teach a human brain, whether your own or another, you need a structure, something to follow.

Bruce Lee's issue was NOT with the concept of forms or sets, he used them to teach Don Inosanto, but twice removed from me in terms of Guro's (on my Kali side).  What he had issue with was when form became Dogma.  All MA is about form, his issue was having  form that was adhered to with fanaticsm. It's actually interesting when you listen to Lee's student's using the term "set" vs form and explaining how they are similar but not the same.  Why?  Because they know your average MA geek wouldn't get the distinction.

There is a difference.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sanda has a lot of catching your opponent's kicking leg and take him down. IMO, WC training in this area is not emphasized enough.


Actually, a variation of that very technique is trained heavily in my lineage of WC/VT/WT.

Here's a clip I found that isn't all that great, especially because this technique _works much more reliably against a linear thrusting kick_ like a front push or side thrust kick  than it does against a round kick. Still its what I could find at the moment....






BTW I may be a nut, but I really admire the way guys like Wang Zhi Peng have effectively combined WC and Shuai Chiao training. 

_John_,  you are the "go to" guy for Shuai Chiao, _and_ you have knowledge of WC. Have you ever offered seminars specifically for WC guys to help them learn how do incorporate more throws? Old as I am, its something I'd sign up for!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> _John_,  you are the "go to" guy for Shuai Chiao, _and_ you have knowledge of WC. Have you ever offered seminars specifically for WC guys to help them learn how do incorporate more throws? Old as I am, its something I'd sign up for!


I have had workshops for MA guys in general. I have not had workshop only for WC guys. One of my long time students was a WC instructor. He learned WC in HK (don't know who his teacher was). When he came to me, he wanted to exchange his WC knowledge with my SC knowledge. After he found out that I had already cross trained the WC system, he had been with me for the past 20 years.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Events List - SportMartialArts.com
> 
> Pretty much any "open" tournament that allows multiple styles to compete.



If they are


Juany118 said:


> Not only this.  Wing Chun and other arts were not designed to also be a sport so you have to look at how it works in street fights.  We know WC, and Yip Man, in the West largely because it was Bruce Lee's first Martial Art.  However in Hong Kong where street fights and no glove matches between rival gangs, sorry, Martial Art Schools... were common in the Chaos of the 50's and 60's.  Yip was famous there before Bruce Lee gained fame, not because of any personal exploits (the movies are fun but insanely fictionalized) but because his students regularly won these fights against the rival schools/gangs.
> 
> There is ONE major drawback to WC though and it definitely leads to it not being wide spread in terms of success in the West especially.  It can be learned fairly quickly (after you get over the initial "hump") BUT it also, in my experience is more perishable than some other arts.  More than a few techniques require fine vs gross motor skills you commonly find in western boxing.  The problem with fine motor skills is that, while you can build just as effective muscle memory as a gross motor skills (anyone who does combat shooting training knows what I am talking about) they require far more maintenance or they degrade relatively quickly.  This means you will have a lot of people pick it up saying to themselves "Ip Man!!!! Bruce Lee!!!!!" But not put in the continual work necessary, they then get frustrated and move to other arts.




I get this all the time .

How do you look at how a martial art does in street fights?

I mean even if we were just to go through YouTube and news articles there are more sport arts than street arts in street fights.

But apparently I am just supposed to accept this at face value.

Not we have to look at street fights and here is all these examples of a consistent theme.

Now the other half of this issue is that if you define success by street fight. How the hell do you grade your students?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sanda has a lot of catching your opponent's kicking leg and take him down. IMO, WC training in this area is not emphasized enough.



Yeah. I was hoping sanda at least would have a decent chun representation being Chinese and all.

And don't catch kicks like that if you like the shape of your head.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No I didn't point to him as an effective Wing Chun user, only that he is associated specifically with the Art.
> 
> Here is the problem.  Bruce Lee really didn't know Wing Chun completely and, it's Ip Man's fault.  (Heresy time).  Why Ip Man's fault?
> 
> 1. He was traditional and refused out right to teach to foreigners.  Lee was half Caucasian and it is not unknown that this made Ip uncomfortable.
> 2. Ip Man's teaching style was equally traditional.  He basically showed you  technique once, used few words.  You got it or you didn't.  He was happy to answer questions, it showed the student was engaged BUT not questions? One and done AND that was if you were lucky enough to have him teach you.  Most of the teaching, when Lee joined the school, was done by senior students.
> 
> These alone would create issues.  Add to the fact Lee studied Wing Chun from 1956-57 to 1959 before his parents sent him off to the US because the cops kept showing up at their door because of all the fights he was in, you have someone with incomplete training, by no fault of his own.
> 
> Lee was incredibly gifted physically but he simply didn't know enough about Wing Chun.  It's even evidenced in his critique.  He said Wing Chun has only one range.  Not true, yes the bread and butter of many lineages is close range but it has all four ranges he said made JKD different (long/kicking, medium/punch, close/trapping, and yes grappling range, Wing Chun has Chin Na, heck it even teaches ground fighting defense it's just usually taught later once you have the first three down.  Now please note this is from my experience, the Wing Chun I learn, is Ip Man lineage via the not uncontroversial Grand Master William Cheung line) .  Second that Wing Chun is static and lacks mobility also not true.
> 
> This is not a critique of Jun Fan Gung Fu or JKD btw.  Only that sometimes you can come up with good ideas and results from a spark born of a false premise or assumptions born of the fact you don't realize your knowledge is limited.



Of course Lee did not have to know all wing chun. Because as a gifted individual that is all that really matters.

The individual not the system.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> If they are



Well if you don't want to take my word for it, thats understandable, I gave you the places you asked so if you want more proof call them up yourself.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Well if you don't want to take my word for it, thats understandable, I gave you the places you asked so if you want more proof call them up yourself.



That was just a messy quote. That got tacked on by accident.

The only issue that may be with those open tournaments is that they have no contact or attract meh... fighters.

Be like being an interclub champion or something.

Wako  world cup for example.





That would not exactly be a vehicle forchun to show of  it merits.

The Bushido open.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Of course Lee did not have to know all wing chun. Because as a gifted individual that is all that really matters.
> 
> The individual not the system.



You are correct on the last.  The issue I was addressing was the claim I was responding to.  Short form "if you don't fully understand something then and criticism you have of it lacks a firm foundation." That is why I said he was a very gifted person and did not attack the two arts he developed.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> That was just a messy quote. That got tacked on by accident.
> 
> The only issue that may be with those open tournaments is that they have no contact or attract meh... fighters.
> 
> Be like being an interclub champion or something.
> 
> Wako  world cup for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would not exactly be a vehicle forchun to show of  it merits.
> 
> The Bushido open.



So why are these fighters meh compared to the ones in an octagon? I get that they wear more gear but you can't say there isn't a lot of contact, they are using lots of force.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> That was UFC 4, in 1994.  Groin shots have been against the rules for some time now as have 12-6 elbows actually (forgot about that change). These rules have been in place since the mid 2000s.  These rules were a double edged sword for different fighters, in the eyes of some.  In terms of fouls, they hurt people who leaned too hard towards striking.  Small joint manipulation fouls and the imposition of short rounds, hurt the "tire em out, wait em out" style of people who leaned hard towards grappling like the Gracie's back in the day.
> 
> Don't get me wrong MMA is a dang effective Art for the people who put the time and effort into it, all I am saying is that in the Octagon with the gloves on and the rules in place it gains an advantage over other arts because MMA was designed with those rules in mind.  I am actually struggling to understand why this idea is controversial tbh.
> 
> Rules and Regulations - Unified Rules and Other MMA Regulations


The point is that it didn't make any real difference. It's not a game changer.(mobile)


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu.  It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.


Um... no.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Um... no.


So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)

*First:* So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates.  In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other.  So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.

I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner.  That's what PEDs are all about.  It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.

*Second:*Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai? That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes.  When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor.  He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu.    It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.

The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established, namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent.  But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book, Google is our friend.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> So why are these fighters meh compared to the ones in an octagon? I get that they wear more gear but you can't say there isn't a lot of contact, they are using lots of force.



Ok.  If they are the standard. There is still no wing chun representation.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> You are correct on the last.  The issue I was addressing was the claim I was responding to.  Short form "if you don't fully understand something then and criticism you have of it lacks a firm foundation." That is why I said he was a very gifted person and did not attack the two arts he developed.



You dont have to fully understand anything. Just be athletic.

Because it is the individual not the system.

And you may be getting an idea why it is such a non argument in this context.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You dont have to fully understand anything. Just be athletic.
> 
> Because it is the individual not the system.
> 
> And you may be getting an idea why it is such a non argument in this context.



You are right in general.  it's cool to say "I don't like WC..."I don't like chocolate  cake..." etc. because it is about the practitioner and their personal tastes.

Thats said, you do need to have a true understanding of something to criticize specific techniques in detail.  If you do not know how to bake how do you criticize the method a Pastry Chef uses to make the cake batter, icing and then actually bake the cake?

Lee did something similar.  He didn't just say

"I didn't like WC, I should have been able to beat Wong easily and the fight lasted over 20 minutes, me getting to finally pounce because he lost his footing.  So I came to JKD by first making Jun Fan Gung Fu because it suits my physical attributes better imo."

That would be fine.  Instead Lee made factually wrong statements such as "Wing Chun has only one range" and "Wing Chun is not mobile or dynamic." The last one is even more puzzling because Wong was also a WC practitioner and Lee tried to pass off the length of that challenge match to Wong being a mobile "runner."

To the critical thinker there is a difference between expressing a general dislike for something and then making factually wrong comments in an attempt to critique something.


----------



## Hanzou

Bruce Lee aside, the problem is this;






And that result isn't because of a lack of groin shots and downward elbow thrusts.


----------



## crazydiamond

About Sijo Lee's famous fight with Wong, it was my understanding it was about reforming his approach from both a martial arts stand point and a fitness standpoint. He felt it took him too long and he was too winded at the end.  See video below.

The things I admire about Sijo Lee was his tremendous desire to study, learn and improve himself and his "personal" Martial arts - by studying many other marital arts - and also to improve his body and fitness.  It just makes sense to me to study every thing and find things that work for you. For example you will have many many fitness  people say "do this weight lifting exercise - not this one" or "my fitness system work theirs don't". I can attest personally that by studying many different types of exercise and fitness routines I learned somethings don't work - and others do. A bit from here and a bit from there.  Also keeps changing as I age and study other things.  I love the techquies I learn from WC, and in fact was mildly criticized by one respected JKD expert for following certain WC forms and language/terms in my training. Ah well.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1727000127581421


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)
> 
> *First:* So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates.  In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other.  So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.
> 
> I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner.  That's what PEDs are all about.  It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.


No. What I'm saying is that your claims that groin strikes are all that important don't align with the known facts.  They're not magic wands and a good number of people just ignore them.

*



			Second:
		
Click to expand...

*


> Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai?


Only partially true.  Some included that but a lot did not.  Heck it's utterly *STUPID* to try to deal with armed and armored attackers while unarmed, never mind the idea of creating an entire martial art around it.  And the Japanese weren't stupid.  Fighting unarmed is what you do while you try to get to a weapon, because something went horribly wrong and you were, for some reason, unprepared.   



> That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes.


Do more reading.  There were hundreds, possibly thousands, of different styles of JuJutsu.  Some were more inclusive than others.   Some were more focused than others.  To make such a broad statement about "JuJutsu" is, first, inaccurate, and second, implies that either all JuJutsu styles were the same or there was only one style.  maybe Chris Parker will drop in and add his two-bits (It'll actually be more like a Kilobit, but whatever), but, nevertheless, it's just not accurate.



> When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor.  He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu.    It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.


That's nice.  But not exactly accurate.



> The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established,


It?



> namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent.


No.  At best, that only tells a very partial story.  At best.



> But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book.


Which one?  I rather enjoyed Nariama's but also have a special place for Kano's.  Draeger's was interesting but the Indo's contest some of his writing about their stuff.  I also liked Yerkow because he has some very fascinating connections (very important works).  Uyenishi's work is considered a "must read."  There seem to be a lot of really good ones, but my absolute favorite has got to be Harrison because it really captures that 19th Century context.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> No. What I'm saying is that your claims that groin strikes are all that important don't align with the known facts.  They're not magic wands and a good number of people just ignore them.
> 
> Only partially true.  Some included that but a lot did not.  Heck it's utterly *STUPID* to try to deal with armed and armored attackers while unarmed, never mind the idea of creating an entire martial art around it.  And the Japanese weren't stupid.  Fighting unarmed is what you do while you try to get to a weapon, because something went horribly wrong and you were, for some reason, unprepared.
> 
> Do more reading.  There were hundreds, possibly thousands, of different styles of JuJutsu.  Some were more inclusive than others.   Some were more focused than others.  To make such a broad statement about "JuJutsu" is, first, inaccurate, and second, implies that either all JuJutsu styles were the same or there was only one style.  maybe Chris Parker will drop in and add his two-bits (It'll actually be more like a Kilobit, but whatever), but, nevertheless, it's just not accurate.
> 
> That's nice.  But not exactly accurate.
> 
> It?
> 
> No.  At best, that only tells a very partial story.  At best.
> 
> Which one?  I rather enjoyed Nariama's but also have a special place for Kano's.  Draeger's was interesting but the Indo's contest some of his writing about their stuff.  I also liked Yerkow because he has some very fascinating connections (very important works).  Uyenishi's work is considered a "must read."  There seem to be a lot of really good ones, but my absolute favorite has got to be Harrison because it really captures that 19th Century context.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc.  It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue.  WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list.  You are correct in that the removing of simply one or two isn't a big deal but the more you remove the greater effect it has and the art designed with these fouls in mind eventually gains a noticeable advantage.  That advantage actually becomes more pronounced when you get to the highest levels as well.  Why because once you are fit enough, experienced and well trained enough, the number of tools in your arsenal becomes all the more important and the more tools that get removed by the rules the more disadvantaged you become.  

Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon" and I would say "if I wanted to fight in the Octagon I would." I have no desire to do so however and take away those rules, the gloves, the limits the Octagon itself creates, suddenly many traditional arts find themselves on far more even terms with MMA.  

As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles.  The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent.  You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent, and if you are just walking down the street minding your own business I would say you are correct.  If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in.  We're you still at a disadvantage?  Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance.  The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc.  It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue.  WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list.


And all of them together, even when not on a "foul blows" list still didn't make all that big a difference.  Small joint manipulation, all those special elbows (which aren't still in), and nutsmacks simply weren't "game changers."



> Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon"


Nope.  I'm going to say, "reexamine your base assumptions.  I don't care if you fight octagon or not.  However, it bugs me when I see someone drawing conclusions based on inaccurate base assumptions.



> As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles.  The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent.


Daito Ryu and Tenjin?  Seriously?  Still no.  Both of those systems have attempted to include unarmed against armed, but to claim that those two systems were designed for for the purpose of allowing the unarmed person to successfully combat and armed and armored opponent is just not so.  Did you miss where I referenced Nariyama Sensei?



> You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent,


No. I said it's stupid to decide to fight an armed and armored opponent if you are unarmed.  The point of trying to do so is to live long enough to access your own weapons.  Frankly, it's just stop-gap, "oh crap!" stuff.  Thinking it's anything else is just, well, fantasy.



> If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in.  We're you still at a disadvantage?  Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance.  The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.


What?  How do you think armies fought anyway?  Even peasant foot-soldiers had more than one weapon.  A mounted samurai had his horse, probably a lance, both swords, maybe a bow, and a whole bunch of his friends working in formation with him.  Because trying to fight as individuals against an army, without a formation, is suicidal and only something they do in the movies.

I'm sorry, but your description that "JuJutsu" "was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons" is unfortunately shallow.

Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, but it's a little akin to saying "Jets were developed to fly faster than anything else."  Well, a few of them kinda were, yeah, but to try to reduce them down to just that is unfortunately shallow.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> And all of them together, even when not on a "foul blows" list still didn't make all that big a difference.  Small joint manipulation, all those special elbows (which aren't still in), and nutsmacks simply weren't "game changers."
> 
> Nope.  I'm going to say, "reexamine your base assumptions.  I don't care if you fight octagon or not.  However, it bugs me when I see someone drawing conclusions based on inaccurate base assumptions.
> 
> Daito Ryu and Tenjin?  Seriously?  Still no.  Both of those systems have attempted to include unarmed against armed, but to claim that those two systems were designed for for the purpose of allowing the unarmed person to successfully combat and armed and armored opponent is just not so.  Did you miss where I referenced Nariyama Sensei?
> 
> No. I said it's stupid to decide to fight an armed and armored opponent if you are unarmed.  The point of trying to do so is to live long enough to access your own weapons.  Frankly, it's just stop-gap, "oh crap!" stuff.  Thinking it's anything else is just, well, fantasy.
> 
> What?  How do you think armies fought anyway?  Even peasant foot-soldiers had more than one weapon.  A mounted samurai had his horse, probably a lance, both swords, maybe a bow, and a whole bunch of his friends working in formation with him.  Because trying to fight as individuals against an army, without a formation, is suicidal and only something they do in the movies.
> 
> I'm sorry, but your description that "JuJutsu" "was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons" is unfortunately shallow.
> 
> Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, but it's a little akin to saying "Jets were developed to fly faster than anything else."  Well, a few of them kinda were, yeah, but to try to reduce them down to just that is unfortunately shallow.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Your failure to accept a universal principle of competition between humans, the aggregation of marginal losses or gains is kinda odd.  Let's say the marginal losses only = 5%-10% disadvantage, when everything else is equal it is a game changer.  Ask any professional athlete.

I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence.  Anything can happen in warfare.  Let's say I am a Samurai and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword, yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well.  Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well.  Why?  Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon.  I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.

Anything can happen in real life or death combat.  The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place.  I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat?  They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons.  They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Ask any professional athlete.


I've trained a few.  I'll be training one tomorrow night.  Your estimation of up to 10% is a great over-estmate.



> I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence.


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



> Anything can happen in warfare.


It can't.



> Let's say I am a Samurai


So... um... Are you a samarai?



> and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword,


A naginata is a just a shinken with a really really really really really really really long tsuka?










> yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well.  Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well.  Why?  Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon.  I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.
> 
> Anything can happen in real life or death combat.


Just... wrong...  <shakes head>



> The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place.


I have no idea what you're trying to argue against here.



> I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat?  They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons.


Ooh, ooh!  Is it because Soldiers, LEO, and self defense civilians all have exactly the same goals?  Is that it?  No... that doesn't sound right.  Hmm...  Let me lean one cubicle over and ask the soldiers again.  But, last time we talked about it, they said, "some BS about rules of engagement and not just being allowed by ROE to shoot everyone.  Oh, and some BS about _Espirit de Corps_ and 'warrior mindset' or some crap like that."



> They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.


Dramatic and fundamental misunderstandings.

If you were trying to wear me down with bizarre switchback reasoning, you've succeeded.


----------



## Chris Parker

Kirk, you called?

Okay, because I was asked to come along here and add a little input, let's see what we have. Fair warning, this will be largely off topic for the basis of the thread, and seeks to simply address (and hopefully put to rest) a side issue from the last few pages. So… let's see what we have.



Juany118 said:


> Well first a lot of WC guys mix in other arts like say Kali I think the above misses a point.  How Martial Arts evolve.  Martial Arts, including MMA, evolve based on the environment they find themselves being born and growing in, and also account for the physical attributes of those helping to create/perfect them.  I think this is missed.



Okay, yep, fair enough. Not sure how much people have missed it, but, as said, I'm only dealing with the last few pages, so I'm going to say that yes, understanding the cultural conditions of the development of an art is very important to gain an understanding of it (the wherefores and whys of it, as it were).



Juany118 said:


> Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu.  It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.  Punching an armed and armored opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.  The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind and developed defenses against multiple avenues of attack in that context.



Er… less agreement here. In fact, this is one of the biggest misconceptions and fallacies when it comes to the "history of jujutsu" (which, of course, isn't really anything like a single codified history at all…). Let's look at it, shall we?

- Jujutsu was developed to fight an armoured opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.

Hmm… well, that is part of the contingency and application potential of some (note here: some!) jujutsu ryu-ha… but that's as far as I'd personally take it. I mean… Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Sekiguchi Shin Shin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Iga Ryuha Katsushin Ryu, and many others don't fit this profile at all, as none of them really factor yoroi into it at all… while yes, there are systems that deal in yoroi, typically those systems themselves also employ yoroi… such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Kito Ryu, Take(no)uchi Ryu, and so on.

- Punching an armed and armoured opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner.

Yeah, you may want to explain that to the practitioners of Yagyu Shingan Ryu… which is a very atemi-heavy system of kattchu-bujutsu (armoured combative methods), including a quite sophisticated array of yawara methods (jujutsu)… 

-… so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.

Well, Japan (as a culture) is more geared to prefer a grappling approach (note: stand up, not ground fighting as the term has, rather frustratingly, been adopted to infer), but exactly what that entails varies greatly from system to system… you simply can't be that general about an area with such a wide array of variables.

- The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind…

Oh, you're so close here! Yes, absolutely these systems were designed with specific contexts and purposes… but you need to extend that. What can you tell me about the context and application of Takenouchi Ryu, as compared to Fusen Ryu? How did Takagi Ryu develop, and why? Kito Ryu and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu were both instrumental in the formation of Kodokan Judo, but have very different contexts and purposes… can you address those? What is the difference in context between the differing areas of Yagyu Shingan Ryu Yawara (including the Gyoi no Kata)? You've mentioned Aikido and it's origins… what can you say about the history of Daito Ryu? Both claimed and more likely correct? There are different lines of Asayama Ichiden Ryu… what's the biggest difference there? Are there different contexts within a single art? If yes, doesn't that change your point? If no, why would you think that all these arts would then work towards a single context themselves?



