# When the kata is applied to self defense



## Hanzou

It is good to see schools like this begin to advertise what they teach on the web. I think it is also good to see what they teach so that I can avoid these schools like the plague.

Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?

I see women in the video, and I just shudder to think of a woman attempting this stuff against a larger person trying to take advantage of them.

This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?



If that's all they ever do then yes it's a problem of sorts.

But, doing that sort of thing helps with the notion of combinations and how to transition from one technique to the next.


----------



## Anarax

Hanzou said:


> It is good to see schools like this begin to advertise what they teach on the web. I think it is also good to see what they teach so that I can avoid these schools like the plague.
> 
> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?
> 
> I see women in the video, and I just shudder to think of a woman attempting this stuff against a larger person trying to take advantage of them.
> 
> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.



Bunkai(form application) can be a useful component in martial arts training. The realism of the Bunkai will vary from school to school. I agree that there are schools that rely on an overreaction from their Bunkai partner and such reactions will prevent them from becoming proficient. However, if the Bunkai in done with realistic energy it will help the student fine tune their skill/techniques.


----------



## JR 137

pdg said:


> If that's all they ever do then yes it's a problem of sorts.
> 
> But, doing that sort of thing helps with the notion of combinations and how to transition from one technique to the next.


Some people take the choreographed stuff way too literally.  My organization does a ton of choreographed stuff; solo and with partners.  When I first started doing that stuff in my previous organization, at first I thought it would work really well in a fight.  After a few months, I thought a fight would never go that way and thought they were a waste of time.  After some more experience, I realized what they actually were - drills.  Drills that teach where to block, when to block, how to block, and which block to use.  They teach footwork and distancing.  They teach how to flow from block to strike.  They teach what stroke to use and which targets to hit with them.  They teach how to use the basics together in a seem less way.

What they don’t teach is “your opponent WILL do this, then you WILL do that.”

It’s like a football player running through a play in practice.  First they run the play with the defense not doing much except standing around and moving with them.  Then they’ll run it against the fully resisting defense.  Of course the defense will try to stop it and throw a wrench in their plan.  They’ll do common things typical defenses will do.  The offense will adjust on the fly and make it work.  It doesn’t have to be the EXACT way it was drawn up, but it’ll work.  Quarterbacks have first, second, third, etc. options.

The choreographed stuff shouldn’t be any different.  They should teach principles and not rigid responses.  Some students and teachers lose sight of that.  Sometimes teachers get so stuck on having the students perfect the curriculum that they forget to instill that that stuff is supposed to teach principles and not actual textbook responses. My teacher does a good job of explaining that, but honestly he could say it more often.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic.


If

1. you attack first (such as a groin kick),
2. your opponent responds to your attack (such as a downward block),
3. you then respond to his respond (such as a face punch).

This way the 1-2-3 sequence will be in realistic speed. I truly don't understand why most MA schools don't use this kind of teaching method.


----------



## Steve

is This considered good budo taijutsu?


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> is This considered good budo taijutsu?


Great question.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> is This considered good budo taijutsu?



Considering the number of likes, I would say yes. I've seen Masaaki Hatsumi and Hayes do similar stuff.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If
> 
> 1. you attack first (such as a groin kick),
> 2. your opponent responds to your attack (such as a downward block),
> 3. you then respond to his respond (such as a face punch).
> 
> This way the 1-2-3 sequence will be in realistic speed. I truly don't understand why most MA schools don't use this kind of teaching method.



Wouldn't sparring be a better way to do that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It is good to see schools like this begin to advertise what they teach on the web. I think it is also good to see what they teach so that I can avoid these schools like the plague.
> 
> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?


I don't see it as much different than training a punching combo in boxing. If you train a jab-straight-hook combo, what if the guy steps off to his left before the hook? What if he throws an uppercut in the middle of that? Every combination of movements is simply a single potential solution that only applies if the situation works out that way. With longer sequences, I see the transitions between individual elements as the point. In other words, you're not practicing block-grab-pull-side kick-takedown. You're practicing block-grab, and grab-pull, and pull-side kick, and side kick-takedown. You're just chaining them together, instead of working them separately. All the same issues could be said of shadow boxing, though that does at least have the advantage of usually being more variable.