Juany118 said:


> This applies to almost all traditional MAs.  Now the problem arises when you try to take these MAs out of that original context.  You put an art designed for the battle field and tell the art that used small joint manipulation to disable a hand or a thrust to the eye to take down a bigger attacker "you can't do that" the art will be handicapped.  As these arts evolved without those rules, MMA evolved into what we see today because they existed.
> 
> If you are going to study Martial Arts it should be because it suits your purposes. I do what you say, I actually study practice 3 techniques but I have practical reasons for doing so. I studied, and still practice, certain Aikido techniques because they are "softer" than many arts but still control and I don't want to injure a mental health patient and right out of the gate I don't want to be injuring suspects.



And your problem here is that you're looking at exactly the wrong thing… it's got little to nothing to do with techniques… they're simply the expression of what the real issue is. So no, limiting an art by not allowing certain "techniques" is not the problem for them (oh, and maintaining a few mechanical actions from a particular art is far from them still being "Aikido techniques"… for the record).



Juany118 said:


> So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)
> 
> *First:* So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates.  In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other.  So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.



Er… no.

What defines a martial system, whether sporting or not, is the context and the tactical approach. This then gives rise to particular technical approaches… which can certainly be easily mistaken for the "art" itself (as they are then the physical, outward appearance of the system), but aren't actually the system itself. In this way, a wrist lock is not Aikido, but Aikido can be done with a wrist lock, if you follow.

What this means in this area is that, no, removing some technical aspects/approaches does not invalidate a system's applicability… to think it does is to too heavily rely on such aspects. Of course, that doesn't mean that all arts are going to be equally applicable to whatever context you want to apply them to (such as an MMA match)… an art who's tactical approach is to cause major damage to end a confrontation a soon as possible will find issues in a situation where that tactical approach is not suited… techniques, on the other hand, simply aren't the biggest factor there.



Juany118 said:


> I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner.  That's what PEDs are all about.  It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.



Well, you've kinda missed how that works, then… the catch is in your last few words there… 



Juany118 said:


> *Second:*Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai?



Not overtly, no.

Again, you really need to look at individual systems, rather than thinking "jujutsu" is some kind of homogenous whole… very little in the world of jujutsu, particularly Koryu forms, have much in the way of consistency from one system to another… down to even what the form of combative methodology is called. While some systems did, indeed, use the term "jujutsu" (柔術), some would prefer the alternate pronunciation of 柔, "yawara"… then, you'd have variations on that (yawara-gi, yawara-gei)… alternate names, such as "wa", "wajutsu", "goho", "hade", "koshi no mawari" (which, in other arts, would refer to an armed section, rather than a jujutsu-like section), "gyoi-dori", "torite", "te", "tejutsu", "taijutsu", "tai no ken", and many, many more… including the usage of the term "judo" some 150 years prior to Kano by the Jikishinkage Ryu… 

You also need to look at whether a system is dominantly a jujutsu ryu-ha, or if it's an art that focuses on something else, but contains jujutsu (or similar)… Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu and Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu are both very well known as sword systems… but both contain a jujutsu component to their teachings (known as yawara in both cases). Some of these sogo bujutsu systems (composite arts) would be more in line with the ideas you're putting forth, many jujutsu ryu-ha (as focused systems) simply weren't. Many classical jujutsu ryu-ha were based in the Edo jidai, a period of peacetime, which enabled the type of development necessary for the sophistication found, but also then took them away from the idea of armoured combat, as well as changing entirely the types of weaponry and attacks to be considered.



Juany118 said:


> That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes.



Complex subjects are often reduced down to simple generalisations, as they're easier for people to get their heads around, but that doesn't make them true when you really look at it. As mentioned, you can't really have a single "history" of jujutsu, as there wasn't any single start point or single source school. You may look to the mythical origins of unarmed combative rituals in Japan, which would be the origins of sumo… or you might look to schools such as Takenouchi Ryu, often thought to be the first true jujutsu-centric art (although it has quite a large weaponry contingent as well), and, indeed, a large number of ryu-ha trace themselves to that school in different ways… but they then develop independently themselves, moving away from the construct you've described. And then you get other schools, such as the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who don't trace to Takenouchi Ryu at all...



Juany118 said:


> When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor.  He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu.



Really? It "must" include the history of jujutsu? A history that, by definition, cannot exist as a single entity? The best he could do would be to look at the history of his own systems… which line of Aikido, and which ryu of Jujutsu would be the question… 

Oh, and for the record, I've come across a large number of people who are "huge" on history… but rarely actually know much beyond basic, and somewhat misguided, understandings… often even of their own systems… 



Juany118 said:


> It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.



I'm sorry, what? What was "even integrated into Samurai training"? Jujutsu? Er… I don't even know where to start with how little sense that makes… 



Juany118 said:


> The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established, namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent.  But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book, Google is our friend.



I go a fair bit beyond Google, you know… and you really should get by now, there is no "it" here… 



Juany118 said:


> Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc.  It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue.  WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list.  You are correct in that the removing of simply one or two isn't a big deal but the more you remove the greater effect it has and the art designed with these fouls in mind eventually gains a noticeable advantage.  That advantage actually becomes more pronounced when you get to the highest levels as well.  Why because once you are fit enough, experienced and well trained enough, the number of tools in your arsenal becomes all the more important and the more tools that get removed by the rules the more disadvantaged you become.



Nope. Not the reason that WC (and others) are ill suited to MMA competition… it really has got nothing to do with techniques in this sense… 



Juany118 said:


> Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon" and I would say "if I wanted to fight in the Octagon I would."



Sure, and that's valid.



Juany118 said:


> I have no desire to do so however and take away those rules, the gloves, the limits the Octagon itself creates, suddenly many traditional arts find themselves on far more even terms with MMA.



And that's a rather false assumption… it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements.



Juany118 said:


> As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles.



Lovely. How many are you familiar with?



Juany118 said:


> The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent.



Er… can you detail the "styles from which Aikido descended from"? Cause… arguments can be made… 



Juany118 said:


> You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent, and if you are just walking down the street minding your own business I would say you are correct.  If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in.



Well, let's clear up a couple of things… typically a "Japanese soldier serving under a samurai" (ashigaru) would not be trained in any form of jujutsu… so that will take that idea out… as far as the samurai themselves, one thing to realise is that many ryu-ha weren't really for mass-soldiering… a number were more for what would be better thought of as "officer training"… some would focus more on battlefield usage (such as some lines of Jigen Ryu, which were very much for mass training), but they typically had little to no jujutsu at all.

In other words, what you're describing was minimalist if anything in terms of being an accurate depiction of the development of jujutsu and jujutsu-like systems. What was more common would be a slight element of some taijutsu elements as part of the weapon usage… but again, it will depend on the system itself. But the bulk of martial systems prior to the Edo jidai were weaponry based… jujutsu, although existing prior to it, was much more a non-battlefield peacetime development.



Juany118 said:


> Were you still at a disadvantage?  Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance.  The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.



Lovely romanticised impressions you have… thing is, none of this is particularly true. On either side.



Juany118 said:


> Your failure to accept a universal principle of competition between humans, the aggregation of marginal losses or gains is kinda odd.  Let's say the marginal losses only = 5%-10% disadvantage, when everything else is equal it is a game changer.  Ask any professional athlete.



But we're not talking about professional athletes, are we? If we were, then we'd be discussing similar skill sets, skilled (trained) responses, a different form of preparation, different timelines, and more. For these reasons you can't simply say "WC is let down by not having it's ability to strike this target"… because it's simply not the same thing on any other level either.



Juany118 said:


> I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence.



No, it shows that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing… or, really, a lacking and misleading thing… oh, and that's not directed at Kirk, of course… 



Juany118 said:


> Anything can happen in warfare.  Let's say I am a Samurai and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword,



No, you've lost the end of your naginata… you now have a bo… 

And, before you think that's me being facetious, that's actually the explanation/origin of bojutsu in many sogo bujutsu systems… it isn't a weapon by itself, it represents a broken naginata or yari.



Juany118 said:


> yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well.  Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well.



Some did, some didn't… and some were based around what you'd typically have on you in yoroi, others had other "weapons" at hand (Takenouchi Ryu would include things like an umbrella, or the lid to a cooking pot, and so on…)… it really, really, really depends on which ryu-ha you're trying to discuss.



Juany118 said:


> Why?  Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon.  I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.



Ha, no. While a common tactic when armed with a shorter weapon is to close distance, the preference is still for the longer weapon. 



Juany118 said:


> Anything can happen in real life or death combat.



Sure… 



Juany118 said:


> The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place.



Yeah… I wouldn't be so quick to discuss the purposes of such arts here… 



Juany118 said:


> I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat?



You want to know something fun? There are a number of military around the world who only have hand-to-hand training for certain specialist groups… in basic they don't do any anymore, as it's considered not a high enough likelihood of usage to justify the loss of training time for other areas.

Police, on the other hand, have very particular need for unarmed methods… but to consider that the same as jujutsu (as described in these posts) is very inaccurate… 



Juany118 said:


> They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons.  They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.



Hang on, are you saying that martial arts are only unarmed combat? And anything that is unarmed combat is martial arts? Hmm…


----------



## Juany118

Chris Parker said:


> Kirk, you called?
> 
> Okay, because I was asked to come along here and add a little input, let's see what we have. Fair warning, this will be largely off topic for the basis of the thread, and seeks to simply address (and hopefully put to rest) a side issue from the last few pages. So… let's see what we have.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, yep, fair enough. Not sure how much people have missed it, but, as said, I'm only dealing with the last few pages, so I'm going to say that yes, understanding the cultural conditions of the development of an art is very important to gain an understanding of it (the wherefores and whys of it, as it were).
> 
> 
> 
> Er… less agreement here. In fact, this is one of the biggest misconceptions and fallacies when it comes to the "history of jujutsu" (which, of course, isn't really anything like a single codified history at all…). Let's look at it, shall we?
> 
> - Jujutsu was developed to fight an armoured opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.
> 
> Hmm… well, that is part of the contingency and application potential of some (note here: some!) jujutsu ryu-ha… but that's as far as I'd personally take it. I mean… Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Sekiguchi Shin Shin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Iga Ryuha Katsushin Ryu, and many others don't fit this profile at all, as none of them really factor yoroi into it at all… while yes, there are systems that deal in yoroi, typically those systems themselves also employ yoroi… such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Kito Ryu, Take(no)uchi Ryu, and so on.
> 
> - Punching an armed and armoured opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner.
> 
> Yeah, you may want to explain that to the practitioners of Yagyu Shingan Ryu… which is a very atemi-heavy system of kattchu-bujutsu (armoured combative methods), including a quite sophisticated array of yawara methods (jujutsu)…
> 
> -… so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.
> 
> Well, Japan (as a culture) is more geared to prefer a grappling approach (note: stand up, not ground fighting as the term has, rather frustratingly, been adopted to infer), but exactly what that entails varies greatly from system to system… you simply can't be that general about an area with such a wide array of variables.
> 
> - The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind…
> 
> Oh, you're so close here! Yes, absolutely these systems were designed with specific contexts and purposes… but you need to extend that. What can you tell me about the context and application of Takenouchi Ryu, as compared to Fusen Ryu? How did Takagi Ryu develop, and why? Kito Ryu and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu were both instrumental in the formation of Kodokan Judo, but have very different contexts and purposes… can you address those? What is the difference in context between the differing areas of Yagyu Shingan Ryu Yawara (including the Gyoi no Kata)? You've mentioned Aikido and it's origins… what can you say about the history of Daito Ryu? Both claimed and more likely correct? There are different lines of Asayama Ichiden Ryu… what's the biggest difference there? Are there different contexts within a single art? If yes, doesn't that change your point? If no, why would you think that all these arts would then work towards a single context themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> And your problem here is that you're looking at exactly the wrong thing… it's got little to nothing to do with techniques… they're simply the expression of what the real issue is. So no, limiting an art by not allowing certain "techniques" is not the problem for them (oh, and maintaining a few mechanical actions from a particular art is far from them still being "Aikido techniques"… for the record).
> 
> 
> 
> Er… no.
> 
> What defines a martial system, whether sporting or not, is the context and the tactical approach. This then gives rise to particular technical approaches… which can certainly be easily mistaken for the "art" itself (as they are then the physical, outward appearance of the system), but aren't actually the system itself. In this way, a wrist lock is not Aikido, but Aikido can be done with a wrist lock, if you follow.
> 
> What this means in this area is that, no, removing some technical aspects/approaches does not invalidate a system's applicability… to think it does is to too heavily rely on such aspects. Of course, that doesn't mean that all arts are going to be equally applicable to whatever context you want to apply them to (such as an MMA match)… an art who's tactical approach is to cause major damage to end a confrontation a soon as possible will find issues in a situation where that tactical approach is not suited… techniques, on the other hand, simply aren't the biggest factor there.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you've kinda missed how that works, then… the catch is in your last few words there…
> 
> 
> 
> Not overtly, no.
> 
> Again, you really need to look at individual systems, rather than thinking "jujutsu" is some kind of homogenous whole… very little in the world of jujutsu, particularly Koryu forms, have much in the way of consistency from one system to another… down to even what the form of combative methodology is called. While some systems did, indeed, use the term "jujutsu" (柔術), some would prefer the alternate pronunciation of 柔, "yawara"… then, you'd have variations on that (yawara-gi, yawara-gei)… alternate names, such as "wa", "wajutsu", "goho", "hade", "koshi no mawari" (which, in other arts, would refer to an armed section, rather than a jujutsu-like section), "gyoi-dori", "torite", "te", "tejutsu", "taijutsu", "tai no ken", and many, many more… including the usage of the term "judo" some 150 years prior to Kano by the Jikishinkage Ryu…
> 
> You also need to look at whether a system is dominantly a jujutsu ryu-ha, or if it's an art that focuses on something else, but contains jujutsu (or similar)… Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu and Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu are both very well known as sword systems… but both contain a jujutsu component to their teachings (known as yawara in both cases). Some of these sogo bujutsu systems (composite arts) would be more in line with the ideas you're putting forth, many jujutsu ryu-ha (as focused systems) simply weren't. Many classical jujutsu ryu-ha were based in the Edo jidai, a period of peacetime, which enabled the type of development necessary for the sophistication found, but also then took them away from the idea of armoured combat, as well as changing entirely the types of weaponry and attacks to be considered.
> 
> 
> 
> Complex subjects are often reduced down to simple generalisations, as they're easier for people to get their heads around, but that doesn't make them true when you really look at it. As mentioned, you can't really have a single "history" of jujutsu, as there wasn't any single start point or single source school. You may look to the mythical origins of unarmed combative rituals in Japan, which would be the origins of sumo… or you might look to schools such as Takenouchi Ryu, often thought to be the first true jujutsu-centric art (although it has quite a large weaponry contingent as well), and, indeed, a large number of ryu-ha trace themselves to that school in different ways… but they then develop independently themselves, moving away from the construct you've described. And then you get other schools, such as the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who don't trace to Takenouchi Ryu at all...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? It "must" include the history of jujutsu? A history that, by definition, cannot exist as a single entity? The best he could do would be to look at the history of his own systems… which line of Aikido, and which ryu of Jujutsu would be the question…
> 
> Oh, and for the record, I've come across a large number of people who are "huge" on history… but rarely actually know much beyond basic, and somewhat misguided, understandings… often even of their own systems…
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what? What was "even integrated into Samurai training"? Jujutsu? Er… I don't even know where to start with how little sense that makes…
> 
> 
> 
> I go a fair bit beyond Google, you know… and you really should get by now, there is no "it" here…
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Not the reason that WC (and others) are ill suited to MMA competition… it really has got nothing to do with techniques in this sense…
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and that's valid.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a rather false assumption… it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements.
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely. How many are you familiar with?
> 
> 
> 
> Er… can you detail the "styles from which Aikido descended from"? Cause… arguments can be made…
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's clear up a couple of things… typically a "Japanese soldier serving under a samurai" (ashigaru) would not be trained in any form of jujutsu… so that will take that idea out… as far as the samurai themselves, one thing to realise is that many ryu-ha weren't really for mass-soldiering… a number were more for what would be better thought of as "officer training"… some would focus more on battlefield usage (such as some lines of Jigen Ryu, which were very much for mass training), but they typically had little to no jujutsu at all.
> 
> In other words, what you're describing was minimalist if anything in terms of being an accurate depiction of the development of jujutsu and jujutsu-like systems. What was more common would be a slight element of some taijutsu elements as part of the weapon usage… but again, it will depend on the system itself. But the bulk of martial systems prior to the Edo jidai were weaponry based… jujutsu, although existing prior to it, was much more a non-battlefield peacetime development.
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely romanticised impressions you have… thing is, none of this is particularly true. On either side.
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not talking about professional athletes, are we? If we were, then we'd be discussing similar skill sets, skilled (trained) responses, a different form of preparation, different timelines, and more. For these reasons you can't simply say "WC is let down by not having it's ability to strike this target"… because it's simply not the same thing on any other level either.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shows that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing… or, really, a lacking and misleading thing… oh, and that's not directed at Kirk, of course…
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've lost the end of your naginata… you now have a bo…
> 
> And, before you think that's me being facetious, that's actually the explanation/origin of bojutsu in many sogo bujutsu systems… it isn't a weapon by itself, it represents a broken naginata or yari.
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, some didn't… and some were based around what you'd typically have on you in yoroi, others had other "weapons" at hand (Takenouchi Ryu would include things like an umbrella, or the lid to a cooking pot, and so on…)… it really, really, really depends on which ryu-ha you're trying to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, no. While a common tactic when armed with a shorter weapon is to close distance, the preference is still for the longer weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure…
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah… I wouldn't be so quick to discuss the purposes of such arts here…
> 
> 
> 
> You want to know something fun? There are a number of military around the world who only have hand-to-hand training for certain specialist groups… in basic they don't do any anymore, as it's considered not a high enough likelihood of usage to justify the loss of training time for other areas.
> 
> Police, on the other hand, have very particular need for unarmed methods… but to consider that the same as jujutsu (as described in these posts) is very inaccurate…
> 
> 
> 
> Hang on, are you saying that martial arts are only unarmed combat? And anything that is unarmed combat is martial arts? Hmm…




First you said here...

"..it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements..."

And this is precisely what I have been saying from the jump.  There have been a couple people (including the one to whom I was responding to, saying "MMA is superior",  regardless of circumstances and environment.  My point was to say that when one strips away to rules and environment of the Octagon it is basically impossible to make such a statement and in the end all the result of a conflict can tell you with any confidence, is who the better fighter was, not which Art was superior.  As you said it was complicated as all heck, however this being and internet forum, and my responding via a smart phone, I tried to keep my explanations "short.". This obviously leads to things being messy and seeming "off".

As for the importance of Jujutsu to Aikido, that was my particular Sensei's belief, apologies if I made it sound somehow universal.  He was also a History Teacher so it was likely him simply taking his passion for history and bringing it into his martial training.  Obviously that would mean the form of Jujutsu that would be relevant would be Daito-ryu (according to my Sensei) not every form.

As for the soldiers under Samurai not learning Jujutsu, my bad, this was a fact I was unaware of and thank you for the correction.

As for the military, my experience is training back in 1991 as a 19d.  We were taught, while in OSUT, Judo and we also still donned the helmets and used the padded staves to pound on each other back then.  I can't speak to the "regular" Army of today of course.  Also I am fully aware that LE today do not get trained in Jujutsu, being a Police Officer for almost 20 years now.  They get a simplified training in first control techniques and also the use of a baton or  PR-24, depending on what is issued.  It's why I spend my own cash on regular MA training (at the Moment WC and Inosanto Kali).  

Again, apologies if it got lost in the rush but my reason for mentioning the military and LE was not to draw a parallel to Jujutsu.  It was to answer the claim of he who I responding to that learning unarmed martial arts, to deal with an armed opponent, makes no sense.  It does even though some will see it sadly, as I think you try to point out, as an unnecessary expense.  I think we are finding out however (especially as it related to LE at least) that it is far from unnecessary.

And no, unarmed combat does not necessarily = a Martial Art.  It's... complicated.  You have people that are just naturally gifted street fighters, as an example.  I see Krav  Maga on many a "martial art" site but when I took it the instructor, who was a former IDF instructor, corrected anyone who called it a MA by saying "no it is a fighting system."

Hope this clears up some of the stuff.


----------



## Chris Parker

Juany118 said:


> First you said here...
> 
> "..it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements..."
> 
> And this is precisely what I have been saying from the jump.  There have been a couple people (including the one to whom I was responding to, saying "MMA is superior",  regardless of circumstances and environment.  My point was to say that when one strips away to rules and environment of the Octagon it is basically impossible to make such a statement and in the end all the result of a conflict can tell you with any confidence, is who the better fighter was, not which Art was superior.  As you said it was complicated as all heck, however this being and internet forum, and my responding via a smart phone, I tried to keep my explanations "short.". This obviously leads to things being messy and seeming "off".



Sure… but my (and, I'd say, Kirk's) point is that simply allowing some particular techniques is not the actual difference… and it's a lot more involved than just "remove the rules"...



Juany118 said:


> As for the importance of Jujutsu to Aikido, that was my particular Sensei's belief, apologies if I made it sound somehow universal.  He was also a History Teacher so it was likely him simply taking his passion for history and bringing it into his martial training.  Obviously that would mean the form of Jujutsu that would be relevant would be Daito-ryu not every form.



Well, with regards to Daito Ryu, trying to claim some kind of samurai usage is going to lead you down a particularly slippery path… as, other than the claimed history (note: not necessarily records), there's little to nothing to suggest that that would have been the case at all (it's too young, you see).

The rest of the discussion of the "history of jujutsu" was more the point, though… 



Juany118 said:


> As for the military, my experience is training back in 1991 as a 19d.  We were taught, while basic, Judo and we also still donned the helmets and used the padded staves to pound on each other back then.  I can't speak to the "regular" Army of today of course.  Also I am fully aware that LE today do not get trained in Jujutsu, being a Police Officer for almost 20 years now.  It's why I spend my own cash on regular military training.  Again, apologies if it got lost but my reason for mentioning the military and LE was to answer the claim that learning unarmed martial arts, to deal with an armed opponent, makes no sense.  It does even though some will see it sadly, as I think you try to point out, as an unnecessary expense.  I think we are finding out however (as it related to LE at least) that it is far from unnecessary.



Law Enforcement is a very different category to "military", of course… and in neither case would I make the claim that what is done is close to what I would class as "martial arts"...



Juany118 said:


> And no, unarmed combat does not necessarily = a Martial Art.  It's... complicated.  You have people that are just naturally gifted street fighters, as an example.  I see Krav  Maga on many a "martial art" site but when I took it the instructor, who was a former IDF instructor, corrected anyone who called it a MA by saying "no it is a fighting system."
> 
> Hope this clears up some of the stuff.



That would be a matter of personal preference… based largely on the instructors distaste for the term, I'd suggest. Not really what I was getting at, but okay.


----------



## Juany118

Chris Parker said:


> Sure… but my (and, I'd say, Kirk's) point is that simply allowing some particular techniques is not the actual difference… and it's a lot more involved than just "remove the rules"...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, with regards to Daito Ryu, trying to claim some kind of samurai usage is going to lead you down a particularly slippery path… as, other than the claimed history (note: not necessarily records), there's little to nothing to suggest that that would have been the case at all (it's too young, you see).
> 
> The rest of the discussion of the "history of jujutsu" was more the point, though…
> 
> 
> 
> Law Enforcement is a very different category to "military", of course… and in neither case would I make the claim that what is done is close to what I would class as "martial arts"...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a matter of personal preference… based largely on the instructors distaste for the term, I'd suggest. Not really what I was getting at, but okay.



Well from the beginning, and maybe I was wrong, Kirk appeared to take the stance that circumstances and environment mean little to nothing and that MMA is the superior Art.  If I was wrong in that interpretation fine, my bad, but earlier I was simply saying "all we can actually prove on the street is the superiority of the fighter, not the art and the Octagon is not the street.  He appeared to call BS on it.

As for slippery slopes I think discussing the history of most, if not all "Traditional" Martial Arts created in the various feudal periods are can be called that. The further back you go the more oral history (and thus myth) comes into play. I will say however "Mae culpa" on being WAY to overly general about the "history" of Jujutsu, I should have been more specific.

LE is sure as heck different than the Miltary, thank goodness.

As for what we may call "martial arts" I think you last line kinda goes to that point, there really is not firm definition.  Some will say a Martial Art is simply a codified system of combat, others will narrow it to requiring melee combat, others will further narrow it to saying it must have a certain amount of tradition etc.  The term is, imo, to an extent nebulous and open to rather broad interpretation. /Shrug.

That said I did agree I think that LE is not taught Martial Arts, hence why I my own money.  While it might have been "YMCA" Quality Judo, when I was in the Army, we were taught that at least as a 19D in 1991.  Where to categorize that?  Well compared to what I have studied since?  Nope.  Compared to what 95% of the American populace know however, it's different I think.


----------



## Chris Parker

Daito Ryu was not created in the Feudal Period… that's what I'm getting at. It's late 19th/early 20th Century…


----------



## Juany118

Chris Parker said:


> Daito Ryu was not created in the Feudal Period… that's what I'm getting at. It's late 19th/early 20th Century…



Well, maybe it is apocryphal, I will admit to not being a "student" of that particular art, but doesn't it draw a lineage back to Minamoto clan Samurai back in like the year 1000 or something?


----------



## Chris Parker

There are such claims, but realistically, it was formulated by Sokaku Takeda in the late 19th Century, going into the early 20th. The issues with the old claims are myriad… although still claimed by the practitioners…

This is what I was meaning by pointing out that such ideas (as a basis for understanding the history of jujutsu) wasn't really sending you in the right direction… as it was not created for the samurai, it had nothing to do with being used on a battlefield, or losing your weapons, or… anything you were saying.


----------



## Juany118

Chris Parker said:


> There are such claims, but realistically, it was formulated by Sokaku Takeda in the late 19th Century, going into the early 20th. The issues with the old claims are myriad… although still claimed by the practitioners…



Well then I will at least say this, my knowledge of that history comes from one of the teachers who supports that claim.  If he is in error (drank some bad kool-aid) again Mae Culpa.

However, to my point throughout this thread... all I have tried to say is that on the street, due to the insane number of variables, unlike a ring/octagon, you can never say universally that one MA is greater than another.  Different arts have different strengths.  Half of being a martial artists on the street. is deal with real fight or flight stress and the use of tactics that lend to your arts strengths.  As such, in the end all you can say with any concurrence is who was the better practitioner and/or who did the circumstances most favor, NOT which is the universally better MA.

Can we agree on this general principle?


----------



## Chris Parker

It's unfortunately still not that easy… the sad fact is that not all arts are "equal"… because no two arts are designed for the same thing. The problem comes up when people expect them to be equally applicable, or that the fact that one context shows success, it automatically then applies to others. What I will say is that a seeming lack of performance (or applicability) to one format does not equal a lack in another area… but this does get very messy to really get to the bottom of.

Of course, I was just summoned to deal with the jujutsu thing… the rest I'll leave to those who want to argue it.


----------



## Juany118

Chris Parker said:


> It's unfortunately still not that easy… the sad fact is that not all arts are "equal"… because no two arts are designed for the same thing. The problem comes up when people expect them to be equally applicable, or that the fact that one context shows success, it automatically then applies to others. What I will say is that a seeming lack of performance (or applicability) to one format does not equal a lack in another area… but this does get very messy to really get to the bottom of.
> 
> Of course, I was just summoned to deal with the jujutsu thing… the rest I'll leave to those who want to argue it.



That issue you raise is why I spoke of the importance of tactics.  As you said, and I even said, all arts are designed with different concepts and for the specific environments in which they are born.  Half of a real life fight is using not the art but tactics in order to use your art to the fullest extent, and if possible, disadvantage a different art.

The problem is that when a "sport" and yes when you step into the ring it becomes a "sport", the rules and environment of that sport not only limit certain arts but also tactical considerations.  In essence I say, on the street, it's not just messy, you simply can't get to the bottom of it because there are so many more variables.  No rounds, no gloves, no fouls.  Are you in a wife open space, a bar, a bathroom, an elevator?  What are you and the opponent wearing respectively?  What is the surface you are standing on?  The variables are INSANE in a real life conflict and they cascade to such an extent that the only thing you can do, imo, is wait to see whose standing in the end and say they are the better fighter and not that the winner studied a universally superior martial art.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> That issue you raise is why I spoke of the importance of tactics.  As you said, and I even said, all arts are designed with different concepts and for the specific environments in which they are born.  Half of a real life fight is using not the art but tactics in order to use your art to the fullest extent, and if possible, disadvantage a different art.
> 
> The problem is that when a "sport" and yes when you step into the ring it becomes a "sport", the rules and environment of that sport not only limit certain arts but also tactical considerations.  In essence I say, on the street, it's not just messy, you simply can't get to the bottom of it because there are so many more variables.  No rounds, no gloves, no fouls.  Are you in a wife open space, a bar, a bathroom, an elevator?  What are you and the opponent wearing respectively?  What is the surface you are standing on?  The variables are INSANE in a real life conflict and they cascade to such an extent that the only thing you can do, imo, is wait to see whose standing in the end and say they are the better fighter and not that the winner studied a universally superior martial art.



So you can't prepare for a street fight because there are too many variables. And even if you could training does not determine the outcome any way. It is determined by genetics.

So the whole concept of self defence goes out the window.

why does any body train in anything?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So you can't prepare for a street fight because there are too many variables. And even if you could training does not determine the outcome any way. It is determined by genetics.
> 
> So the whole concept of self defence goes out the window.
> 
> why does any body train in anything?



Hey look, out of context quote yet again.  

No, what I said was that all of these variables mean that the practitioner must apply his knowledge their art AND tactics to win the day.  

As I said previously and in other threads, you can be awesome on a dummy, in sparring, in the ring/octagon. These are all places where a great many of the myriad of real world variables are greatly reduced.  However irl, it is not just about the art or your knowledge of your art, it is about who is the better fighter and a HUGE portion of that is tactical thinking and being able to adapt to the unique circumstances of each rl hostile encounter in order to maximize your effectiveness and hinder your opponent.

In the ring/octagon a lot of these considerations are eliminated, right down to there being regulation clothing and weight classes.  You always know the surface you will fighting on, what your opponent is not allowed to do (unless they want to risk a disqualification) etc.  It is still a stressful environment to be sure but the x-factors irl fights mean that mindset and tactics are a lot more important.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Hey look, out of context quote yet again.
> 
> No, what I said was that all of these variables mean that the practitioner must apply his knowledge their art AND tactics to win the day.
> 
> As I said previously and in other threads, you can be awesome on a dummy, in sparring, in the ring/octagon. These are all places where a great many of the myriad of real world variables are greatly reduced.  However irl, it is not just about the art or your knowledge of your art, it is about who is the better fighter and a HUGE portion of that is tactical thinking and being able to adapt to the unique circumstances of each rl hostile encounter in order to maximize your effectiveness and hinder your opponent.
> 
> In the ring/octagon a lot of these considerations are eliminated, right down to there being regulation clothing and weight classes.  You always know the surface you will fighting on, what your opponent is not allowed to do (unless they want to risk a disqualification) etc.  It is still a stressful environment to be sure but the x-factors irl fights mean that mindset and tactics are a lot more important.



In every training a lot of these variables are diminished. Variables do not differentiate between street and sport. Both train within a rule set.       .


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> In every training a lot of these variables are diminished. Variables do not differentiate between street and sport. Both train within a rule set.       .



And already said but conveniently ignored, it's getting sad.  I already said that multiple times, that there are rules in training, such as in the post you quoted, this is I believe the 5th time you attempted to create a circular argument when they point you focused on is already addressed in the very post you are quoting.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> (including the one to whom I was responding to, saying "MMA is superior",  regardless of circumstances and environment.


You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right?  Because I certainly didn't write that.



> It was to answer the claim of he who I responding to that learning unarmed martial arts, to deal with an armed opponent, makes no sense.


You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right?  Because I certainly didn't write that.



> Hope this clears up some of the stuff.


I hope not because it seems that you may *still* have some, errr..., "misunderstanding" of what was written.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right?  Because I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right?  Because I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> I hope not because it seems that you may *still* have some, errr..., "misunderstanding" of what was written.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



As I said, I may be mistaken, with that in mind, below is a repeat of my original point which is also, basically a summary of the idea behind every post I have made.

The circumstances inside the ring/octagon, (even training/organized regulated sparring of various arts against the there other) are fundamentally different when compared to fighting irl hostile encounter.  As such simply because MODERN MMA dominates inside the Octagon, that gave birth to it, does NOT mean it is inherently superior outside of that environment in a real life hostile encounter. 

There are too many additional variables that compound on one another in such real life hostile encounters.  As such the only thing we can ever say in the end, with any degree certainty, is that the winner of a rl hostile encounter was simply the better (and perhaps luckier) practitioner, not that their martial art was superior.  Why?  Because martial arts is not only about the specific skill in the chosen art.  It is also about proper mind set, dealing with stress and knowing how to use tactics, in terms of not only the art itself but the environment/terrain, to maximize your chance of success as every art has different weakness and strengths.

Do you say the above idea is false?

Edit: please note I am talking about today's MMA.  The days of professional MMA in the US being about one martial art trying to prove itself against another are done, while there is variation in personal style, due to the rules and such MMA has basically become an art/fighting system, in and of itself, it is this art and NOT the original concept of the competition of the same name, which I refer to.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> As I said, I may be mistaken, with that in mind, below is a repeat of my original point which is also, basically a summary of the idea behind every post I have made.


Fair enough.



> The circumstances inside the ring/octagon, (even training/organized regulated sparring of various arts against the there other) are fundamentally different when compared to fighting irl hostile encounter.  As such simply because MODERN MMA dominates inside the Octagon, that gave birth to it, does NOT mean it is inherently superior outside of that environment in a real life hostile encounter.
> 
> There are too many additional variables that compound on one another in such real life hostile encounters.  As such the only thing we can ever say in the end, with any degree certainty, is that the winner of a rl hostile encounter was simply the better (and perhaps luckier) practitioner, not that their martial art was superior.  Why?  Because martial arts is not only about the specific skill in the chosen art.  It is also about proper mind set, dealing with stress and knowing how to use tactics, in terms of not only the art itself but the environment/terrain, to maximize your chance of success as every art has different weakness and strengths.
> 
> Do you say the above idea is false?


In general, I agree with most of the above two paragraphs.  I do, however, have a few quibbles.  First, no, I don't think you can say that MMA is "fundamentally different."  There are some very important different starting assumptions, such as both fighters being very similar weights for instance, but, fundamentally, it's still fighting.  Just because it is a different expression of (trained, codified, systemized) fighting, doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally fighting.  So, no, I disagree that MMA is "fundamentally" different from every other martial art in the set [MARTIAL_ARTS].

Second, I'd quibble that the Octagon did not "give birth" to "MODERN MMA," though many people have made the claim.  It is more accurate to say that the Octagon was, by far, the most important element in shaping and defining "MODERN MMA."  This is because the "MODERN MMA" fighter is usually using somewhere around 2-4 base arts to mix into his training system.  Most often (but not always exclusively) drawing from Wrestling, Boxing, Judo, BJJ, and Mua Thai.  These arts have been "mixed" since they existed.  In particular it has (since their inception) been dirt common to mix Boxing with Wrestling and/or Judo.  So, no, I disagree that the Octagon, "gave birth" to "MODERN MMA."

Your primary premise appears to be that no one martial art is "superior" to any other because there are simply too many variables "irl" to make that determination, including environment and the natural and physical capabilities (regardless of training) of the fighters in question.  In general, I agree with that.  Many times I have been asked, "what is the best martial art" and I usually reply with some variation of, "best for what?"  That said, there are two permutations that I wish to address.  First, in those two paragraphs you wrote, and much of what else you wrote, it almost appears that you are subtly suggesting what martial art (or even any at all) you practice doesn't matter because there are too many variables.  While I don't believe that was your intent, it should be explicitly stated that, no, training in martial arts very frequently can and does help "irl."  Second, it should also be pointed out that "MODERN MMA" and, indeed, most other mix-n-match competitions (such as Vale Tudo and The Gracie Challenge) were, in fact, specifically intended to answer the question of "what martial art *style* is best."  This is not a particularly new question or pursuit.  Attempts to answer this question go as far back as I've been able to search.  Of course there are modern variations which predate MMA such as the Gene LeBell v Milo Savage match.  But, in every culture, with every art, there are examples.  French vs English vs Spanish vs Italian Smallsword or Rapier, for instance.  "El Rubio Bravo" Col. Monstery made a career out of Smallsword challenge matches as an example.  In 1625, Edward Peeke famously bested 3 Spanish Rapier Maestros with a Quarterstaff because he had boasted of his systems superiority.  There have been numerous English Boxing vs French Savate matches with an especially famous match in 1911 pitting Jerry Driscoll against M. Charlemont.  Heck, half of the draw of Roman Gladiatorial matches was pitting national "styles" and weapons from conquered areas against each other (well stylized "styles" anyhow).  There is a long tradition of challenge matches among different "kung fu" schools and, of course, there are the near legendary Judo vs JuJutsu competitions.  But even within "styles," various lineages frequently initiate challenge matches to try to decide which "style" is best.  One modern illustration is the William Cheung vs Emin Boztepe fight over which lineage, Wing Chun or Ving Tsun, was superior.  And yet, it seems to occur within all martial arts with split lineages.  IIRC, there was a duel between two different lineages of Spanish Destreza (a system of Rapier fighting).

In short, while you may believe that it is impossible to determine which martial art is "best" you may be in the minority, historically speaking, for that belief.  Given the fact that attempts appear to be a historical fixture, the desire to do so, through challenge matches and competitions, it appears that most martial artists throughout history did, in fact, believe that one martial art could be superior and that challenge matches and competitions were the logical way to decide which it was.  "MODERN MMA" was at its inception yet another attempt to answer that question.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> And already said but conveniently ignored, it's getting sad.  I already said that multiple times, that there are rules in training, such as in the post you quoted, this is I believe the 5th time you attempted to create a circular argument when they point you focused on is already addressed in the very post you are quoting.



Your point seems to be that a street fight won't be determined by the training that someone has done.

And that is plainly false.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> In general, I agree with most of the above two paragraphs.  I do, however, have a few quibbles.  First, no, I don't think you can say that MMA is "fundamentally different."  There are some very important different starting assumptions, such as both fighters being very similar weights for instance, but, fundamentally, it's still fighting.  Just because it is a different expression of (trained, codified, systemized) fighting, doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally fighting.  So, no, I disagree that MMA is "fundamentally" different from every other martial art in the set [MARTIAL_ARTS].
> 
> Second, I'd quibble that the Octagon did not "give birth" to "MODERN MMA," though many people have made the claim.  It is more accurate to say that the Octagon was, by far, the most important element in shaping and defining "MODERN MMA."  This is because the "MODERN MMA" fighter is usually using somewhere around 2-4 base arts to mix into his training system.  Most often (but not always exclusively) drawing from Wrestling, Boxing, Judo, BJJ, and Mua Thai.  These arts have been "mixed" since they existed.  In particular it has (since their inception) been dirt common to mix Boxing with Wrestling and/or Judo.  So, no, I disagree that the Octagon, "gave birth" to "MODERN MMA."
> 
> Your primary premise appears to be that no one martial art is "superior" to any other because there are simply too many variables "irl" to make that determination, including environment and the natural and physical capabilities (regardless of training) of the fighters in question.  In general, I agree with that.  Many times I have been asked, "what is the best martial art" and I usually reply with some variation of, "best for what?"  That said, there are two permutations that I wish to address.  First, in those two paragraphs you wrote, and much of what else you wrote, it almost appears that you are subtly suggesting what martial art (or even any at all) you practice doesn't matter because there are too many variables.  While I don't believe that was your intent, it should be explicitly stated that, no, training in martial arts very frequently can and does help "irl."  Second, it should also be pointed out that "MODERN MMA" and, indeed, most other mix-n-match competitions (such as Vale Tudo and The Gracie Challenge) were, in fact, specifically intended to answer the question of "what martial art *style* is best."  This is not a particularly new question or pursuit.  Attempts to answer this question go as far back as I've been able to search.  Of course there are modern variations which predate MMA such as the Gene LeBell v Milo Savage match.  But, in every culture, with every art, there are examples.  French vs English vs Spanish vs Italian Smallsword or Rapier, for instance.  "El Rubio Bravo" Col. Monstery made a career out of Smallsword challenge matches as an example.  In 1625, Edward Peeke famously bested 3 Spanish Rapier Maestros with a Quarterstaff because he had boasted of his systems superiority.  There have been numerous English Boxing vs French Savate matches with an especially famous match in 1911 pitting Jerry Driscoll against M. Charlemont.  Heck, half of the draw of Roman Gladiatorial matches was pitting national "styles" and weapons from conquered areas against each other (well stylized "styles" anyhow).  There is a long tradition of challenge matches among different "kung fu" schools and, of course, there are the near legendary Judo vs JuJutsu competitions.  But even within "styles," various lineages frequently initiate challenge matches to try to decide which "style" is best.  One modern illustration is the William Cheung vs Emin Boztepe fight over which lineage, Wing Chun or Ving Tsun, was superior.  And yet, it seems to occur within all martial arts with split lineages.  IIRC, there was a duel between two different lineages of Spanish Destreza (a system of Rapier fighting).
> 
> In short, while you may believe that it is impossible to determine which martial art is "best" you may be in the minority, historically speaking, for that belief.  Given the fact that attempts appear to be a historical fixture, the desire to do so, through challenge matches and competitions, it appears that most martial artists throughout history did, in fact, believe that one martial art could be superior and that challenge matches and competitions were the logical way to decide which it was.  "MODERN MMA" was at its inception yet another attempt to answer that question.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



First let me clarify.  I say "Modern MMA" because I see today's MMA as different.  Back when it started MMA was the name of a venue.  Different Traditional Martial Arts went to town, largely no holds barred often without time limits.  You still had a ring and such but it was much more "free" for lack of a better term. "Modern MMA", for lack of a better term, is not only a venue at this point, it is largely an art unto itself.  I think this transition is important.

And no I am not saying the art you study is irrelevant, rather it is the practitioner behind it that is the most important.  The following is obviously just a general summary.

Imo it starts with the practitioners body and temperment.  While obviously an exaggeration someone my size (5'10, 170 lbs) should not be practicing an art like classic Greco-Roman wrestling IF I never know the size of the opponent I will encounter because while I may be superior technically, I will have issues wrestling the 6'5" 275 lbs guy who bench presses 350 if they know how to use that size and strength, even without formal training. One's natural ability, coordination and flexibility etc. must be considered when someone choses an art.  Temperament is important because some arts are not suited to all people.  As an example I would not suggest someone who likes to play a waiting game WC.  At least how it is taught to me it is an art that rewards aggression, charging into the lion's teeth and trusting that you can deflect or trap enemies blows while you, essentially striking rather relentlessly, overwhelm, or flood, your opponent.

Next if they chose the right art, it's not just about their competency in the art.  It's about first, how well they deal with the stresses of a real encounter and second how well they understand tactics and how it applies to their art.  As an example two people can study the same art.  Person 1 can be the better person in training and sparring, but if person 1 doesn't know how to deal with the stress of a real fight and, based on the dynamics and environment of that real fight, maximize the arts strengths while minimizing it's deficiencies, and person 2 does know how to do these thing person 2 will win even though their skill in the art itself is "less".

The same principle applies between arts (again generalization).  If you can see your opponent's strength lies in a range closer than your strength, how good are you at keeping them outside of their ideal range.  This doesn't just include using ur art but the environment and situational awareness, not letting them back you into a corner etc.  If it is the reverse and your strength lies in close, how good are you at using your skills to penetrate their defenses, how good are you are manipulating them into that corner so they can't back up.

The above is obviously for just a straight up dynamic, live or die fight.  If you are looking for arts that do specific things, excel at ground fighting, control a subject with minimal force, specifically kick, specifically punch, extensive, or specific, weapons training, different arts will be better because they all evolved in different cultures, under different philosophies, with different goals in mind.