> I see women in the video, and I just shudder to think of a woman attempting this stuff against a larger person trying to take advantage of them.


Is the issue the flow from element to element, or the techniques being used? Because I wouldn't expect someone to blindly follow the sequence if the person isn't in place for the next step.



> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.


This I agree with a lot. Even sparring within the style will help prevent people from thinking (as some might, if the instructor doesn't explicitly teach otherwise) that the flow is likely to be that predictable.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't see it as much different than training a punching combo in boxing. If you train a jab-straight-hook combo, what if the guy steps off to his left before the hook? What if he throws an uppercut in the middle of that? Every combination of movements is simply a single potential solution that only applies if the situation works out that way. With longer sequences, I see the transitions between individual elements as the point. In other words, you're not practicing block-grab-pull-side kick-takedown. You're practicing block-grab, and grab-pull, and pull-side kick, and side kick-takedown. You're just chaining them together, instead of working them separately. All the same issues could be said of shadow boxing, though that does at least have the advantage of usually being more variable.
> 
> 
> Is the issue the flow from element to element, or the techniques being used? Because I wouldn't expect someone to blindly follow the sequence if the person isn't in place for the next step.
> 
> 
> This I agree with a lot. Even sparring within the style will help prevent people from thinking (as some might, if the instructor doesn't explicitly teach otherwise) that the flow is likely to be that predictable.


I’ve never seen anyone learn a boxing combo like that.   Maybe so, but I’ve never seen it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I’ve never seen anyone learn a boxing combo like that.   Maybe so, but I’ve never seen it.


Like what? I'm missing your point, Steve.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Like what? I'm missing your point, Steve.



I believe what Steve means is that boxers don't stand in front of each other  with one standing there pretending to take a punch as his partner lightly taps him.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> If that's all they ever do then yes it's a problem of sorts.
> 
> But, doing that sort of thing helps with the notion of combinations and how to transition from one technique to the next.



What if the technique is flawed on a fundamental level?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Like what? I'm missing your point, Steve.


I’ve been giving this some thought.   I think there are many differences, but the most important one is that boxers don’t generally fake the outcome of a punch.   They train the technique, work combos on focus mitts to practice delivering the technique with power and proper footwork, and then spar.   In this video, the entire sequence is, they do this, so you punch them here, then they do that, then you parry the punch.   

I only bring this up because you said you don’t see a difference between the video and how a boxer learns a combo.  I really don’t think the learning process is very similar.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I’ve never seen anyone learn a boxing combo like that.   Maybe so, but I’ve never seen it.



Dutch drills.

But the idea is the drills are trained because of the hands on experience of the trainer.

So there are different qualifiers.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> It is good to see schools like this begin to advertise what they teach on the web. I think it is also good to see what they teach so that I can avoid these schools like the plague.
> 
> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?
> 
> I see women in the video, and I just shudder to think of a woman attempting this stuff against a larger person trying to take advantage of them.
> 
> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.




Now I ave stayed out of this as what I am going to say will probably upset going on past experience but I will not stay silent when a very narrow minded view is adopted.

First I would suggest you go and look up what the definition of Kata means ..... then 

I would suggest that you also (you seem hell bent on dumping on everything that you view as not real because of videos) go and research what Kihon waza is and why it is done ...

Also I would put to you directly this ... When you were taught to read etc , did you start of by learning from simple books and very simple sentences or did you start learning by having say War and Peace put in front of you or Shakespeare or the Greek classics? 

If you can answer that sir then and going and doing some simple research on how some arts are taught and why and finding out about Kihon and Kata  then you just might grasp things slightly better.

Is it you just have a personal bias against any Arts that teach by use of Kata and Kihon ? or could it be that you yourself don't and do not want to understand that way?

Also may I point out that your avatar is (I presume you know who that is and his history) that in his art (that he developed and in the art the arts he developed it from) there are Kata (yes Kata has more than one meaning ) there is Katame no Kata and Nage no Kata and Randori no Kata ..................... now There is also Goshin Jutsu and Randori no waza ............ so if you are going to do the latter two then I would suggest that the other Kata have to be learned first (yes there are more Kata that them) or is that not the case? and there by you are saying then Judo is no good as how it teaches? .....


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't sparring be a better way to do that?



You seriously do need to go and research what Kata actually are before you start slating etc lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I believe what Steve means is that boxers don't stand in front of each other  with one standing there pretending to take a punch as his partner lightly taps him.


I agree that's not something I've seen, except in demos. Usually they use the air, focus mitts, or a heavy bag for practicing combinations repetitively. All of those can be hit harder, and you just have to assume the next position (air), react to the position provided by the trainer (mitts), or follow the movement of the bag.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> What if the technique is flawed on a fundamental level?


That's a different issue, and more fundamental, IMO.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Considering the number of likes, I would say yes. I've seen Masaaki Hatsumi and Hayes do similar stuff.




Are you posting for likes ? and I'd be very careful about saying you have seen etc when I have doubts that you are actually grasping what Kata and Kihon are ....How traditional based arts are taught (and don't get into the Koryu thing as if your not getting the why of Kata etc I very much doubt that you will get what Koryu and Gendai are and what the differences are and what comes from where etc) 

sorry for being blunt but you seem to have a very narrow minded approach to things (that is your choice) however maybe a little research before opening broadside may be in order ...just a thought to ponder on


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I’ve been giving this some thought.   I think there are many differences, but the most important one is that boxers don’t generally fake the outcome of a punch.   They train the technique, work combos on focus mitts to practice delivering the technique with power and proper footwork, and then spar.   In this video, the entire sequence is, they do this, so you punch them here, then they do that, then you parry the punch.
> 
> I only bring this up because you said you don’t see a difference between the video and how a boxer learns a combo.  I really don’t think the learning process is very similar.


I'd consider this training method (not the techniques, but the training) similar to the focus mitts. There is an assumption of response/situation in that. The trainer provides a set of targets and responses that's repetitive (in repetitive drills - obviously, mitts don't have to be repetitive). The issue - and I think it's what you're getting at - is if there's no sparring, they'll never know if any of these transitions are actually likely. Whereas, because they spar so often, boxers are pretty aware the combinations they train are responding to things that actually happen from time to time.

So, let me be clear, I think this fills the same function as *one part* of how a boxer learns a combo. There are some reasonable arguments to be made about the advantages of mitts (speed, using some power, etc.) and the advantages of using a person (can see what your block would actually contact, etc.) and whether the trade-off is worth it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Dutch drills.
> 
> But the idea is the drills are trained because of the hands on experience of the trainer.
> 
> So there are different qualifiers.


I haven't seen those for boxers, but it's really much the same as focus mitt drills. And you've said more concisely what I was getting at. The issue, to me, isn't the drill (focus mitts vs those 2-man sequences), but whether the reactions used are realistic. We can be surer of the boxing drills.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> is This considered good budo taijutsu?




I don't wanna upset again but can I ask what you consider to be good Budo taijutsu and also what you define Budo as .... I am not being nasty or provocative at all I ask cause maybe what in the west Budo is defined as may not exactly be the same as the country of origin as many things and concepts can be lost in translation ...just a simple question no more


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Now I ave stayed out of this as what I am going to say will probably upset going on past experience but I will not stay silent when a very narrow minded view is adopted.
> 
> First I would suggest you go and look up what the definition of Kata means ..... then
> 
> I would suggest that you also (you seem hell bent on dumping on everything that you view as not real because of videos) go and research what Kihon waza is and why it is done ...
> 
> Also I would put to you directly this ... When you were taught to read etc , did you start of by learning from simple books and very simple sentences or did you start learning by having say War and Peace put in front of you or Shakespeare or the Greek classics?
> 
> If you can answer that sir then and going and doing some simple research on how some arts are taught and why and finding out about Kihon and Kata  then you just might grasp things slightly better.
> 
> Is it you just have a personal bias against any Arts that teach by use of Kata and Kihon ? or could it be that you yourself don't and do not want to understand that way?
> 
> Also may I point out that your avatar is (I presume you know who that is and his history) that in his art (that he developed and in the art the arts he developed it from) there are Kata (yes Kata has more than one meaning ) there is Katame no Kata and Nage no Kata and Randori no Kata ..................... now There is also Goshin Jutsu and Randori no waza ............ so if you are going to do the latter two then I would suggest that the other Kata have to be learned first (yes there are more Kata that them) or is that not the case? and there by you are saying then Judo is no good as how it teaches? .....