I am aware that throughout history people have tried to make the determination as to which Art was superior but in the end, it has proven to largely be an endless struggle. When talking about the old school fights that had far fewer rules than our society now expects for "competition" a fight would have someone declaring "art X has proven to be superior" but then a rematch or a match with different practitioners would throw that conclusion on its head.  Of course the debate will always continue but I am a data driven guy.  I drive my wife nuts sometimes when she will ask my opinion.  Sometimes I have one, sometimes I say "I can't comment".  She asks "why not" and I respond "because there isn't enough objective evidence for me to come to a conclusion one way or another." She then mumbles "okay Mr. Spock where are the pointy ears" and we change the topic.  

That said I see the process of challenging a good on.  It encourages interest in the Martial Arts and forces open minded practitioners interested in the debate to push themselves.  Sometimes it's not reaching that destination, a firm conclusion that is important because you may never get there.  It's the growth that is spurred by the journey that is important.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Your point seems to be that a street fight won't be determined by the training that someone has done.
> 
> And that is plainly false.



*Part 1*
No what I am saying is that training alone is not the only factor.  You can have two people who study the same art, one being higher rank with better technique in sparring and competition BUT irl fight when you get that adrenalin dump from the lizard brain saying "ooops we might freaking die/get maimed here" loses to the person who can handle that stress better but is inferior in training.  You do not only have to add this ability to deal with stress but also tactical sense.  If you primarily strike facing a person who primarily grapples, if both of you deal with stress equally well, who is better tactically.  Is the striker better at keeping the grappler out side trapping/grappling range?  Is the grappler better at manipulating the striker into a corner so they can't maintain the distance?  Which one has, for lack of a better term, the warrior mindset/killer instinct?  These are facts of real life hostile encounters that all the training in a gym/martial art school can't teach.

These factors are equally important to the art you know.  If it wouldn't there wouldn't be so many stories of experienced street fighters with no formal training beating trained martial artists.  These guys are winning by fighting techniques, they are winning because they can deal with the stress, have a tactical sense and situational awareness that allows them to maximize their strength and minimize their weaknesses and have the warrior mind set so that in a real fight they don't pull their punches.


----------



## Juany118

*Part 2*

I think the stress and tactical/situational awareness issue are the most overlooked.  Everyone gets killer instinct (I think).

The stress of a real fight where you primitive brain considers death is often not engaged even in competition like Sanctioned MMA.  There is a referee to call the fight, stop illegal moves, heck you can see how some fighters purposefully use the pause between rounds strategically.  These factors lower your brains perception of danger so that adrenalin rush usually doesn't kick in until you are getting your *** handed to you.  As such people that even do full contact professional fighting are often not prepared to deal with it.  People like Mike Tyson who channeled the violence of their everyday life into boxing are clearly among the exceptions.

Next tactics and situational awareness.  In that ring you don't have to deal with furniture inside of a building, or the fact you may not be able to use extensive experience, like in a ring, to just where the wall is behind you based on the distance to the wall in front.  You don't have to deal with curbs (they can be a fight killer), fences, telephone poles, other people jumping in.  In competitive fighting as well as sparring your only situational concern is really that guy in front of you.  What kind of take downs can you do on concrete or hardwood, as opposed to mats or the ring, since some suitable in the later can injure you in the former.

Once you get this situational awareness you then need to figure out how to use that environment to maximize your strengths and disadvantage your opponent.  These are all things training in any Art can't teach you.  You need to cultivate these skills on your own and they are universally necessary on the street.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> *Part 1*
> No what I am saying is that training alone is not the only factor.  You can have two people who study the same art, one being higher rank with better technique in sparring and competition BUT irl fight when you get that adrenalin dump from the lizard brain saying "ooops we might freaking die/get maimed here" loses to the person who can handle that stress better but is inferior in training.  You do not only have to add this ability to deal with stress but also tactical sense.  If you primarily strike facing a person who primarily grapples, if both of you deal with stress equally well, who is better tactically.  Is the striker better at keeping the grappler out side trapping/grappling range?  Is the grappler better at manipulating the striker into a corner so they can't maintain the distance?  Which one has, for lack of a better term, the warrior mindset/killer instinct?  These are facts of real life hostile encounters that all the training in a gym/martial art school can't teach.
> 
> These factors are equally important to the art you know.  If it wouldn't there wouldn't be so many stories of experienced street fighters with no formal training beating trained martial artists.  These guys are winning by fighting techniques, they are winning because they can deal with the stress, have a tactical sense and situational awareness that allows them to maximize their strength and minimize their weaknesses and have the warrior mind set so that in a real fight they don't pull their punches.



And you feel that, that element is not reflected or adressed in training?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And you feel that, that element is not reflected or adressed in training?



They can tell you it is important but telling you it is important and really preparing for it is on you.  You, hopefully,  through your training develop the muscle memory, which helps with the adrenalin dump.  However does your class have you just sitting their practicing breathing exercises (like Aikido often does but not many) or is that on you?  Do you practice with tools like masks or goggles to simulate the tunnel vision that also often comes with the adrenalin dump?

Do you train in a room you are not familiar with, that is full of furniture? Not only to void pitfalls but to force your opponent into a pitfall? If you don't actually train for it your instructor can tell you about it until they are blue in the face. It's little different that I simply describing Heaven Six in Kali and expecting someone to be able to do it, vs showing them and then having them practice.

It's why when the Military and PDs, when training building clearing will either build the buildings themselves and then fill em with furniture or use existing buildings that are unoccupied.  Knowing how to enter a room with a potential threat doesn't mean much if you don't train to enter that room when their maybe a sofa there that you can trip over or that the bad guy can hide behind.  

If you do this training on your own good for you.  If your instructor makes you develop these skills you are definitely getting your money's worth.  These skills however are not part of any specific Martial Art, they are generic and apply to all forms of combat, not just the martial arts.  If you have these skills and another well trained martial artists doesn't, in a real fight you are most likely to win.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> They can tell you it is important but telling you it is important and really preparing for it is on you.  You, hopefully,  through your training develop the muscle memory, which helps with the adrenalin dump.  However does your class have you just sitting their practicing breathing exercises (like Aikido often does but not many) or is that on you?  Do you practice with tools like masks or goggles to simulate the tunnel vision that also often comes with the adrenalin dump?
> 
> Do you train in a room you are not familiar with, that is full of furniture? Not only to void pitfalls but to force your opponent into a pitfall? If you don't actually train for it your instructor can tell you about it until they are blue in the face. It's little different that I simply describing Heaven Six in Kali and expecting someone to be able to do it, vs showing them and then having them practice.
> 
> It's why when the Military and PDs, when training building clearing will either build the buildings themselves and then fill em with furniture or use existing buildings that are unoccupied.  Knowing how to enter a room with a potential threat doesn't mean much if you don't train to enter that room when their maybe a sofa there that you can trip over or that the bad guy can hide behind.
> 
> If you do this training on your own good for you.  If your instructor makes you develop these skills you are definitely getting your money's worth.  These skills however are not part of any specific Martial Art, they are generic and apply to all forms of combat, not just the martial arts.  If you have these skills and another well trained martial artists doesn't, in a real fight you are most likely to win.



Which would be examples of those issues being reflected or addressed in training.

And yes for the most part.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Which would be examples of those issues being reflected or addressed in training.
> 
> And yes for the most part.



You are missing the point that I am trying to make however.  These skills have NOTHING to do specifically with MMA, Karate, Wing Chu, TKD, Jujutsu etc.  These are Universal skills of combat used whether you are unarmed, have a sword, or an M4, it simply doesn't matter.  As such they don't say "this particular martial art is better" they simply create a better "fighter" regardless of what art they are trained in.  This is why I say it is largely futile to try and argue which Martial Art is "the best".  Lets say there is a best Martial art, if the other guy is better dealing with stress and tactics/situational awareness, they win.  If you maybe don't deal with tactics as well (though you still have a clue and don't fall apart under stress) BUT you are willing to not just say but also feel inside you "KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!" and your opponent can't say that, you have a better chance of winning.  The Martial Art is only as good as the foundation it is built upon.  That foundation is built upon the near infinite complications that make up the human body and psyche.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> You are missing the point that I am trying to make however.  These skills have NOTHING to do specifically with MMA, Karate, Wing Chu, TKD, Jujutsu etc.  These are Universal skills of combat used whether you are unarmed, have a sword, or an M4, it simply doesn't matter.  As such they don't say "this particular martial art is better" they simply create a better "fighter" regardless of what art they are trained in.  This is why I say it is largely futile to try and argue which Martial Art is "the best".  Lets say there is a best Martial art, if the other guy is better dealing with stress and tactics/situational awareness, they win.  If you maybe don't deal with tactics as well (though you still have a clue and don't fall apart under stress) BUT you are willing to not just say but also feel inside you "KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!" and your opponent can't say that, you have a better chance of winning.  The Martial Art is only as good as the foundation it is built upon.  That foundation is built upon the near infinite complications that make up the human body and psyche.



If you are defining universal skills of combat.  Then you can create a system that that fills that role. Better than other systems. Then you can say this martial art is better.

So if you want to kill someone with an m4 or even a real gun like a styer.  There will be better and worse ways of being trained to do that.

So you can absolutely compare systems.

A better system will be better regardless of the person doing it.

Now obviously there are some people who will be genetically better.  And can be factored in.  But this is in addition to good or bad training.  It doesn't cancel that out.

And you chose specific training.  Obviously it will be specific to the system you do.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If you are defining universal skills of combat.  Then you can create a system that that fills that role. Better than other systems. Then you can say this martial art is better.
> 
> So if you want to kill someone with an m4 or even a real gun like a styer.  There will be better and worse ways of being trained to do that.
> 
> So you can absolutely compare systems.
> 
> A better system will be better regardless of the person doing it.
> 
> Now obviously there are some people who will be genetically better.  And can be factored in.  But this is in addition to good or bad training.  It doesn't cancel that out.



Well I would say first that your M4 v Steyr  comment shows an attitude emblematic throughout this thread, but with that said you completely miss something, especially since there is no better or worse way to fire a rifle accurately.  There is sight picture, cheek well, trigger pull and breathing, that it, every combat rifle shares these basic characteristics, unlike martial arts which are more varied.

I get it, you have a near obsessive need to say "MMA is better", a dirty could come down from heaven, say you were wrong and your answer would be "then why aren't you in the octagon." regardless I will entertain your other point anyway before I go to sleep. 

These other concepts that make a real fighter are already shared by every thinking human being if they want to fight. When someone learns these concepts to shoot it doesn't change what they do mechanically when they shoot.  It simply means that they can control their breathing, and thus their heart rate, that they chose the primary threat first, that they utilize cover appropriately etc.  You have not created a new school of marksmanship, all you have done is create a better fighter because that guy can apply these principles to their pistol, their knife fighting and unarmed combat.  

If something can be applied to EVERY human being, regardless of their chosen art of combat, by definition you have not created a better art, only a better warrior, especially since some of them are more talents than skills (such as situational awareness).  To create a superior martial art is to create maneuvers and skills that are innately superior.

Now this leads to the following question.  Which I assume you will dodge as your tactic has been to cherry pick points of convenience.  How do you quantify not just the effectiveness of actual techniques of a Martial arts in the real world but the X-factors I have laid out here... ability to cope with stress, tactical knowledge, situational awareness and "warrior mind set/killer instinct" in real combat?

Answer you can't.  If you can't quantify something you can't declare it better.  That is life.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Now this leads to the following question. Which I assume you will dodge as your tactic has been to cherry pick points of convenience. How do you quantify not just the effectiveness of actual techniques of a Martial arts in the real world but the X-factors I have laid out here... ability to cope with stress, tactical knowledge, situational awareness and "warrior mind set/killer instinct" in real combat?
> 
> Answer you can't. If you can't quantify something you can't declare it better. That is life.



You declare it better on the things you can observe and then make assumptions based on that.

This becomes a silly argument. How does wing chun work against a bear?

If you say you don't know then you cannot say wing chun is effective..  

And I am not cherry picking I am sticking to one point. You are diverting.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I get it, you have a near obsessive need to say "MMA is better", a dirty could come down from heaven, say you were wrong and your answer would be "then why aren't you in the octagon." regardless I will entertain your other point anyway before I go to sleep.



You do know that Jesus loves knock outs?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well I would say first that your M4 v Steyr comment shows an attitude emblematic throughout this thread, but with that said you completely miss something, especially since there is no better or worse way to fire a rifle accurately. There is sight picture, cheek well, trigger pull and breathing, that it, every combat rifle shares these basic characteristics, unlike martial arts which are more varied.



Ok.this might be my best way to explain this.

There is no better or worse way to fire a rifle accurately?


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> I am aware that throughout history people have tried to make the determination as to which Art was superior but in the end, it has proven to largely be an endless struggle. When talking about the old school fights that had far fewer rules than our society now expects for "competition" a fight would have someone declaring "art X has proven to be superior" but then a rematch or a match with different practitioners would throw that conclusion on its head.  Of course the debate will always continue but I am a data driven guy.  I drive my wife nuts sometimes when she will ask my opinion.  Sometimes I have one, sometimes I say "I can't comment".  She asks "why not" and I respond "because there isn't enough objective evidence for me to come to a conclusion one way or another." She then mumbles "okay Mr. Spock where are the pointy ears" and we change the topic.


hahaha  This sounds eerily familiar.  She Who Must Be Obeyed and I have had similar conversations more than once.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> The stress of a real fight where you primitive brain considers death is often not engaged even in competition like Sanctioned MMA.  There is a referee to call the fight, stop illegal moves, heck you can see how some fighters purposefully use the pause between rounds strategically.  These factors lower your brains perception of danger so that adrenalin rush usually doesn't kick in until you are getting your *** handed to you.  As such people that even do full contact professional fighting are often not prepared to deal with it.


Interesting position.  Do you have any studies to support this conclusion?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> They can tell you it is important but telling you it is important and really preparing for it is on you.  You, hopefully,  through your training develop the muscle memory, which helps with the adrenalin dump.  However does your class have you just sitting their practicing breathing exercises (like Aikido often does but not many) or is that on you?  Do you practice with tools like masks or goggles to simulate the tunnel vision that also often comes with the adrenalin dump?
> 
> Do you train in a room you are not familiar with, that is full of furniture? Not only to void pitfalls but to force your opponent into a pitfall? If you don't actually train for it your instructor can tell you about it until they are blue in the face. It's little different that I simply describing Heaven Six in Kali and expecting someone to be able to do it, vs showing them and then having them practice.
> 
> It's why when the Military and PDs, when *training* building clearing will either build the buildings themselves and then fill em with furniture or use existing buildings that are unoccupied.  Knowing how to enter a room with a potential threat doesn't mean much if you don't train to enter that room when their maybe a sofa there that you can trip over or that the bad guy can hide behind.


Ummm... "that element is not reflected or adressed in training" but it is addressed in training?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> If you are defining universal skills of combat.  Then you can create a system that that fills that role. Better than other systems. Then you can say this martial art is better.


Oh, I don't know about that.  Some broad training methodologies intended to teach certain generalized ("universal") fighting "skills" can be applied in nearly every martial system, or even culture.  There are just some things that are "universal" problems or pitfalls that fighters must somehow be able to conquer.  Almost all of these are related to human adrenal dump; "fight or flight" response.  Some of it is related to the fact that humans are just really really bad at making logical decisions, even simple binary decisions, when under adrenal dump.  A successful "fighting" or (gads) "Combat" martial art must include methods for addressing this.

I've found that there appears to be two "solutions" to achieving these results.

First is the concept of controlling the mindset so that adrenal dump either doesn't happen or is controlled in such a way as to have minimized physiological impact.  I believe that this is one of the reasons that the Japanese developed the concepts of zanshin and mushin.  That relaxed, semi-meditative-like state of detached, peaceful state awareness empty of anger, fear, or, to a degree, even aggression.  Learning how to enter that state takes years usually of dedicated practice and a good instructor but when it works, it works really well.  Another method along these lines is a process head-shrinkers call "desensitization."  This is a process where the troubling "stimulation" has occurred sooooo many times to you that it no longer bothers you at all.  It's the same method used to treat people with phobias and teach Nazi death-camp guards that it's OK.  When applied to a violent encounter, constant, repeated exposures to the violence, including (especially) doling out the violence, no longer creates the adrenal dump/fight-or-flight which puts you in a very narrow mental loop and often causes untrained people to freeze.  With sufficient desensitization, "it's just another day at the office, breaking stuff off of people, I wonder what's for dinner? <crunch>"  Desensitization also takes a great deal of time to affect, multiple, repeated exposures.

The second concept is now commonly used by many militaries of the world, including the U.S. military.  Harness the adrenal dump response.  This focuses on the "fight" part of "flight-or-fight."  During adrenal dump, people sort of go into an automated loop.  They do exactly, and often *ONLY*, what they've trained to do.  I call this "robo-droid."  I recall seeing video of a man trying to use a pistol for self defense and failing.  He pulls the trigger over and over and the gun does nothing.  It won't fire.  Turns out he had the safety on.  His training had never included flicking off the safety as part of his defensive drills so when adrenal dump hit, his robo-droid followed its programing by pointing and pressing the trigger.  Robo-droid is pretty much just a set of programs, following a script which it is incapable of deviating from.  Much of military combat training is now focused on programming robo-droid on how to react.  Many people who enter this state report that there is sort of a run-up to it of very heightened fear or anger and then a kind of "going dead" detached feeling while their body does very violent things, outside of their control.  A little like being a tourist riding along inside your body while a robot takes over.  From the outside, people viewing it often report that all emotion drains from the persons face or that their eyes go dead and there's a feel of impending violence balanced on a knive's edge.  This isn't an entirely new concept, of course.  Fighters have been training to use the "combat rage" for as long as humans have been fighting.  There's some evidence, for instance, that the semi-legendary Berzerkers operated this way.  (On a side note, if you see someone in the run-up to a fight and you can almost literally see their eyes "go dead," GTFO right now!  crap's about to hit the fan.)

Any of these general training methodologies for dealing with fight-or-flight can be applied to almost any martial arts training or system from boxing, to grappling, to swordfighting, all the way up through modern firearms.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Well I would say first that your M4 v Steyr  comment shows an attitude emblematic throughout this thread, but with that said you completely miss something, especially since there is no better or worse way to fire a rifle accurately.  There is sight picture, cheek well, trigger pull and breathing, that it, every combat rifle shares these basic characteristics,


What about "Reflexive Fire?"  Still taught.  FM 3-22.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Interesting position.  Do you have any studies to support this conclusion?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



First a brief explanation as to how it works (fight or flight) Understanding the stress response - Harvard Health, for those who may not know. (Not you)

Then a dang good explanation about how the adrenalin, effects vision (I will give a personal experience below that mirrors is) Fighting Tunnel Vision—Refocusing During an Emergency | Parachutist Online

I will be honest and say it is a combination of current military training, based on studies, and anecdotal experience, from both military and LEO, so take it for what it is worth. 

First an example of the military and how, in training they try to simulate it...

Stress-induced weapons training prepares Soldiers for combat | Article | The United States Army

Now I do fire arms training this way on my own and have long before this article was published actually.  As far as my my school, when we spar in Kali, it is pretty much all out but only when using the training knives (might be odd but a huge thing for my Sifu/Guro is "if you can't take a hit here you will fail if you take one on the street.   I have gone to work and had coworker ask "did you punch a wall?" because my hand was so swollen from a good solid hit between the knuckles from a hard training knife.  Now, I understand the below may sound like some self importance, but it is a legitimate experience.

The military training above helps no doubt, as does the sparring. However, the instantaneous effect of adrenaline in fight or flight situation with no such build up?  I have felt that more than once. 

The one that will always stick in my mind was aiming a pistol at a paranoid schizophrenic, high on crack, (no exaggeration) coming at me with a kitchen knife in one hand and a ball peen hammer in the other.  I literally watched the hammer of my sidearm coming back at me (the urban myth of stuff like that seeming to be slow motion).  I only stopped pulling the trigger only because a back up officer created a cross fire situation.  Luckily the bad guy suddenly decided to throw his weapons at another squad car that pulled into the alley at the exact same moment (mental health patients will suddenly change course to new stimuli) and I didn't have to "take one for the team" because of a situationally unaware officer.  The difference between going full contact sparring, vs the above?  To me it is like what it must feel like to get jazzed up by caffeine (competition) vs crack (street).

Now the above could well be simply be a symptom of the same dynamic we share with "she must be obeyed", I step into competition, calculate "I will use all my skill but if **** happens, [shrug] still going home" so I have, (until pain if I am the one who screws up) the same exertion I get on a good hard run because I never actually felt in danger.

This compared to "okay, no clue who this guy is, no Sifu/referee to break it up, he wants to stab me with the knife and crush my head with the hammer in the other hand" That was an INSTANT adrenaline dump with no warning because I was responding to a simple "unwanted person" call and walked around the corner to see that.  There is just something different, the prepared and regulated violent encounter vs the unprepared and unregulated.