You're coming across pretty condescending in this post.


----------



## JR 137

now disabled said:


> I don't wanna upset again but can I ask what you consider to be good Budo taijutsu and also what you define Budo as .... I am not being nasty or provocative at all I ask cause maybe what in the west Budo is defined as may not exactly be the same as the country of origin as many things and concepts can be lost in translation ...just a simple question no more


I thought (and responded that) it was a good question, so I’ll respond why.  Before I state that, “budo taijutsu” is what the art itself is sometimes referred to as.  “Budo” wasn’t thrown in there as a reference to any preconceived notions.

If the overwhelming majority of the art’s practitioners are saying this isn’t what the kata nor system teach, we can assume the teaching is most likely flawed and not representative of how it’s supposed to be done.  If the overwhelming majority of the practitioners say this “is good budo taijutsu” we can assume his teachings are in line with how the system is taught and trained.

Good to you and me may be two completely different things.  But good or bad to a lot of experts of a system is far more consistent of a measure.

A better way to phrase it may have been “is this considered good in budo taijutsu experts’ eyes?”


----------



## now disabled

JR 137 said:


> I thought (and responded that) it was a good question, so I’ll respond why.  Before I state that, “budo taijutsu” is what the art itself is sometimes referred to as.  “Budo” wasn’t thrown in there as a reference to any preconceived notions.
> 
> If the overwhelming majority of the art’s practitioners are saying this isn’t what the kata nor system teach, we can assume the teaching is most likely flawed and not representative of how it’s supposed to be done.  If the overwhelming majority of the practitioners say this “is good budo taijutsu” we can assume his teachings are in line with how the system is taught and trained.
> 
> Good to you and me may be two completely different things.  But good or bad to a lot of experts of a system is far more consistent of a measure.
> 
> A better way to phrase it may have been “is this considered good in budo taijutsu experts’ eyes?”




I get what your saying and I was not having a go at yourself or any others 

Opinions will also vary and it will depend on who is in the "forum" where the questions are raised (I don't just mean here) 

Attaching the word Budo to anything will always lead to different ideas and even pre conceived ideas ... as I said it is possible that the attaching of that word gives some one idea (and I am not meaning you specifically or any one person) where as what the "natives of the language may take in a completely different way or a wider way/concept. 

I am not saying your question was wrong or in any way of that ilk nor am I saying what you have posted is wrong (that is not my right to decide).

Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ? 

Again not having a go


----------



## now disabled

JR 137 said:


> I thought (and responded that) it was a good question, so I’ll respond why.  Before I state that, “budo taijutsu” is what the art itself is sometimes referred to as.  “Budo” wasn’t thrown in there as a reference to any preconceived notions.
> 
> If the overwhelming majority of the art’s practitioners are saying this isn’t what the kata nor system teach, we can assume the teaching is most likely flawed and not representative of how it’s supposed to be done.  If the overwhelming majority of the practitioners say this “is good budo taijutsu” we can assume his teachings are in line with how the system is taught and trained.
> 
> Good to you and me may be two completely different things.  But good or bad to a lot of experts of a system is far more consistent of a measure.
> 
> A better way to phrase it may have been “is this considered good in budo taijutsu experts’ eyes?”




I get what your saying and I was not having a go at yourself or any others 

Opinions will also vary and it will depend on who is in the "forum" where the questions are raised (I don't just mean here) 

Attaching the word Budo to anything will always lead to different ideas and even pre conceived ideas ... as I said it is possible that the attaching of that word gives some one idea (and I am not meaning you specifically or any one person) where as what the "natives of the language may take in a completely different way or a wider way/concept. 

I am not saying your question was wrong or in any way of that ilk nor am I saying what you have posted is wrong (that is not my right to decide).

Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ? 

Again not having a go


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?



Ironically, most of what you're objecting to in the lesson isn't part of the kata. The actual kata he's building on in this lesson are very short, to the point, and don't contain any assumptions on what the opponent will do (other than the original attack being reacted to.)