Maybe it's just me but hat is my experience


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Oh, I don't know about that.  Some broad training methodologies intended to teach certain generalized ("universal") fighting "skills" can be applied in nearly every martial system, or even culture.  There are just some things that are "universal" problems or pitfalls that fighters must somehow be able to conquer.  Almost all of these are related to human adrenal dump; "fight or flight" response.  Some of it is related to the fact that humans are just really really bad at making logical decisions, even simple binary decisions, when under adrenal dump.  A successful "fighting" or (gads) "Combat" martial art must include methods for addressing this.
> 
> I've found that there appears to be two "solutions" to achieving these results.
> 
> First is the concept of controlling the mindset so that adrenal dump either doesn't happen or is controlled in such a way as to have minimized physiological impact.  I believe that this is one of the reasons that the Japanese developed the concepts of zanshin and mushin.  That relaxed, semi-meditative-like state of detached, peaceful state awareness empty of anger, fear, or, to a degree, even aggression.  Learning how to enter that state takes years usually of dedicated practice and a good instructor but when it works, it works really well.  Another method along these lines is a process head-shrinkers call "desensitization."  This is a process where the troubling "stimulation" has occurred sooooo many times to you that it no longer bothers you at all.  It's the same method used to treat people with phobias and teach Nazi death-camp guards that it's OK.  When applied to a violent encounter, constant, repeated exposures to the violence, including (especially) doling out the violence, no longer creates the adrenal dump/fight-or-flight which puts you in a very narrow mental loop and often causes untrained people to freeze.  With sufficient desensitization, "it's just another day at the office, breaking stuff off of people, I wonder what's for dinner? <crunch>"  Desensitization also takes a great deal of time to affect, multiple, repeated exposures.
> 
> The second concept is now commonly used by many militaries of the world, including the U.S. military.  Harness the adrenal dump response.  This focuses on the "fight" part of "flight-or-fight."  During adrenal dump, people sort of go into an automated loop.  They do exactly, and often *ONLY*, what they've trained to do.  I call this "robo-droid."  I recall seeing video of a man trying to use a pistol for self defense and failing.  He pulls the trigger over and over and the gun does nothing.  It won't fire.  Turns out he had the safety on.  His training had never included flicking off the safety as part of his defensive drills so when adrenal dump hit, his robo-droid followed its programing by pointing and pressing the trigger.  Robo-droid is pretty much just a set of programs, following a script which it is incapable of deviating from.  Much of military combat training is now focused on programming robo-droid on how to react.  Many people who enter this state report that there is sort of a run-up to it of very heightened fear or anger and then a kind of "going dead" detached feeling while their body does very violent things, outside of their control.  A little like being a tourist riding along inside your body while a robot takes over.  From the outside, people viewing it often report that all emotion drains from the persons face or that their eyes go dead and there's a feel of impending violence balanced on a knive's edge.  This isn't an entirely new concept, of course.  Fighters have been training to use the "combat rage" for as long as humans have been fighting.  There's some evidence, for instance, that the semi-legendary Berzerkers operated this way.  (On a side note, if you see someone in the run-up to a fight and you can almost literally see their eyes "go dead," GTFO right now!  crap's about to hit the fan.)
> 
> Any of these general training methodologies for dealing with fight-or-flight can be applied to almost any martial arts training or system from boxing, to grappling, to swordfighting, all the way up through modern firearms.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I agree with everything you say here with the exception of "robo-droid" working when you are the only guy there.  (I love that term btw, stealing it  ) in the Military it works because you are part of a Unit.  You can afford to tunnel vision on your targets because of the rest of the unit addressing other targets.  On the Street in civilian life that dynamic is rarely there so I see a difference personally.  In short what works for a mass military action where casualties are acceptable, but if ourse you wish to minimize, vs how you should train for a violent individual encounter where you becoming a casualty is not acceptable to you?  These appear to be different goals require a different focus of sorts. fighting tunnel vision rather than relying on the battle buddy to hit the guy you can't see is the first difference that comes to mind.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> What about "Reflexive Fire?"  Still taught.  FM 3-22.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



A video of reflexive fire... 




Your sight picture, cheap well etc, all the same.  The only difference is that you are in a split second challenged on what targets to shoot at.  It is good training but the mechanics of shooting have not changed.  This is just part of advanced marksmanship which challenges your reactions to an immediate threat.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> First a brief explanation as to how it works (fight or flight) Understanding the stress response - Harvard Health, for those who may not know.
> 
> Then a dang good explanation about how the adrenalin, effects vision (I will give a personal experience below that mirrors is) Fighting Tunnel Vision—Refocusing During an Emergency | Parachutist Online
> 
> I will be honest and say it is a combination of current military training, based on studies, and anecdotal experience, from both military and LEO, so take it for what it is worth.
> 
> First an example of the military and how, in training they try to simulate it...
> 
> Stress-induced weapons training prepares Soldiers for combat | Article | The United States Army


I'm pretty familiar with fight-or-flight adrenal stress studies and training methodologies.  None of that actually supports your claim that referee calls and round breaks "lower your brains perception of danger so that adrenalin rush usually doesn't kick in until you are getting your *** handed to you."

If you'd argued that desensitization techniques can lower the likelihood of adrenal dump, I'd be right with you, but I just don't see a causal link.  That's not how stimuli works.  First the stimuli, then the response.  If you'd claimed that a MMA trained fighter might pause or hesitate during a "real fight" if someone yelled "BREAK!!" with a referee tone (or whatever) or that they might pause or hesitate if he heard a bell ring, I'd probably agree.  But your claim seems to be running off of some pretty broad assumptions.



> Now I do fire arms training this way on my own and have long before this article was published actually.  As far as my my school, when we spar in Kali, it is pretty much all out but only when using the training knives (might be odd but a huge thing for my Sifu/Guro is "if you can't take a hit here you will fail if you take one on the street.   I have gone to work and had coworker ask "did you punch a wall?" because my hand was so swollen from a good solid hit between the knuckles from a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  Now, I understand the below may sound like some self importance, but it is a legitimate experience.


Tuesday night while teaching Tomahawk I jammed my left thumb so bad that I had an adrenal dump on it and the queezy reaction when I eventually finally felt the pain.  Had to lay down (about 5 min after the fight).  When I taught grip fighting the next night at judo, I couldn't use my left hand (or even open a frigg'n twist cap).  I would have had to Off Hand pistol because no way I could have gotten a solid Isosceles, never mind a Weaver, and a rifle would have been, umm... "challenging." 



> The military training above helps no doubt, as does the sparring. However, the instantaneous effect of adrenaline in fight or flight situation with no such build up?  I have felt that more than once.


Are you a "dead eyes" guy?  I've only hit dead eyes a couple of times.  I know guys who almost can't seem to *not* go dead eyes.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> I agree with everything you say here with the exception of "robo-droid" working when you are the only guy there.  (I love that term btw, stealing it  ) in the Military it works because you are part of a Unit.  You can afford to tunnel vision on your targets because of the rest of the unit addressing other targets.  On the Street in civilian life that dynamic is rarely there so I see a difference personally.  In short what works for a mass military action where casualties are acceptable, but if ourse you wish to minimize, vs how you should train for a violent individual encounter where you becoming a casualty is not acceptable to you?  These appear to be different goals require a different focus of sorts. fighting tunnel vision rather than relying on the battle buddy to hit the guy you can't see is the first difference that comes to mind.


I see it most often in ex-mil.  It's the training and doesn't require buddies to be with you, only the right stimulus to initiate it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> I'm pretty familiar with fight-or-flight adrenal stress studies and training methodologies.  None of that actually supports your claim that referee calls and round breaks "lower your brains perception of danger so that adrenalin rush usually doesn't kick in until you are getting your *** handed to you."
> 
> If you'd argued that desensitization techniques can lower the likelihood of adrenal dump, I'd be right with you, but I just don't see a causal link.  That's not how stimuli works.  First the stimuli, then the response.  If you'd claimed that a MMA trained fighter might pause or hesitate during a "real fight" if someone yelled "BREAK!!" with a referee tone (or whatever) or that they might pause or hesitate if he heard a bell ring, I'd probably agree.  But your claim seems to be running off of some pretty broad assumptions.
> 
> Tuesday night while teaching Tomahawk I jammed my left thumb so bad that I had an adrenal dump on it and the queezy reaction when I eventually finally felt the pain.  Had to lay down (about 5 min after the fight).  When I taught grip fighting the next night at judo, I couldn't use my left hand (or even open a frigg'n twist cap).  I would have had to Off Hand pistol because no way I could have gotten a solid Isosceles, never mind a Weaver, and a rifle would have been, umm... "challenging."
> 
> Are you a "dead eyes" guy?  I've only hit dead eyes a couple of times.  I know guys who almost can't seem to *not* go dead eyes.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Sorry if you missed my edit, I actually assumed you knew what the effects were of a dump, so I added "not you" in ( )

My main point is to say that this is how it works for me.  Is it because I am on the down hill slope to 50 and have worn BDU and Blue since 1991 and looking at what the body does in fight or flight and how/when it effects me?  I can only say in a controlled environment I don't get the dump...UNTIL I feel actually real pain as I stated.  You Jammed your thumb teaching a tomahawk I have my hand basically crushed between the middle and index finger with a training knife during sparing.

I will be honest the term "dead eyes" has many meaning to me, a good shot, a synonym for the 1000 yard stare and more so I am uncertain how to answer it.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> A video of reflexive fire...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sight picture, cheap well etc, all the same.  The only difference is that you are in a split second challenged on what targets to shoot at.  It is good training but the mechanics of shooting have not changed.  This is just part of advanced marksmanship which challenges your reactions to an immediate threat.


Actually, I'd argue that it *is* different.  This reflexive fire technique relies on the use of the holo.  That allows the shooter to focus on the target.  This is dramatically different from classic Sight Picture and Sight Alignment which teach to focus on the front sight.  Focusing on the target instead of the front sight is a standard element of Instinctive Shooting methods, many of which not only eschewed the use of sights but sometimes even removed or obscured the sights making them impossible to use (ref. the U.S. Army "Quick Kill" method and the Col. Charles Askins pistol "point shooting" method).

The red dot/holo sight allows a perfect convergence of sighted and Instinctive methods by both allowing the shooter to focus on the target/threat (which is a natural tendency during adrenal dump) and still be able to use a "sight" because the dot appears to project on top of the threat.

So, yes, I'd argue that Reflexive Fire is different from traditional rifle shooting, closer to skeet with a shotty if you wanted to compare it to something that still has "sights," I'd say.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> I see it most often in ex-mil.  It's the training and doesn't require buddies to be with you, only the right stimulus to initiate it.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Oh ex-mil have it and it kicks in.  However I and other LEOs have had to do ourselves.  It doesn't address if you are the only guy in bar fight, waiting for back up or addressing use of force.  The last bit is so important.  

True story, in the police academy, doing a simulated felony car stop.  I am the cop on the passenger side.  The right front passenger of the car bails and runs, I immediately track, shoot, return to the car which has three occupants.  All the passenger did was run... Robo-droid is BAD!!!!!!!! Lol


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Sorry if you missed my edit, I actually assumed you knew what the effects were of a dump, so I added "not you" in ( )


Dang.  Sorry.  It's one of the dangers of keeping on top of a thread.  Don't worry, I have to go do real work soon.  



> My main point is to say that this is how it works for me.  Is it because I am on the down hill slope to 50 and have worn BDU and Blue since 1991 and looking at what the body does in fight or flight and how/when it effects me?  I can only say in a controlled environment I don't get the dump...UNTIL I feel actually real pain as I stated.


I have friends who actually can't get  worked up into a fight until after they've taken a good shot.



> You Jammed your thumb teaching a tomahawk I have my hand basically crushed between the middle and index finger with a training knife during sparing.


Just a very recent example of understanding.  Probably the best example, gone by a few years now, was when I broke my foot in judo and stayed on the mat anyway.  I swore that it "didn't hurt bad enough" to be busted.  Just a deep bruise or something, right?  Wrong.  <sigh>  



> I will be honest the term "dead eyes" has many meaning to me, a good shot, a synonym for the 1000 yard stare and more so I am uncertain how to answer it.


Detached robo-droid executing the "kill protocol" on autopilot.  I see it commonly in ex-mil, some "natural fighters," but very rarely in "trained martial artists."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Robo-droid is BAD!!!!!!!! Lol


Well, neither good nor bad.  It is incapable of doing anything other than following programming.  
And it tends to follow the most reinforced programming it has.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Actually, I'd argue that it *is* different.  This reflexive fire technique relies on the use of the holo.  That allows the shooter to focus on the target.  This is dramatically different from classic Sight Picture and Sight Alignment which teach to focus on the front sight.  Focusing on the target instead of the front sight is a standard element of Instinctive Shooting methods, many of which not only eschewed the use of sights but sometimes even removed or obscured the sights making them impossible to use (ref. the U.S. Army "Quick Kill" method and the Col. Charles Askins pistol "point shooting" method).
> 
> The red dot/holo sight allows a perfect convergence of sighted and Instinctive methods by both allowing the shooter to focus on the target/threat (which is a natural tendency during adrenal dump) and still be able to use a "sight" because the dot appears to project on top of the threat.
> 
> So, yes, I'd argue that Reflexive Fire is different from traditional rifle shooting, closer to skeet with a shotty if you wanted to compare it to something that still has "sights," I'd say.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I can see that argument, but getting a sight picture, even with iron sights if it is "your" weapon (meaning zeroed for you stock adjusted etc) is just subconscious for me and those sights were the ONLY sights when I was in.  It simply becomes second nature that when that stock it at your cheek the sight is at your eye.  Part of the purpose of that drill is actually to make that second nature, but the is just again, my personal experience because that is what such drills did for me.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Well, neither good nor bad.  It is incapable of doing anything other than following programming.
> And it tends to follow the most reinforced programming it has.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



On Dead Eyes, I can say when I was in the service, yeah it was there but that world is different than the civilian world.  When I said "robot droid is bad" I meant as a default.  Robo-Droid being a default in a bonafide combat zone?  That is acceptable.  While enforcing laws in a free society, it isnt because while you need to act you need to be able to justify it legally so you have to go from Robo-droid, who does just what he is programmed to do to say Spock or Data who are logic/fact drive BUT still make an actual decision.  Does that make sense?


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> On Dead Eyes, I can say when I was in the service, yeah it was there but that world is different than the civilian world.  When I said "robot droid is bad" I meant as a default.  Robo-Droid being a default in a bonafide combat zone?  That is acceptable.  While enforcing laws in a free society, it isnt because while you need to act you need to be able to justify it legally so you have to go from Robo-droid, who does just what he is programmed to do to say Spock or Data who are logic/fact drive BUT still make an actual decision.  Does that make sense?


Yup.

LEO goals are different from that of either non-LEO self defense or that of the military.

I wrote an article about it, in fact.  

Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be op

I wrote it mostly because I got tired of people telling me that they are ex-mil, ex-cop, or have trained with/to the standards of.  Well, that's useful, but, as you illustrate, popping into robo-droid and peppering a fleeing vehicle isn't really a legally viable affirmative defense for a claim of "self defense."  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> You Jammed your thumb teaching a tomahawk


I'm beginning to think it's a minor sprain.

I'm too stubborn to go to the doc.  I'll tape the fragg'n thing.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear

lklawson said:


> Oh, I don't know about that.  Some broad training methodologies intended to teach certain generalized ("universal") fighting "skills" can be applied in nearly every martial system, or even culture.  There are just some things that are "universal" problems or pitfalls that fighters must somehow be able to conquer.  Almost all of these are related to human adrenal dump; "fight or flight" response.  Some of it is related to the fact that humans are just really really bad at making logical decisions, even simple binary decisions, when under adrenal dump.  A successful "fighting" or (gads) "Combat" martial art must include methods for addressing this.
> 
> I've found that there appears to be two "solutions" to achieving these results.
> 
> First is the concept of controlling the mindset so that adrenal dump either doesn't happen or is controlled in such a way as to have minimized physiological impact.  I believe that this is one of the reasons that the Japanese developed the concepts of zanshin and mushin.  That relaxed, semi-meditative-like state of detached, peaceful state awareness empty of anger, fear, or, to a degree, even aggression.  Learning how to enter that state takes years usually of dedicated practice and a good instructor but when it works, it works really well.  Another method along these lines is a process head-shrinkers call "desensitization."  This is a process where the troubling "stimulation" has occurred sooooo many times to you that it no longer bothers you at all.  It's the same method used to treat people with phobias and teach Nazi death-camp guards that it's OK.  When applied to a violent encounter, constant, repeated exposures to the violence, including (especially) doling out the violence, no longer creates the adrenal dump/fight-or-flight which puts you in a very narrow mental loop and often causes untrained people to freeze.  With sufficient desensitization, "it's just another day at the office, breaking stuff off of people, I wonder what's for dinner? <crunch>"  Desensitization also takes a great deal of time to affect, multiple, repeated exposures.
> 
> The second concept is now commonly used by many militaries of the world, including the U.S. military.  Harness the adrenal dump response.  This focuses on the "fight" part of "flight-or-fight."  During adrenal dump, people sort of go into an automated loop.  They do exactly, and often *ONLY*, what they've trained to do.  I call this "robo-droid."  I recall seeing video of a man trying to use a pistol for self defense and failing.  He pulls the trigger over and over and the gun does nothing.  It won't fire.  Turns out he had the safety on.  His training had never included flicking off the safety as part of his defensive drills so when adrenal dump hit, his robo-droid followed its programing by pointing and pressing the trigger.  Robo-droid is pretty much just a set of programs, following a script which it is incapable of deviating from.  Much of military combat training is now focused on programming robo-droid on how to react.  Many people who enter this state report that there is sort of a run-up to it of very heightened fear or anger and then a kind of "going dead" detached feeling while their body does very violent things, outside of their control.  A little like being a tourist riding along inside your body while a robot takes over.  From the outside, people viewing it often report that all emotion drains from the persons face or that their eyes go dead and there's a feel of impending violence balanced on a knive's edge.  This isn't an entirely new concept, of course.  Fighters have been training to use the "combat rage" for as long as humans have been fighting.  There's some evidence, for instance, that the semi-legendary Berzerkers operated this way.  (On a side note, if you see someone in the run-up to a fight and you can almost literally see their eyes "go dead," GTFO right now!  crap's about to hit the fan.)
> 
> Any of these general training methodologies for dealing with fight-or-flight can be applied to almost any martial arts training or system from boxing, to grappling, to swordfighting, all the way up through modern firearms.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yes there are going to be common elements that separate good training ftom bad.

Universal fighting skills is in part my point. 

And these will run from black and white ideas.  That some training is terrible to a grey area that some training is situational to both methods have merit

Sport of course faces the same adrenaline issues.  And in general are resolved the same way.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Oh, I don't know about that.  Some broad training methodologies intended to teach certain generalized ("universal") fighting "skills" can be applied in nearly every martial system, or even culture.



This is actually my point.  It may simply be my manner of thinking, I am very compartmentalized in that respect.  So, as an example, I study WC and Kali, that is my Martial Art.  Since I first learned scanning techniques (to counter tunnel vision) and the concept of muscle memory, both to counter the effects of an Adrenalin Dump, during firearms training at Ft. Knox many moons ago, I don't see that as part of my Martial Art, I see it as part of me.  

The same with "Tactical Breathing" but what my Aikido Sensei called "Ki Breathing" when I started training after I left active duty.  I use it all the time at work in the event an adrenaline dump simply MIGHT happen or to help control it upon sudden onset (you would be surprised that simply hearing a shout on the radio of "get me other units now!!!" From a familiar voice can trigger the dump).  Again though since I use these techniques in some many different ways out side of martial arts (example, simply driving a car under stress) I see them as "person skills" vs "martial arts skills".


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> I'm beginning to think it's a minor sprain.
> 
> I'm too stubborn to go to the doc.  I'll tape the fragg'n thing.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Oh I am too for off the job stuff, on the job I always fill out that form though just in case a week later I am still like "yeah Sgt, I can't really get my gun out of the holster" like I did two years ago when I slammed my elbow into concrete dropping to the prone like I was on grass." Yeah I was stupid. Lol


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Yup.
> 
> LEO goals are different from that of either non-LEO self defense or that of the military.
> 
> I wrote an article about it, in fact.
> 
> Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be op
> 
> I wrote it mostly because I got tired of people telling me that they are ex-mil, ex-cop, or have trained with/to the standards of.  Well, that's useful, but, as you illustrate, popping into robo-droid and peppering a fleeing vehicle isn't really a legally viable affirmative defense for a claim of "self defense."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Good article.  You have no idea how often at work I have had to explain to someone "no you can't shoot the guy for being on your lawn, you have to be able to articulate a clear belief you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury.  This is a lot easier to do if the guy is in your house BUT you better shoot him in the chest.  If you shoot him in the back, just for being in your house, you are probably screwed."

Then they say "cops shoot fleeing people" and I say "Google Tennessee v Garner." We can only do that if we can articulate that the danger to the public in letting the suspect escape outweighs other concerns.  So fleeing thief?  No.  Guy fleeing a shooting with the gun still in his hand? Yes."


----------



## Tez3

Juany118 said:


> Good article.  *You have no idea how often at work I have had to explain to someone "no you can't shoot the guy for being on your lawn, you have to be able to articulate a clear belief you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury.  This is a lot easier to do if the guy is in your house BUT you better shoot him in the chest.  If you shoot him in the back, just for being in your house, you are probably screwed."*
> 
> Then they say "cops shoot fleeing people" and I say "Google Tennessee v Garner." We can only do that if we can articulate that the danger to the public in letting the suspect escape outweighs other concerns.  So fleeing thief?  No.  Guy fleeing a shooting with the gun still in his hand? Yes."



We have a rather famous case here that people like to use to say that we need guns/our justice system is wrong etc but they have failed to look at the facts of the case. The media headlines were 'man who shot and killed burglar in his house is sent to prison', cue hysteria. I've see foreign media also report this notably in the US and heard it said how we are handicapped from not being able to have guns. However the real facts, as anyone can see from the court reports was that this man had booby trapped his house and had enticed two lads to his house. When they'd entered it and sussed out it was a trap he shot one of them in the back killing him as he ran down the garden path. The householder also had illegal unregistered shotguns and had threatened to kill his brother not long before. He had a record of threatening behaviour.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> We have a rather famous case here that people like to use to say that we need guns/our justice system is wrong etc but they have failed to look at the facts of the case. The media headlines were 'man who shot and killed burglar in his house is sent to prison', cue hysteria. I've see foreign media also report this notably in the US and heard it said how we are handicapped from not being able to have guns. However the real facts, as anyone can see from the court reports was that this man had booby trapped his house and had enticed two lads to his house. When they'd entered it and sussed out it was a trap he shot one of them in the back killing him as he ran down the garden path. The householder also had illegal unregistered shotguns and had threatened to kill his brother not long before. He had a record of threatening behaviour.



Kinda like this one...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/29/minnesota-homeowner-kills-teens/8480047/


----------



## moonhill99

abe_tz said:


> What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.



Yea I read that Wing Chun can also help with boxing and kenpo karate too.

That with Wing Chun you will have really good eye to eye coordination and really fast speed striking.

And also Wing Chun will conditional you when the bad guy is punching you and or swinging at you really fast that you are not going to freak out. Like wow he is so fast what do I do.......

And last is Wing Chun will conditional you when bad guy is fighting you that he is so close to you that he is like almost at you face you not going to freak out.


----------



## Juany118

moonhill99 said:


> Yea I read that Wing Chun can also help with boxing and kenpo karate too.
> 
> That with Wing Chun you will have really good eye to eye coordination and really fast speed striking.
> 
> And also Wing Chun will conditional you when the bad guy is punching you and or swinging at you really fast that you are not going to freak out. Like wow he is so fast what do I do.......
> 
> And last is Wing Chun will conditional you when bad guy is fighting you that he is so close to you that he is like almost at you face you not going to freak out.




Just one thing WC does indeed require good hand eye coordination BUT there is one other thing that it teaches that is more important for that speed, imo.

It teaches touch sensitivity.  You shouldn't be "chasing the hands" when you fight.  Basically while you are fighting, naturally when you deflect an incoming attack you contact it.  You know where that limb is and when it pulls away, if you have trained yourself to think this way, you know which way it's going.

Did they pull it back?  Drop it down? Raise it?  Are they still trying to push through?  This is what accounts for the ability to appear so fast because once the fight starts, your eyes are concerned about the opponent's center (where we will attack) and the next attack coming, but the attacks we have already stopped, we track via feel not looking. 

Plus there is an element that my Sifu refers to his this "don't be afraid to be "touched", just don't let them get a real solid hit as you close in".  You basically have to be willing to hang your butt out a little bit and risk it being shot off.

When you combine these things together and you see the key thing about WC, the defenses are designed around offense.  They aren't there to stop an enemy's attack, they are their to open the enemy up for your attacks.  This is what makes WC so fast, the defense is simply a means to an end, the end being to aggressively attack the enemy and, tbh end the fight as quickly and brutally as possible.

I only point the last bit out because some Martial Arts do not share this attitude and I have seen it cause issues, even confusion among some students.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Just one thing WC does indeed require good hand eye coordination BUT there is one other thing that it teaches that is more important for that speed, imo.
> 
> It teaches touch sensitivity.  You shouldn't be "chasing the hands" when you fight.  Basically while you are fighting, naturally when you deflect an incoming attack you contact it.  You know where that limb is and when it pulls away, if you have trained yourself to think this way, you know which way it's going.
> 
> Did they pull it back?  Drop it down? Raise it?  Are they still trying to push through?  This is what accounts for the ability to appear so fast because once the fight starts, your eyes are concerned about the opponent's center (where we will attack) and the next attack coming, but the attacks we have already stopped, we track via feel not looking.
> 
> Plus there is an element that my Sifu refers to his this "don't be afraid to be "touched", just don't let them get a real solid hit as you close in".  You basically have to be willing to hang your butt out a little bit and risk it being shot off.
> 
> When you combine these things together and you see the key thing about WC, the defenses are designed around offense.  They aren't there to stop an enemy's attack, they are their to open the enemy up for your attacks.  This is what makes WC so fast, the defense is simply a means to an end, the end being to aggressively attack the enemy and, tbh end the fight as quickly and brutally as possible.
> 
> I only point the last bit out because some Martial Arts do not share this attitude and I have seen it cause issues, even confusion among some students.



I thought you relied on rule breaking and deadly tactics to get your system over the line.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> I thought you relied on rule breaking and deadly tactics to get your system over the line.



Hey look another strawman argument.  The attitude and general rules that you may or may not recognize are independent (or should be) of what art you chose to learn, in terms of a rl self defense system. 

You should pick one suited to your physical attributes and mind set.  There are arts which suit the more powerful, the more flexible, the more swift.  There are arts that suit the more aggressive or the more patient in a fight.  There are ones that suit those who have more or less patience when it comes to the pace of instruction etc.

These things things are what my post referred to so that the poster I was responding to would have a better idea, if they were considering studying WC, if it was "right for them." The stuff you note comes into play AFTER you have picked the one right for you and started learning it.

The first step of it being "the fighter and not the art" is making sure the art and the fight "fit" with each other.  Example I would not make a good boxer.  My body type and metabolism make it hard, if not impossible, to gain a lot of muscle.  So I pick arts that are more about speed, deflection vs hard blocks, strategy al la the centerline theory of WC and the defang the snake concept of Kali etc.  Martial Arts with an over reliance on muscle for raw power I would fail at.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Hey look another strawman argument.  The attitude and general rules that you may or may not recognize are independent (or should be) of what art you chose to learn, in terms of a rl self defense system.
> 
> You should pick one suited to your physical attributes and mind set.  There are arts which suit the more powerful, the more flexible, the more swift.  There are arts that suit the more aggressive or the more patient in a fight.  There are ones that suit those who have more or less patience when it comes to the pace of instruction etc.
> 
> These things things are what my post referred to so that the poster I was responding to would have a better idea, if they were considering studying WC, if it was "right for them." The stuff you note comes into play AFTER you have picked the one right for you and started learning it.
> 
> The first step of it being "the fighter and not the art" is making sure the art and the fight "fit" with each other.  Example I would not make a good boxer.  My body type and metabolism make it hard, if not impossible, to gain a lot of muscle.  So I pick arts that are more about speed, deflection vs hard blocks, strategy al la the centerline theory of WC and the defang the snake concept of Kali etc.  Martial Arts with an over reliance on muscle for raw power I would fail at.



Sorry.  Not sure how to take this post seriously. 

You do realize that you should be able to take your martial art and then apply it to your body type? 

And that deflection,speed,tactics and even using technique to maximise strength is not exactly a wing chun only concept.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Sorry.  Not sure how to take this post seriously.
> 
> You do realize that you should be able to take your martial art and then apply it to your body type?
> 
> And that deflection,speed,tactics and even using technique to maximise strength is not exactly a wing chun only concept.



There are limits.  Boxing is one as I stated.  It will work fine if I am in a "weight class" but if I am fighting someone "above" my class, who also knows how to fight, there will be "issues".  The same applies to certain types of wrestling.  

You also ignore the mindset issue.  Some people are simply better suited to martial arts that reward patience over aggression.  Aikido is a perfect example of this.  If you can't overcome your aggression, and some can't, many styles of Aikido are probably not the art for you.  Conversely, if you can't adopt the aggression and "let your butt hang out and risk taking a hit" attitudes of WC, then WC is not for you.  There are limits to how far you can change ones nature in this regard without completely being broken down (one of the main purposes of military basic training, to break down who you were so they can build, as Kirk called, "Robo-droid".)

I also understand those concepts you note aren't exclusive to WC but WC heavily relies on them more than other arts.  As an example of the use of speed, chain punching.  Some MAs, rely on individually powerful blows, yes delivered with speed and precision but not in the way WC does.  The best way I e heard the WC theory described, in layman's terms, is that it is like a battering ram, repeatedly striking a door over and over again in rapid succession to take it down.  I don't know of many other arts that actively adopt this principle.  Additionally how you throw your punches in WC is very different than most other arts to maximize the use of structure and speed to minimize the need for strength (though of course strength is always a benefit.)

Also when I referred to technique I was referring specifically to how they relate and work with the centerline theory, which related to how you punch as I mentioned above.  

I might have a touch of the anal retentive here but a MA imo is like a man's suit.  I can wear a suit with broad shoulders and even have it tailored but since I have narrow shoulders and an overall slim build, it will never look "quite right." On the other hand, "slim" and "tailored" fit suits fit me MUCH better.  With shoes, I can wear shoes fitted for wider feet and a flatter foot and lace em tight but they don't look not feel quite right.  However medium and narrow width with a higher arch (or insert) and they look and feel "just right."


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> There are limits.  Boxing is one as I stated.  It will work fine if I am in a "weight class" but if I am fighting someone "above" my class, who also knows how to fight, there will be "issues".  The same applies to certain types of wrestling.
> 
> You also ignore the mindset issue.  Some people are simply better suited to martial arts that reward patience over aggression.  Aikido is a perfect example of this.  If you can't overcome your aggression, and some can't, many styles of Aikido are probably not the art for you.  Conversely, if you can't adopt the aggression and "let your butt hang out and risk taking a hit" attitudes of WC, then WC is not for you.  There are limits to how far you can change ones nature in this regard without completely being broken down (one of the main purposes of military basic training, to break down who you were so they can build, as Kirk called, "Robo-droid".)
> 
> I also understand those concepts you note aren't exclusive to WC but WC heavily relies on them more than other arts.  As an example of the use of speed, chain punching.  Some MAs, rely on individually powerful blows, yes delivered with speed and precision but not in the way WC does.  The best way I e heard the WC theory described, in layman's terms, is that it is like a battering ram, repeatedly striking a door over and over again in rapid succession to take it down.  I don't know of many other arts that actively adopt this principle.  Additionally how you throw your punches in WC is very different than most other arts to maximize the use of structure and speed to minimize the need for strength (though of course strength is always a benefit.)
> 
> Also when I referred to technique I was referring specifically to how they relate and work with the centerline theory, which related to how you punch as I mentioned above.
> 
> I might have a touch of the anal retentive here but a MA imo is like a man's suit.  I can wear a suit with broad shoulders and even have it tailored but since I have narrow shoulders and an overall slim build, it will never look "quite right." On the other hand, "slim" and "tailored" fit suits fit me MUCH better.  With shoes, I can wear shoes fitted for wider feet and a flatter foot and lace em tight but they don't look not feel quite right.  However medium and narrow width with a higher arch (or insert) and they look and feel "just right."



See i would prefer a system that accomidates different body types.  Ranges and strategys.

  At the very least because then i am exposed to different body types ranges and strategys in training.

None of our fighters train within their weight class so they can develop skills against different people. We dont even train strictly within our own martial arts. 

If your style is only suited to One range.  One set of tactics one personality type and so on.  That is where you will become comfortable.

Which is exactly the same issue as over sportifying.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> If your style is only suited to One range.  One set of tactics one personality type and so on.  That is where you will become comfortable.


Agree! IMO, it's very difficult to maintain in punching range. Unless you just keep moving back, if you move in and your opponent also moves in at the same time, that punching range will become clinch range within 1/2 second.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! IMO, it's very difficult to maintain in punching range. Unless you just keep moving back, if you move in and your opponent also moves in at the same time, that punching range will become clinch range within 1/2 second.



And not even just punching rage.  But a more precise position again.  So the other guy could also step out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> And not even just punching rage.  But a more precise position again.  So the other guy could also step out.


IMO, if I attack you, you dodge. You attack me, I dodge. The fight will last for a long time. But when your opponent attacks you and you attack him at the same time, both won't have chance to "step out". When that happen, the following outcome could happen:

1. A knocks B out.
2. A and B both knock out on each other,
3. Clinch has been created.

The fight can end quickly. I like this kind of strategy. This is why I don't believe it's that easy to maintain "range".


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> See i would prefer a system that accomidates different body types.  Ranges and strategys.
> 
> At the very least because then i am exposed to different body types ranges and strategys in training.
> 
> None of our fighters train within their weight class so they can develop skills against different people. We dont even train strictly within our own martial arts.
> 
> If your style is only suited to One range.  One set of tactics one personality type and so on.  That is where you will become comfortable.
> 
> Which is exactly the same issue as over sportifying.



Well first, I said nothing about ranges.  WC has long range in the form or kicks, as an example, as does Inosanto Kali.  The idea WC has only one range is a myth.

I explained in the "vs boxer thread" why WC's hand techniques are so close.  That comes not from a "we want to fight really close" but rather, "because our strikes gain a large amount of their power from a structure (which is torso up right)that is less reliant on raw strength, that structure requires being closer than other fighting styles." Also, since it was designed with "smaller" people fighting "larger" people in mind it uses the centerline theory.  However still kicks, still long range.

Kali and it's "defang the snake" concept actually comes from the fact that it is different than a lot of other arts.  Many MA, not all but many, start with open hand techniques then teach a weapon or two later.  Kali teaches weapons and open hand in tandem out of the gate.  It also teaches multiple weapons and weapon techniques.  Single stick, sword and dagger, dual sticks, swords and daggers, sword or stick paired with  dagger, etc.  It also evolved, due to the Spanish Conquest, to fight people wearing metal breast plates and helms.  This is where the "defang the snake" concept comes in.  An opponent whose limbs you have disabled can't fight you however this does not preclude strikes to the body or head, you can do this as well the key concept simply has its proper place.

This brings about another reason for choosing a Martial art, why are you learning martial arts?  So in my case why seek a school that teach both WC and Kali?

1. As I said I have issues "bulking up." Even in my 20s eating like a champ and pumping iron everyday I was not in the field on maneuvers I just don't gain weight easy.  I get stronger, more ripped, but I just can't put on weight beyond a certain point so I plateau.  I am 5'11" and have never broken 175 lbs doing things the "natural" way.  A Doctor gave me a medical reason why that went over my head but it is what it is.  As such I looked for arts suited for "smaller" people. Both fit the bill. 

2. In the town I work I often find myself in old homes split into multi unit dwellings (YAY Section 8 housing). As such I have fought in VERY close quarters (the hallways in such structures can be TIGHT), something both arts excel with open hand. 

3. Next the head is a "red zone" in terms of USA Law Enforcement standards, which means unless I am confronted with serious force, near lethal basically, I can't strike it.  So the Kali "defang the snake" theory fits in perfectly.  The joints are "just" yellow zones and so I have a lot more wiggle room to justify attacking them.

4. Stick/sword training.  I carry a baton and the only difference between a Kali rattan stick/machete and my baton is 1 inch.

So these arts are very well suited to my morphology and specific purposes. But again, one of your points, range, is something I never raised.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! IMO, it's very difficult to maintain in punching range. Unless you just keep moving back, if you move in and your opponent also moves in at the same time, that punching range will become clinch range within 1/2 second.



Well as I noted above I have no clue where the "range" issue came from.  In another thread, which bear apparently forgot, he asked what I meant when I said that WC punches are thrown from a shorter range than boxers (feel free to visithttp://www.martialtalk.com/threads/fighting-a-boxer-in-wing-chun.120914/).  This isn't to say any of the arts I refer don't have long range, only that to utilize strikes in WC, you need to be closer than a boxer because of the way the strikes generate power in the system.  WC also has grappling and trapping as well.  Tbh I don't know if bear was simply doing what he sometimes does, cherry pick, or if he was just throwing in another strawman because all I said was this.

"A person should chose his/her martial art based on the art that best suits his/her natural physical talents, mind set and personality and finally their purpose."

So my question would be this.  Which makes more sense?  The above or choosing a Martial Art that we have to force ourselves to fit?


----------



## Steve

just checking... Are you saying that boxing isn't a suitable art for a small person? 

Can you give some other examples of MA styles you believe are ill suited for people who are as you describe yourself (5'11" and a lean, strong 175 lbs).  I'm struggling to think of any style that is reliant upon bulking up other than maybe sumo.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> just checking... Are you saying that boxing isn't a suitable art for a small person?
> 
> Can you give some other examples of MA styles you believe are ill suited for people who are as you describe yourself (5'11" and a lean, strong 175 lbs).  I'm struggling to think of any style that is reliant upon bulking up other than maybe sumo.



No I am not.  Btw 175 was my bulkiest, I am back down bouncing between 165 and 170 because I TRX instead of paying for a gym membership .  There are no Martial Arts that completely I'll suit a specific weight/size strength (I specify size/strength because there are some that, imo, require stupid levels of flexibility lol).  The issue rises when you consider who you face.

What I am saying is that, in my job, I have had to deal with guys in the 190-200 + range who did prison time.  It is no exaggeration to say that in prison they often feel they have little else to do but pump iron and train in boxing, how to defeat different "standard" LEO restraint techniques etc (the small city of 25,000 I work in has a higher per capita crime rate than the City of Philadelphia). 

Boxing is a dang effective art, but it's effectiveness is influenced by weight/strength more than some other arts.  Hence weight classes in competition.  I studied Aikido before I became an Officer and it definitely made a difference against bigger, stronger opponents, but I had some interesting experiences in narrow hallways and small spaces that made me see limitations.  

I still personally practice Aikido it but I decided that I needed to study an Art(s) that were not as compromised by narrow small spaces AND still didn't rely as much on muscle strength and size so I could still address the, theoretical, equally skilled bigger and stronger individual.

I have an INSANE respect for boxers, it's why I study what I do.  They don't only train to dish out punishment but also to take it.  I am not a fool.  I know if I was a boxer and went against that 190-200 lbs boxer who is as well trained, or even just a little less, he would clean my clock.  So I chose arts that allow me to a degree (there are limits) to limit the advantage superior strength/size grant. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## Steve

Frankly, no.  It makes no sense to me at all.   i don't understand how you can say size and strength are factors in boxing but not in aikido.   You're so far away from what makes sense to me you may as well be on a different planet.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Frankly, no.  It makes no sense to me at all.   i don't understand how you can say size and strength are factors in boxing but not in aikido.   You're so far away from what makes sense to me you may as well be on a different planet.



First what you are saying then is that an equally skilled 5'11" 170 lbs boxer has an even chance of beating a 6"3" 200 lbs boxer?  Not really.

ultimately though I think you don't  understand Aikido or arts that use similar principles.  The techniques in Aikido are specifically designed to use the attackers force so you can apply a control lock of some sort or simply launch them to the ground.  It is not about using physical strength, it is almost entirely about timing and using physics.  To paraphrase the O-Sensei, "never be so rude as to get in the way of you opponent. Instead step aside and help them upon their way." Is strength a benefit?  Of course it is, but some, like boxing have a greater reliance on size and strength than others.  The entire point of weight classes in boxing is to compensate for this fact.

Lets get away from that for a minute though.  Think simple principles of physics, in this case leverage.  You have a stronger person and a weaker person.  They both face a 100 lbs block.  The stronger person goes over and simply moves the block.  The weaker person, on their own, can't move it BUT give them a lever and a fulcrum and they can.

Many MA's are based on and designed around the principles of physics.  The concept of using leverage and/or structure to compensate for a lack of relative size and strength.  There are indeed limits to the compensation but they are simply facts based on physics that most learn in high school.  So when Aikido meets boxing, if the Aikido practitioner is smaller it is FAR less of a factor than if the smaller boxer tackles the bigger boxer...

Again this is assuming equal skill.  This is simply the way of martial arts.  Different martial arts focus on different principles of biomechanics and physics.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> The techniques in Aikido are specifically designed to use the attackers force so you can apply a control lock of some sort or simply launch them to the ground.  It is not about using physical strength, it is almost entirely about timing and using physics.


This is the main issue for MA systems such as Aikido, Taiji, Judo, and ... When you try to borrow your opponent's force, your opponent also tries to borrow your force. IMO, you have to give before you can take. The more fore that you can give, the more force that you can borrow back.

If you (general YOU) always stay home and wait for you girl to call you, you will never be able to find a wife.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the main issue for MA systems such as Aikido, Taiji, Judo, and ... When you try to borrow your opponent's force, your opponent also tries to borrow your force. IMO, you have to give before you can take. The more fore that you can give, the more force that you can borrow back.
> 
> If you (general YOU) always stay home and wait for you girl to call you, you will never be able to find a wife.



That is why timing is VITAL in combative Aikido (I can't speak for the others.) It's not just a matter of using their force but WHEN you chose to do so.  Sometimes you are just getting the fff out of the way and other times, once you get a hand on, moving in since they expect you to kinda let them glide last etc.  There are basically two general schools of Aikido, one that sees Aikido as more of a spiritual art (the one you seem to refer to) and the one that was closer to the root art founded in Jujutsu.

That said my main point is this.  I will use WC as the example.  Strikes do not come from the shoulder with a fair amount of waist rotation.  The punches are thrown with the elbow down and starting at the heart, and your mental focal point is the elbow, as you step in, with the proper overall body structure.  As such your punch, in essence starts from the ground.  It uses principles of physics to compensate for lower relative strength.  The defenses are the same.  There are no "classic" blocks like I learned when studying Ryushinan Karate.  They are all based on deflecting attacks so you never meet force with force.  Again, so a smaller person can fight a larger person.

There are limits of course but the ultimate point is that some arts are simply not suited to all body sizes.   If you must, as I must, plan on dealing with skilled opponents above your "weight class" some arts are simply better or worse suited.  

Btw this isn't simply theory on my part.  I looked at the theories of the various arts when I got out of the Army (basically Boxing and Judo trainings)  I have studied Aikido between wearing green and blue.  Since wearing blue, Ryushinan Karate, Krav Maga, Wing Chun and Kali.  Anecdotal? One might say that if MA scholars also did not say these principles have existed for centuries so I just see my 20 years of experience as proof of concept created by others far wiser than I.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> That is why timing is VITAL in combative Aikido ...


Even timing, you still have to wait for your opponent to attack you.

1. I don't like to train "how to respond to my opponent's attack".
2. I like to train "how to respond my opponent's respond when I attack him".

In the following clip, the long hair guy fits in this strategy "act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive".


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even timing, you still have to wait for your opponent to attack you.
> 
> 1. I don't like to train "how to respond to my opponent's attack".
> 2. I like to train "how to respond my opponent's respond when I attack him".
> 
> In the following clip, the long hair guy fits in this strategy "act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive".



And I get that.  That is why I said it isn't just about the body but also about what fits a practitioners mind set and personality as well.  I even specifically noted patience.  Some people are more suited for responding to the opponent al la Aikido.  

Different arts balance these dynamics in different ways and it is that balance and looking at yourself honestly, in the different lights of the arts, that makes the difference imo.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> First what you are saying then is that an equally skilled 5'11" 170 lbs boxer has an even chance of beating a 6"3" 200 lbs boxer?  Not really.
> 
> ultimately though I think you don't  understand Aikido or arts that use similar principles.  The techniques in Aikido are specifically designed to use the attackers force so you can apply a control lock of some sort or simply launch them to the ground.  It is not about using physical strength, it is almost entirely about timing and using physics.  To paraphrase the O-Sensei, "never be so rude as to get in the way of you opponent. Instead step aside and help them upon their way." Is strength a benefit?  Of course it is, but some, like boxing have a greater reliance on size and strength than others.  The entire point of weight classes in boxing is to compensate for this fact.
> 
> Lets get away from that for a minute though.  Think simple principles of physics, in this case leverage.  You have a stronger person and a weaker person.  They both face a 100 lbs block.  The stronger person goes over and simply moves the block.  The weaker person, on their own, can't move it BUT give them a lever and a fulcrum and they can.
> 
> Many MA's are based on and designed around the principles of physics.  The concept of using leverage and/or structure to compensate for a lack of relative size and strength.  There are indeed limits to the compensation but they are simply facts based on physics that most learn in high school.  So when Aikido meets boxing, if the Aikido practitioner is smaller it is FAR less of a factor than if the smaller boxer tackles the bigger boxer...
> 
> Again this is assuming equal skill.  This is simply the way of martial arts.  Different martial arts focus on different principles of biomechanics and physics.


Yeah, you're right.  BJJ is all about brute strength.   Physics, leverage and technique don't come into play at all.  

Here's the thing.  I think where skill is equal, size and strength matter in every case, regardless of style.  Aikido, Bjj, boxing, whatever.   

Other physical attributes also matter.  Athleticism, for example.  Regardless of the ma in which you train.

And I also think that training against multiple body types is a great idea regardless of style.


----------



## Steve

Tyson Fury is over 200 lbs.  Guillermo Rigondeaux is under 130 lbs.  What do Tyson Fury and Guillermo Rigondeaux have in common?  They're both elite level boxers.

Daniel Cormier fights in the UFC at 205 lbs.  Demetrious (Mighty Mouse) Johnson fights at 135 lbs.  What do Daniel Cormier and Mighty Mouse Johnson have in common?  They're both elite level mixed martial artists.

Kim Tae-hun earned the gold medal at the 2015 Chelyabinsk TKD championships in the sub-54kg bracket (that's about 119 lbs).  At the same competition, a guy named Dmitriy Shokin won gold in the +87kg bracket (that's over ~192 lbs).  They both excel in TKD.

Bruno Malfacine and Marcus Almeida in men's BJJ.  Are you seeing a pattern?  These styles are being performed at an elite level by people who are small and people who are big.  People who are fast and people who are powerful.

The specious line of reasoning you're suggesting here is to try and correlate these competitive results with real world self defense, and seem to be suggesting that a correctly executed punch by the small guy will not work on a big guy.

You also seem to be asserting the opposite, which is that somehow, miraculously, the 120 lbs guy will be able to wristlock the 200 lbs guy because Aikido.

What's another thing that all those guys above have in common? They could, any one of them, very likely kick our collective asses regardless of how big or small or strong or weak we are, or whether we're in a cage, a ring, a parking lot or a dark alley.  Self defense against these guys, any one of them, would amount to not provoking them or trying to steal their wallet.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well first, I said nothing about ranges. WC has long range in the form or kicks, as an example, as does Inosanto Kali. The idea WC has only one range is a myth.
> 
> I explained in the "vs boxer thread" why WC's hand techniques are so close. That comes not from a "we want to fight really close" but rather, "because our strikes gain a large amount of their power from a structure (which is torso up right)that is less reliant on raw strength, that structure requires being closer than other fighting styles." Also, since it was designed with "smaller" people fighting "larger" people in mind it uses the centerline theory. However still kicks, still long range



Yeah it was probably the boxing thread that ranges came up. Something about phone booths. And that your one tactic is to get close.

So now you are range fighters as well.

How do you practice against larger people? Aren't they disadvantaged  a bit in chun as it is not suited to them.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> just checking... Are you saying that boxing isn't a suitable art for a small person?
> 
> Can you give some other examples of MA styles you believe are ill suited for people who are as you describe yourself (5'11" and a lean, strong 175 lbs).  I'm struggling to think of any style that is reliant upon bulking up other than maybe sumo.



I think this is moving towards those secret principles that one martial art has that others don't.

Because nobody has been exposed to the chun in the last 20 years.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> I think this is moving towards those secret principles that one martial art has that others don't.
> 
> Because nobody has been exposed to the chun in the last 20 years.


I wish someone can provide some detail WC power generation method here. It's not clear to me why people may think that WC uses different power generation method than boxing does. After all a punch is a punch that come from

- borrow the counter force from the ground,
- body rotation,
- body unification, and
- body push/pull limbs.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I wish someone can provide some detail WC power generation method here. It's not clear to me why people may think that WC uses different power generation method than boxing does. After all a punch is a punch that come from
> 
> - borrow the counter force from the ground,
> - body rotation,
> - body unification, and
> - body push/pull limbs.



There is a boxing lead right that generate power from a step forwards and a tight elbow.

A bit different to an overhand right where you would pivot and roll your shoulder.

So yeah.... there are different structures to different punches.

But to say that using only one structure is some sort of advantage is a bit limited.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Yeah, you're right.  BJJ is all about brute strength.   Physics, leverage and technique don't come into play at all.
> 
> Here's the thing.  I think where skill is equal, size and strength matter in every case, regardless of style.  Aikido, Bjj, boxing, whatever.
> 
> Other physical attributes also matter.  Athleticism, for example.  Regardless of the ma in which you train.
> 
> And I also think that training against multiple body types is a great idea regardless of style.


Hey look a straw man argument.  When did I say anything about BJJ?

I agree with you in terms of training.  My point is this.  You must chose a MA based on ALL the qualities I noted including the last, purpose.  If I did not have the clear priority regarding real world self defense against larger subjects and wanting to supplement my baton fighting and knife defense training, I might have chosen a different MA because my priorities would be different.  

Maybe I would have taken TKD because my Brother in Law is an assistant instructor there and we like hanging out.  Maybe I would have taken Wushu because it is simply awesome in terms of its visual displays of athleticism.  Who knows.  

Again all I say is that you need to pick an art that fits with your goals, mind set, personality and physical traits.  Not anyone of them, all inclusive.


drop bear said:


> Yeah it was probably the boxing thread that ranges came up. Something about phone booths. And that your one tactic is to get close.
> 
> So now you are range fighters as well.
> 
> How do you practice against larger people? Aren't they disadvantaged  a bit in chun as it is not suited to them.


And as is typical you take things out of context.  In that thread I specifically noted kicks as being an option BUT here is the thing with fighting a boxer, as I noted, and actually you noted as well with a link you shared regarding boxing styles.  
A boxer is going to want to close so they can punch, especially the swarmer.  They are willing to take a hit and once inside kicking range the WC practitioner will need to get even closer than the boxer to maximize their punches due to their different stance structure.  This puts you immediately on the "back foot" as the boxer is on the offensive.  WC is about being on the offensive and since, against a boxer, you will end up in punching range anywho you are simply better served getting their ASAP so you get inside a boxers most powerful punches faster and have the initiative.

But nuance like this seems lost on you.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Hey look a straw man argument.  When did I say anything about BJJ?


You're acting like anyone who doesn't train aikido doesn't know anything about biomechanics, physics or technique.   I'm beginning to wonder if you know the difference between an observation and an argument.

You didn't mention BJJ.  I did, because that's what I know, and I gather you know diddly squat about it because biomechanics, physics and technique are very important in BJJ.  And just so you know, trying to distract from the substance of an argument with irrelevant statements (such as, I don't know, starting every post with, "Hey look, another straw man argument!") is called a red herring.   





> I agree with you in terms of training.  My point is this.  You must chose a MA based on ALL the qualities I noted including the last, purpose.  If I did not have the clear priority regarding real world self defense against larger subjects and wanting to supplement my baton fighting and knife defense training, I might have chosen a different MA because my priorities would be different.


Okay.  Slow down.  You're saying that I must choose an MA based upon ALL of the qualities YOU noted.  Must I?  Do you think there's any room for another equally valid opinion?  Or is it just that cut and dry?  Because, I still think your criteria is broken.  





> Maybe I would have taken TKD because my Brother in Law is an assistant instructor there and we like hanging out.  Maybe I would have taken Wushu because it is simply awesome in terms of its visual displays of athleticism.  Who knows.


No idea what this means, but I wonder if you have any idea how patronizing you sound.  





> Again all I say is that you need to pick an art that fits with your goals, mind set, personality and physical traits.  Not anyone of them, all inclusive.


This again.  I NEED to pick an art that meets ALL of your criteria?  Really?  What if I don't?  Do you think a little guy like Demetrious Johnson took all of your criteria into play when he chose MMA?  I don't, but maybe so.  What I do know for sure is that at 210 lbs, I wouldn't want to tangle with him, even though according to you he doesn't train aikido, and so isn't going to be capable of defending himself against a bigger guy.

I'll try to be really clear.  You're asserting that aikido is better suited for fighting bigger, stronger opponents than boxing.  Further, you've asserted that boxing is not just less well suited than aikido, but is actually doesn't work at all on people who are bigger than you.  You have an arbitrary standard by which you insist other people MUST choose a style.  And finally, you seem to carelessly dismiss as useful in self defense pretty much every martial arts style you don't endorse (which I think are Aikido and maybe Wing Chun).  So far, you've either stated or implied that boxing, TKD and Wushu aren't suitable for self defense.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> You're acting like anyone who doesn't train aikido doesn't know anything about biomechanics, physics or technique.   I'm beginning to wonder if you know the difference between an observation and an argument.
> 
> You didn't mention BJJ.  I did, because that's what I know, and I gather you know diddly squat about it because biomechanics, physics and technique are very important in BJJ.  And just so you know, trying to distract from the substance of an argument with irrelevant statements (such as, I don't know, starting every post with, "Hey look, another straw man argument!") is called a red herring.   Okay.  Slow down.  You're saying that I must choose an MA based upon ALL of the qualities YOU noted.  Must I?  Do you think there's any room for another equally valid opinion?  Or is it just that cut and dry?  Because, I still think your criteria is broken.  No idea what this means, but I wonder if you have any idea how patronizing you sound.  This again.  I NEED to pick an art that meets ALL of your criteria?  Really?  What if I don't?  Do you think a little guy like Demetrious Johnson took all of your criteria into play when he chose MMA?  I don't, but maybe so.  What I do know for sure is that at 210 lbs, I wouldn't want to tangle with him, even though according to you he doesn't train aikido, and so isn't going to be capable of defending himself against a bigger guy.
> 
> I'll try to be really clear.  You're asserting that aikido is better suited for fighting bigger, stronger opponents than boxing.  Further, you've asserted that boxing is not just less well suited than aikido, but is actually doesn't work at all on people who are bigger than you.  You have an arbitrary standard by which you insist other people MUST choose a style.  And finally, you seem to carelessly dismiss as useful in self defense pretty much every martial arts style you don't endorse (I gather Aikido and maybe Wing Chun).  So far, boxing, TKD and Wushu.




First, how is it patronizing to say that if I didn't have the priorities I do I would have chosen a different MA for different reasons?  All that says is that the arts I picked are right for ME and that they may not fit your purposes. 

Second if you are familiar with how some Martial arts use principles of leverage and the like then why did you say you don't understand how strength can be a greater factor in boxing than Aikido?  

As for what you note regarding Demetrius I would say he absolutely used my list.  Why?

First he started as a High School wrestler.  When you chose a "sport" MA for the purposes of sanctioned competition, the size issue is not a big factor because of the weight classes.  So you are left with priority and mindset, the later only if you want to be successful.  His priority was so he picks wrestling.

He then chose to compete professionally.  He chose MMA.  MMA also has weight classes so again, relative size is not a factor.  All that mattered was "I want to compete in MMA" and that meant learning MMA.  If he would have chosen professional boxing, well then weight classes again and he would have to learn boxing.

It all starts with your priorities though imo, everything else occurrs to one degree or another there after.  Examples...

1. If you are looking at Martial Arts as a fitness/confidence builder you don't have to be overly concerned with sizes of others, mind set etc.
2. If you are looking to compete in sanctioned sports matches that have weight classes, size isn't that big a factor (it can be if your weight is on the bubble etc. just speaking in general) but mindset is.
3. If you are looking for self defense, you should consider your size and the chances of you running into an assailant that is larger than you.  You may also want to consider if you are going to have ready access to certain basic weapons as force multipliers are always a good thing in a fight.

In the self defense context you should also consider your mindset and personality because, as an example if you aren't comfortable waiting for your opponent to make the first move Aikido is likely not for you.  Conversely if you aren't a naturally aggressive person and don't see that as something that you can change, then a self defense style that is largely based on striking or "hard" grappling/ground fighting like BJJ may not be for you.

I know some people may have a point of disagreement on the last bit bit you would be surprised how hard it is to actually get people to be "really" aggressive outside of the training scenario, but it is actually quite hard.  The whole point of Army basic training is to, in essence, breakdown the "kid" and then rebuild them into a Soldier who can act with ultimate aggression without thought...as one of the Forum advisers called it "Robo-droid.". Even then with months of 24/7 breaking down and then rebuilding it doesn't always take.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Hey look a straw man argument.  When did I say anything about BJJ?
> 
> I agree with you in terms of training.  My point is this.  You must chose a MA based on ALL the qualities I noted including the last, purpose.  If I did not have the clear priority regarding real world self defense against larger subjects and wanting to supplement my baton fighting and knife defense training, I might have chosen a different MA because my priorities would be different.
> 
> Maybe I would have taken TKD because my Brother in Law is an assistant instructor there and we like hanging out.  Maybe I would have taken Wushu because it is simply awesome in terms of its visual displays of athleticism.  Who knows.
> 
> Again all I say is that you need to pick an art that fits with your goals, mind set, personality and physical traits.  Not anyone of them, all inclusive.
> 
> And as is typical you take things out of context.  In that thread I specifically noted kicks as being an option BUT here is the thing with fighting a boxer, as I noted, and actually you noted as well with a link you shared regarding boxing styles.
> A boxer is going to want to close so they can punch, especially the swarmer.  They are willing to take a hit and once inside kicking range the WC practitioner will need to get even closer than the boxer to maximize their punches due to their different stance structure.  This puts you immediately on the "back foot" as the boxer is on the offensive.  WC is about being on the offensive and since, against a boxer, you will end up in punching range anywho you are simply better served getting their ASAP so you get inside a boxers most powerful punches faster and have the initiative.
> 
> But nuance like this seems lost on you.



So that still sounds like you have one range. You are still trying to get it and maintain a single range there.  Which is some weird half infighting that you think will give you the advantage.

I dont think any nuance of that idea changes my point really. I would prefer to be able to fight for multiple ranges.  And against others who have multiple ranges. 

Kicking to close with a guy doesn't really make you an outfighter.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So that still sounds like you have one range. You are still trying to get it and maintain a single range there.  Which is some weird half infighting that you think will give you the advantage.
> 
> I dont think any nuance of that idea changes my point really. I would prefer to be able to fight for multiple ranges.  And against others who have multiple ranges.
> 
> Kicking to close with a guy doesn't really make you an outfighter.



No it's called understanding how your opponent will fight, how they train, and deal with it.  Wing Chun, like most striking arts, requires you to try to take the initiative.  If you know your opponent, in this case a boxer, is going to try and get into close range so they can strike, simply waiting for them to do so and trying to use kicks to stop them, is handing the initiative to your opponent.  They in essence dictate how and when you will try to kick based on how they chose to enter close range.  Additionally since formally trained boxers train to take hits, kicks are unlikely to stop their advance for any time.  The link you posted in the other thread regarding a swarmer is evidence of this.  They want to close asap and are willing to take hits to achieve this.

So in WC you will close with the enemy.  You will use kicks once in kicking range and then techniques in the art specifically designed to bridge into punching range.  All of this is to maintain the initiative.  If the boxers dances out of punching range faster than the WC practitioner can continue their advance then you kick again until you can again use those bridging techniques.

The entire idea is based around one of tonekey concepts behind the art, namely to the initiative as fast as possible so that the fight can be ended as quickly as possible.
--this is part of the concept because WC acknowledges that, in a striking fight, the longer a fight between a smaller and larger opponent lasts generally benefits the larger fighter.
--it is also applies when facing a grappler the sooner you end the fight the less opportunity you give that grappler the opportunity to take you to the ground and go to work.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No it's called understanding how your opponent will fight, how they train, and deal with it.  Wing Chun, like most striking arts, requires you to try to take the initiative.  If you know your opponent, in this case a boxer, is going to try and get into close range so they can strike, simply waiting for them to do so and trying to use kicks to stop them, is handing the initiative to your opponent.  They in essence dictate how and when you will try to kick based on how they chose to enter close range.  Additionally since formally trained boxers train to take hits, kicks are unlikely to stop their advance for any time.  The link you posted in the other thread regarding a swarmer is evidence of this.  They want to close asap and are willing to take hits to achieve this.
> 
> So in WC you will close with the enemy.  You will use kicks once in kicking range and then techniques in the art specifically designed to bridge into punching range.  All of this is to maintain the initiative.  If the boxers dances out of punching range faster than the WC practitioner can continue their advance then you kick again until you can again use those bridging techniques.
> 
> The entire idea is based around one of tonekey concepts behind the art, namely to the initiative as fast as possible so that the fight can be ended as quickly as possible.
> --this is part of the concept because WC acknowledges that, in a striking fight, the longer a fight between a smaller and larger opponent lasts generally benefits the larger fighter.
> --it is also applies when facing a grappler the sooner you end the fight the less opportunity you give that grappler the opportunity to take you to the ground and go to work.



But you don't really understand how a boxer fights.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But you don't really understand how a boxer fights.



I love how you like to take shots that are non sequiturs.  Why a non sequitur in this case?  Because the specific tactics an individual boxer may use aren't actually relevant to the point I made above.  In essence your argument boils down to a cop out "you aren't a boxer so you can't speak to it." Thing is I have fought people trained in boxing, real fights, and it works.

I also need to say that you seem to have a nack for derailing points I am trying to make... In this case a MA should be chosen first with priority in mind, meaning

1."why do I want to learn the MAs?"
2. "based on my reason is relative size important? 
   a. If it is not important move onto question 3.
   b. If it is important, how important is it?
3. What is my personaliy and over all mind set and how does this fit it in.?
   a. Am I naturally more patient and less aggressive or vice versa?
   b. Am I comfortable with people being in my personal space? 
   c. Would I be comfortable performing techniques that cause REAL pain?  (By this I mean the following.  Yes getting punched in the head hurts.  Been there done that.  However getting put in a submission hold by a BJJ guys, as I experienced practicing with a co-worker, in my experience REALLY hurts.)

Now you may have already answered number 3 by your answer to number 1.  I know people who take MA because they are looking to build self confidence.  Over 20 years ago when I started studying Aikido it was because I was looking to help cultivate more patience, which I lacked and I was just beginning to study Buddhism and the school I joined very much taught the Zen principles of Aikido along with the physical MA aspect, the potential self defense applications, for me at the time, were simply a bonus.  So if part of your answer to #1 is "I am looking to overcome what I see as weaknesses in my mind-set or personality you can certain chose absolutely any art.  I just don't suggest you do this IF, not I say if, you also has as a major purpose self-defense, or at least be honest enough with yourself to see if you actually are improving on those weak points so that you aren't handicapping yourself in an actual real life self-defense scenario.

That said I will entertain your derail...

For a boxer to fight you, they need to move into punching range. If you wait for them to start closing they have the initiative, it ultimately doesn't matter what their goal is.  Are they just coming in first to test you with some jabs, then dance away? After that an "out-boxer" who is going to want to keep you at arms length with longer range punches, with the intent to wear you down?  Are they a swarmer who is going to come in and try to overwhelm you in a manner not unlike the philosophy of WC?

Any of the above is irrelevant to the philosophy behind WC.  WC is an art that uses both punches and kicks but the goal of the art is to apply constant pressure.  It is easier to do this if you use both kicks and punches.  If you just confront an opponent with kicks they can dance away and then you have to advance and reengage.  However if you use kicks and hand strikes together you have a better, not perfect chance simply much better chance, of keeping continual pressure on your opponent and with he intent of ending the fight as quickly as possible.  While the following video is WC vs AC,it illustrates the use of both punches (lots of chain punching on the victor's part) and kicks, along with trapping, all to accomplish this goal.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Any of the above is irrelevant to the philosophy behind WC. WC is an art that uses both punches and kicks but the goal of the art is to apply constant pressure. It is easier to do this if you use both kicks and punches. If you just confront an opponent with kicks they can dance away and then you have to advance and reengage. However if you use kicks and hand strikes together you have a better, not perfect chance simply much better chance, of keeping continual pressure on your opponent and with he intent of ending the fight as quickly as possible. While the following video is WC vs AC,it illustrates the use of both punches (lots of chain punching on the victor's part) and kicks, along with trapping, all to accomplish this goal.



And you think that is designed for the smaller weaker person to gain the advantage?

Or that there was some sort of unique range or strategy at play?

I mean if you wanted to be some sort of super pressure fighter. There are better examples than that guy. Look up mighty mouse or ben ten. Both tiny guys and both front foot monsters.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> 1."why do I want to learn the MAs?"
> 2. "based on my reason is relative size important?
> a. If it is not important move onto question 3.
> b. If it is important, how important is it?
> 3. What is my personaliy and over all mind set and how does this fit it in.?
> a. Am I naturally more patient and less aggressive or vice versa?
> b. Am I comfortable with people being in my personal space?
> c. Would I be comfortable performing techniques that cause REAL pain? (By this I mean the following. Yes getting punched in the head hurts. Been there done that. However getting put in a submission hold by a BJJ guys, as I experienced practicing with a co-worker, in my experience REALLY hurts.)



So when I focus on one point I cherry pick and if I don't I derail.

So this is your main point?

See I would go for.

Do I want to learn martial arts?

A. do I want a fun or cultural experience?

B. Do I want to manhandle people?

If the answer is a then am I having fun or being cultural?

If the answer is b then are the better guys in my school manhandling people?

Not really complicated at all.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And you think that is designed for the smaller weaker person to gain the advantage?
> 
> Or that there was some sort of unique range or strategy at play?



And you continue the derail.  I get that you are still chomping on the bit regarding our previous debate and that MMA appears to be THE MA in your eyes but I have moved on from that particular debate.  So this will be the last time I respond regarding specifics on WC.  

If you read what I posted elsewhere it is more than that, it is holistic, the whole of the art, the strategy with the techniques together.

1. The WC practitioner's structure and centerline theory on attack.
   a. The structure and the way punches are thrown, straight from the centerline.  As I said in the elsewhere, but you seem to have forgotten, or ignored it, punches are thrown from your center with the elbow down, instead of from the shoulder.  Added with the overall structure and the way you step as you punch or palm strike, is essentially a "thrust" with your entire body body mass starting at the ground. While some argue this is not as powerful as more muscularly driven strikes, often circular in nature rotating out from the shoulder and/or waist (I won't argue on that point) it provides for excellent transfer of force along with great speed for each strike and the ability to chain punch very rapidly as well.  Since force is mass*acceleration, and this method does an excellent job of maximizing both it benefits a smaller person.
   b. The structure, being upright can also, potentially, permit you to be striking with full power inside the reach of many of the most powerful strikes of a larger opponent.
   c. The concept of centerline theory however doesn't only extend to maintaining your centerline.  It also goes towards techniques of disrupting the centerline of the opponent as well.  Disruption of the centerline makes for weaker attacks as the foundation of those attacks is now no longer stable.

2. Defense.
   a. The way WC bridges and/or stops incoming attacks. _Tan-sau, bong-sau, pak-sau, gaun-sau _etc are deflections, many of then designed to essentially create a wedge.  This follows the concept of never meet force with force and also feeds into the structure.  The since you are deflecting instead of blocking a good portion of the energy is diverted away from you (picture a sword sliding along the edge of another sword and away from the subject parrying.) Your structure comes into play because even under those circumstances all of the energy isn't deflected, but the structure of your spine in relation to your legs, due to the stances, allows that excess energy to travel straight down to the ground.  Again benefiting a smaller person.  A different example is the Ryushinka Karate I took.  There you primarily did hard blocks and to absorb the energy you relied on muscle power to absorb the excess energy with strong forceful stances.  This later method would negatively impact WC attacks because it would disrupt the structure and require a reset of sorts before launching an attack.
   b. I mentioned bridging.  Looking again at the sword analogy, the fact you are creating a "wedge" of sorts allows you to maintain your forward momentum for attacks while simultaneously defending.  This comes into play again with the F=m*a equation as, if you are not capable of stepping in with your attacks, they lose a portion of their acceleration and as such you lose power.

Now oof course other arts generate as much force, arguably more force than a WC punch BUT the structure behind a WC punch, as described above, is designed to put the maximum amount of mass behind a punch for a smaller person while permitting a very high rate of acceleration to help compensate for smaller size.

Now the above, again, is not to say strength and size don't benefit WC.  To quote one Sifu I heard speak "two fighters of equal skill, one is bigger, the bigger guy wins." He wasn't limiting his comment to WC vs WC either, it was WC against just about any equally skilled/prepared fighter.  It's only to say that the physics of the art were specifically designed around an understanding of how force is generated and diverted in such a way as to maximize it's effectiveness for smaller people.  It's one of the reasons legend has it that the first person to teach the art was a Nun and that she first taught it to a young girl she named Yim Wing Chun.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So when I focus on one point I cherry pick and if I don't I derail.
> 
> So this is your main point?
> 
> See I would go for.
> 
> Do I want to learn martial arts?
> 
> A. do I want a fun or cultural experience?
> 
> B. Do I want to manhandle people?
> 
> If the answer is a then am I having fun or being cultural?
> 
> If the answer is b then are the better guys in my school manhandling people?
> 
> Not really complicated at all.



Well thats fine, regardless of the snark behind it, if you see Martial arts in that narrow a manner it would still fit in with what I am saying above, to an extent,


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well thats fine, regardless of the snark behind it, if you see Martial arts in that narrow a manner and would fit in with what I am saying above, to an extent,



Less narrow. My criteria encompasses more martial arts.  And focuses on much bigger concepts.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> And you continue the derail.  I get that you are still chomping on the bit regarding our previous debate and that MMA appears to be THE MA in your eyes but I have moved on from that particular debate.  So this will be the last time I respond regarding specifics on WC.
> 
> If you read what I posted elsewhere it is more than that, it is holistic, the whole of the art, the strategy with the techniques together.
> 
> 1. The WC practitioner's structure and centerline theory on attack.
> a. The structure and the way punches are thrown, straight from the centerline.  As I said in the elsewhere, but you seem to have forgotten, or ignored it, punches are thrown from your center with the elbow down, instead of from the shoulder.  Added with the overall structure and the way you step as you punch or palm strike, is essentially a "thrust" with your entire body body mass starting at the ground. While some argue this is not as powerful as more muscularly driven strikes, often circular in nature rotating out from the shoulder and/or waist (I won't argue on that point) it provides for excellent transfer of force along with great speed for each strike and the ability to chain punch very rapidly as well.  Since force is mass*acceleration, and this method does an excellent job of maximizing both it benefits a smaller person.
> b. The structure, being upright can also, potentially, permit you to be striking with full power inside the reach of many of the most powerful strikes of a larger opponent.
> c. The concept of centerline theory however doesn't only extend to maintaining your centerline.  It also goes towards techniques of disrupting the centerline of the opponent as well.  Disruption of the centerline makes for weaker attacks as the foundation of those attacks is now no longer stable.
> 
> 2. Defense.
> a. The way WC bridges and/or stops incoming attacks. _Tan-sau, bong-sau, pak-sau, gaun-sau _etc are deflections, many of then designed to essentially create a wedge.  This follows the concept of never meet force with force and also feeds into the structure.  The since you are deflecting instead of blocking a good portion of the energy is diverted away from you (picture a sword sliding along the edge of another sword and away from the subject parrying.) Your structure comes into play because even under those circumstances all of the energy isn't deflected, but the structure of your spine in relation to your legs, due to the stances, allows that excess energy to travel straight down to the ground.  Again benefiting a smaller person.  A different example is the Ryushinka Karate I took.  There you primarily did hard blocks and to absorb the energy you relied on muscle power to absorb the excess energy with strong forceful stances.  This later method would negatively impact WC attacks because it would disrupt the structure and require a reset of sorts before launching an attack.
> b. I mentioned bridging.  Looking again at the sword analogy, the fact you are creating a "wedge" of sorts allows you to maintain your forward momentum for attacks while simultaneously defending.  This comes into play again with the F=m*a equation as, if you are not capable of stepping in with your attacks, they lose a portion of their acceleration and as such you lose power.
> 
> Now oof course other arts generate as much force, arguably more force than a WC punch BUT the structure behind a WC punch, as described above, is designed to put the maximum amount of mass behind a punch for a smaller person while permitting a very high rate of acceleration to help compensate for smaller size.
> 
> Now the above, again, is not to say strength and size don't benefit WC.  To quote one Sifu I heard speak "two fighters of equal skill, one is bigger, the bigger guy wins." He wasn't limiting his comment to WC vs WC either, it was WC against just about any equally skilled/prepared fighter.  It's only to say that the physics of the art were specifically designed around an understanding of how force is generated and diverted in such a way as to maximize it's effectiveness for smaller people.  It's one of the reasons legend has it that the first person to teach the art was a Nun and that she first taught it to a young girl she named Yim Wing Chun.



Those two guys crashed into each other while throwing as hard as they could untill they clinched. That is not a bunch of center line theory and bad physics. That is what first time fighters do. 

And if i look at that video again and find that guy was knocked out by a right cross.  I am not going to be mad.

Just very disappointed.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Less narrow. My criteria encompasses more martial arts.  And focuses on much bigger concepts.



Focusing on culture vs manhandling seems narrow imo because it is not an either/or proposition.  Now when I think "manhandling" I think grappling.  With that in mind, the various forms of Jujutsu and Aiki-Jujutsu, along with Judo, Pankration, Ying Jow Pai, etc are all effective in terms of "manhandling" and have cultural significance as well.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Those two guys crashed into each other while throwing as hard as they could untill they clinched. That is not a bunch of center line theory and bad physics. That is what first time fighters do.
> 
> And if i look at that video again and find that guy was knocked out by a right cross.  I am not going to be mad.
> 
> Just very disappointed.


First time fighters?  Hence why the victor declared a Sifu and then Provisional Master level 1 awarded by Grand Master William Cheung personally?  Secondly the physics of WC are perfectly sound for the intended purpose.

I showed that video for two reasons. 
1. To show the use of kicks and that WC is not exclusively a punching art. That is a misconception as it can attack from long range as well.
2. The Victor  actually is practicing centerline theory.  He could throw those chain punches, a technique often practiced in WC, because he was also practicing, successfully, the other objective of WC that I noted, namely overwhelming the opponent so as to end the fight as fast as possible.

Now was his opponent less skilled and/or prepared than he was and as such he could launch those chain punches. I won't argue against that. 

While it looks like wild flailing I would suggest you Google either photos or videos of "tan-sau" and "wu-sau".  Unlike more conventional blocks, tan-sau specifically and wu-sau if executed in the appropriate fashion, you will be moving your arm forward but instead of the primary intent being to strike the target, it is to divert or wedge a hand/arm of the target out of he way so they are open for a strike. For when he is slapping down and even holding down hands of the opponent, Google "Wing Chun" and trapping.  I will be the first person to say that at high speed WC can look pretty ugly in a real fight vs in the movies, but seen from the side, in 2D you miss what a tan-sau, bong-sau and wu-sau are actually doing because they look like attempts to punch when they are really intended to deflect attacks.

The same is often said about WC palm strikes as well since they are thrown with an open hand, so people often mistake it for "slap boxing" but you are in reality still striking with the heel of the hand.

And PS that final KO was a straight punch elbow down.  There are other videos of the same fight.  YouTube and "Jerry Devone."


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> First time fighters?  Hence why the victor declared a Sifu and then Provisional Master level 1 awarded by Grand Master William Cheung personally?  Secondly the physics of WC are perfectly sound for the intended purpose.
> 
> I showed that video for two reasons.
> 1. To show the use of kicks and that WC is not exclusively a punching art. That is a misconception as it can attack from long range as well.
> 2. The Victor  actually is practicing centerline theory.  He could throw those chain punches, a technique often practiced in WC, because he was also practicing, successfully, the other objective of WC that I noted, namely overwhelming the opponent so as to end the fight as fast as possible.
> 
> Now was his opponent less skilled and/or prepared than he was and as such he could launch those chain punches. I won't argue against that.
> 
> While it looks like wild flailing I would suggest you Google either photos or videos of "tan-sau" and "wu-sau".  Unlike more conventional blocks, tan-sau specifically and wu-sau if executed in the appropriate fashion, you will be moving your arm forward but instead of the primary intent being to strike the target, it is to divert or wedge a hand/arm of the target out of he way so they are open for a strike. For when he is slapping down and even holding down hands of the opponent, Google "Wing Chun" and trapping.  I will be the first person to say that at high speed WC can look pretty ugly in a real fight vs in the movies, but seen from the side, in 2D you miss what a tan-sau, bong-sau and wu-sau are actually doing because they look like attempts to punch when they are really intended to deflect attacks.
> 
> The same is often said about WC palm strikes as well since they are thrown with an open hand, so people often mistake it for "slap boxing" but you are in reality still striking with the heel of the hand.
> 
> And PS that final KO was a straight punch elbow down.  There are other videos of the same fight.  YouTube and "Jerry Devone."



And the shoulder rotation to juice up those punches are wing chun now?

The final ko was a wound up punch. Love to be able to screen shot that.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And the shoulder rotation to juice up those punches are wing chun now?
> 
> The final ko was a wound up punch. Love to be able to screen shot that.



You can't move your arm forward without rotating the shoulder.  The point is where is the fist coming from?  Is it coming from an outside line and in or is it coming from your center? If you look at that knockout specifically the winner doesn't even have a chance to fully launch the punch because the opponent literally, as a commentator on another video said, "walked into it."

The easiest way to tell what the impetus of the punch is by looking at elbow position.  Try throwing a boxing style punch with your elbow pointed straight down.  That straight down elbow is the structure of a WC punch.  Naturally with. "boxing punch" even a jab, your elbow rotates as you punch so that, even if it started down it is then pointed to the side.

Again I am not saying WC is superior by any means.  Equally skilled bigger person wins.  Equal skill same size crap shoot.  All I am saying is that WC tries as best as it can to minimize the effect of smaller size.


----------



## drop bear

Sorry that took forever.

Anyway wing chun principles in


 action.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Sorry that took forever.
> 
> Anyway wing chun principles inView attachment 19920 action.



Yes and as I noted already, 1. Look at his elbow position. 2. He didn't even have time to bring that punch into his centerline to launch it properly since the guy literally "walked" into the punch.

WC still has shoulder rotation, you cant move your fist forward without said rotation, that is basic biomechanics.  The difference is that, your elbow is down and as you begin full extension, the punch launches from your centerline.  In this case he doesn't even get half of that extension because the opponent was nice enough to dodge his face directly into the punches path as soon as it was launched.

Now, when chain punching, in the interest of speed, your elbows will not come back as far.  The key principle is the elbow pointing down so that is more aligned with the fist (from a purely biomechanical point of view.) That's it.  Even with jacking back the elbow, as long as elbow position and centerline theory are maintained it is a WC principle, it is simply not advantageous to chain punching, it doesn't have an affect on the acceleration of or mass behind the individual punch.   

Every circumstance does not call for chain punching.  As a matter of fact, imo some people chain punch when not necessary.  Fighting period should be about efficiency and if you can accomplish a goal either by chain punching through defenses, or via a trap and a single punch, so long as it adheres to the basic principles noted above, it is WC.  If you go to the AC forum you will actually see an ongoing debate between those of us who see WC as a conceptive art and those who feel there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to WC.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> First, how is it patronizing to say that if I didn't have the priorities I do I would have chosen a different MA for different reasons?  All that says is that the arts I picked are right for ME and that they may not fit your purposes.
> 
> Second if you are familiar with how some Martial arts use principles of leverage and the like then why did you say you don't understand how strength can be a greater factor in boxing than Aikido?
> 
> As for what you note regarding Demetrius I would say he absolutely used my list.  Why?
> 
> First he started as a High School wrestler.  When you chose a "sport" MA for the purposes of sanctioned competition, the size issue is not a big factor because of the weight classes.  So you are left with priority and mindset, the later only if you want to be successful.  His priority was so he picks wrestling.
> 
> He then chose to compete professionally.  He chose MMA.  MMA also has weight classes so again, relative size is not a factor.  All that mattered was "I want to compete in MMA" and that meant learning MMA.  If he would have chosen professional boxing, well then weight classes again and he would have to learn boxing.
> 
> It all starts with your priorities though imo, everything else occurrs to one degree or another there after.  Examples...
> 
> 1. If you are looking at Martial Arts as a fitness/confidence builder you don't have to be overly concerned with sizes of others, mind set etc.
> 2. If you are looking to compete in sanctioned sports matches that have weight classes, size isn't that big a factor (it can be if your weight is on the bubble etc. just speaking in general) but mindset is.
> 3. If you are looking for self defense, you should consider your size and the chances of you running into an assailant that is larger than you.  You may also want to consider if you are going to have ready access to certain basic weapons as force multipliers are always a good thing in a fight.
> 
> In the self defense context you should also consider your mindset and personality because, as an example if you aren't comfortable waiting for your opponent to make the first move Aikido is likely not for you.  Conversely if you aren't a naturally aggressive person and don't see that as something that you can change, then a self defense style that is largely based on striking or "hard" grappling/ground fighting like BJJ may not be for you.
> 
> I know some people may have a point of disagreement on the last bit bit you would be surprised how hard it is to actually get people to be "really" aggressive outside of the training scenario, but it is actually quite hard.  The whole point of Army basic training is to, in essence, breakdown the "kid" and then rebuild them into a Soldier who can act with ultimate aggression without thought...as one of the Forum advisers called it "Robo-droid.". Even then with months of 24/7 breaking down and then rebuilding it doesn't always take.


None of this supports your assertion that boxing does not work on larger people.  None of this supports your assertion that aikido does work on larger people.   In fact, I'd say that competitive weight classes are a terrific training device.  Competition allows people to train for results, and efficacy can then be measured against results.  Where competitive outlets don't exist in a sport, a lot of mental and verbal yoga is involved in trying to measure efficacy through the process.  It's the difference between being able to say, "I can do this because I've done it a thousand times."  VS "I think I can do this because I train hard and it has been explained to me thoroughly how my training will translate into real world application."   A lack of practical application is what leads people to claim that boxing is ill suited for self defense because the techniques only work well on people who are your own size, and also to suggest that their own, untested skills are actually better suited for the purpose.  That, my friend, is dangerously naïve.

And what the hell is hard grappling?   How in the heck can you say that BJJ is only for people who are naturally aggressive? 

Come on, man.  You've dug yourself a very deep hole.  My advice to you is to stop digging.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> None of this supports your assertion that boxing does not work on larger people.  None of this supports your assertion that aikido does work on larger people.   In fact, I'd say that competitive weight classes are a terrific training device.  Competition allows people to train for results, and efficacy can then be measured against results.  Where competitive outlets don't exist in a sport, a lot of mental and verbal yoga is involved in trying to measure efficacy through the process.  It's the difference between being able to say, "I can do this because I've done it a thousand times."  VS "I think I can do this because I train hard and it has been explained to me thoroughly how my training will translate into real world application."   A lack of practical application is what leads people to claim that boxing is ill suited for self defense because the techniques only work well on people who are your own size, and also to suggest that their own, untested skills are actually better suited for the purpose.  That, my friend, is dangerously naïve.
> 
> And what the hell is hard grappling?   How in the heck can you say that BJJ is only for people who are naturally aggressive?
> 
> Come on, man.  You've dug yourself a very deep hole.  My advice to you is to stop digging.



I never said boxing doesn't work on bigger people.  What I said was that WC was specifically designed, in part, to allow smaller people to take on bigger opponents, and simply that boxing was not designed with the specific intent in mind.  There is clear difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said. 

I am pretty much done here because people are reading what they want to read and not what I actually said.  If anyone is digging, its certainly not I


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I never said boxing doesn't work on bigger people.  What I said was that WC was specifically designed, in part, to allow smaller people to take on bigger opponents, and simply that boxing was not designed with the specific intent in mind.  There is clear difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said.
> 
> I am pretty much done here because people are reading what they want to read and not what I actually said.  If anyone is digging, its certainly not I



And you think going toe to toe striking is the best strategy against a bigger guy?

Which is basically centreline theory. And racing into trapping range.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And you think going toe to toe striking is the best strategy against a bigger guy?
> 
> Which is basically centreline theory. And racing into trapping range.



Well the question is a bit off imo because when is ever generically "the best strategy" to go into hand to hand combat against a bigger opponent? The best option, imo, is to run.  However Martial Arts are designed to fight, to defend yourself for those times when you are forced to fight.  

Is it a good idea to use a kicking art and hope you can destroy that knee cap or knock him out before the bigger guy gets you in his sweet spot?  Is it a good idea to move in and try to take down the guy and work on his joints in ground fighting?  Is WC's method a good idea?

They all have the same weight of weaknesses imo, that boil down to the uncertain factors irl fighting.

 A. How big is bigger? As I said there is a limit to size differential that skill and techniques can't make up for.  
B. "what is that big guys skill level and level of preparedness". As I said before, equal skill and preparation big guy wins everytime.

Thing is though, when I say "when you have to fight" I really mean HAVE to.  No other options, it's defend yourself and maybe win or don't and assure you get pounded into the ground like a law spike.  In that circumstance see above regarding the risks.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> Well the question is a bit off imo because when is ever generically "the best strategy" to go into *hand to hand combat *against a bigger opponent? The best option, imo, is to run.



You are right on the mark here. History (and pre-history) has shown us that the best way for a good little guy to beat a good big guy is to say screw this hand to hand garbage and use _projectile weapons! _According to the best current science this is how early modern humans beat neanderthals. Or, if you prefer a biblical perspective, try David and Goliath. A medievalist? Recall Henry V's victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. ...Well, you get the point.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> And you think *going toe to toe *striking is the best strategy against a bigger guy?
> 
> Which is basically centreline theory. And racing into trapping range.



Good WC doesn't have to go "toe to toe". Against a bigger guy, that's pretty dumb. Like other striking arts, you need to _get an angle_, preferably to the outside. In Cantonese, the saying is, _yau pin yap ching _...go from side to center. 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what good boxers also work at ...and in my experience,_ they usually work harder_ at it.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> You are right on the mark here. History (and pre-history) has shown us that the best way for a good little guy to beat a good big guy is to say screw this hand to hand garbage and use _projectile weapons! _According to the best current science this is how early modern humans beat neanderthals. Or, if you prefer a biblical perspective, try David and Goliath. A medievalist? Recall Henry V's victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. ...Well, you get the point.



Yep the little guy should use a projectile weapon, if possible, barring that any force multiplier.  If none of the above run, if running isn't an option THEN fight hand to hand.

As for Agincourt you have to love how recently ploughed muddy fields in a choke point between woodlands will bring a force the size of France's to a grinding halt, unable to even wield weapons properly due to the density of persons.  Does the term "fish in a barrel" sound familiar .


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Good WC doesn't have to go "toe to toe". Against a bigger guy, that's pretty dumb. Like other striking arts, you need to _get an angle_, preferably to the outside. In Cantonese, the saying is, _yau pin yap ching _...go from side to center.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is exactly what good boxers also work at ...and in my experience,_ they usually work harder_ at it.



We call that "fighting on the blind side" in my school.  Toe-Toe is just the opening salvo. 

As for the last true.  I blame that on too many school teaching WC while not also bringing in a real world "combative" aspect.  This leads, I think, to students being so concerned about structure and centerline theory that they tunnel vision and stay on one track.  They don't realize that you can disrupt the enemies centerline from a flank as well.   One of the reasons I chose my school was because they also have the later.  My Sifu says "if you aren't taking MAs to learn how to fight, there are plenty of schools for you to attend, here we study the science of fighting." 

One thing I have noted with some boxers I have seen fight WC, if they aren't familiar with it, they are doing a lot of stepping back and "resetting" (if the WC person is any good) because they aren't used to someone trying to be constantly that close.  In another thread I showed a picture of Mike Tyson punching in the stereotypical boxing stance leaning forward. The shorter range of a WC guy punching can be awkward for not all, but more than a few boxers, but that depends on their style and mindset.


----------