What the instructor is trying to do is use those classical kata as a springboard for illustrating potential sequences that might arise out of a modern realistic attack. If you asked your "what-ifs", he would probably be happy to show you how he would flow to deal with those contingencies.

Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that he has enough experience with real fights or hard sparring to make his sequences all that realistic.



now disabled said:


> Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ?



The full name of the art is Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, given by headmaster Massaki Hatsumi. It's Hatsumi's personal expression of the classical arts (Kukushinden ryu, Takagi Yoshin ryu, etc) that he learned and also teaches. (I actually don't remember if this instructor is part of the Bujinkan or if he belongs to one of it's offshoots.)



Steve said:


> is This considered good budo taijutsu?



That sort of judgment gets tricky in the Bujinkan, because there is no universally agreed on standard. Rank promotions are notoriously inconsistent and instructors are widely divergent in what they teach. Evaluation of instructors from other schools can end up being ... political as much as anything else.

Based on the video, I'd say the instructor doesn't look exceptionally good or bad. Maybe just middle-of-the-road typical of what you might expect from a random X-kan dojo.


----------



## JR 137

now disabled said:


> I get what your saying and I was not having a go at yourself or any others
> 
> Opinions will also vary and it will depend on who is in the "forum" where the questions are raised (I don't just mean here)
> 
> Attaching the word Budo to anything will always lead to different ideas and even pre conceived ideas ... as I said it is possible that the attaching of that word gives some one idea (and I am not meaning you specifically or any one person) where as what the "natives of the language may take in a completely different way or a wider way/concept.
> 
> I am not saying your question was wrong or in any way of that ilk nor am I saying what you have posted is wrong (that is not my right to decide).
> 
> Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ?
> 
> Again not having a go


I didn’t interpret anything as “having a go” at anyone.  Nor was my reply.  Apologies if it seemed that way.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tony Dismukes said:


> (I actually don't remember if this instructor is part of the Bujinkan or if he belongs to one of it's offshoots.)


I double-checked. He trains Bujinkan and also Toshindo.


----------



## now disabled

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you asked your "what-ifs", he would probably be happy to show you how he would flow to deal with those contingencies




That is the same statement that my first teacher said ....if you don't understand why or how ask .....


----------



## now disabled

JR 137 said:


> I didn’t interpret anything as “having a go” at anyone.  Nor was my reply.  Apologies if it seemed that way.




none needed my friend none at all


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> You're coming across pretty condescending in this post.




Maybe so but I do feel that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what things actually are .... and well I was just being forthright and ok the analogy was that way but to my thinking it proves a point 

And the thing about the avatar well that was me being snarky 

However it seems that imo a little research before blasting an art or saying things like avoid like the plague would not go amiss 

Ask rather than state (and if I get it wrong I will stand corrected or if I think I am right I will try and put up some form of argument - assuming that is it can be kept civil ..)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Maybe so but I do feel that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what things actually are .... and well I was just being forthright and ok the analogy was that way but to my thinking it proves a point
> 
> And the thing about the avatar well that was me being snarky
> 
> However it seems that imo a little research before blasting an art or saying things like avoid like the plague would not go amiss
> 
> Ask rather than state (and if I get it wrong I will stand corrected or if I think I am right I will try and put up some form of argument - assuming that is it can be kept civil ..)


The OP didn't blast any art. At worst, he "blasted" a specific program and training method.

You appear to assume he doesn't know what kata are, rather than that he doesn't consider it an effective partner training tool.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> The OP didn't blast any art. At worst, he "blasted" a specific program and training method.
> 
> You appear to assume he doesn't know what kata are, rather than that he doesn't consider it an effective partner training tool.




Our opinions differ there ... and we will have to agree to disagree


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'd consider this training method (not the techniques, but the training) similar to the focus mitts. There is an assumption of response/situation in that. The trainer provides a set of targets and responses that's repetitive (in repetitive drills - obviously, mitts don't have to be repetitive). The issue - and I think it's what you're getting at - is if there's no sparring, they'll never know if any of these transitions are actually likely. Whereas, because they spar so often, boxers are pretty aware the combinations they train are responding to things that actually happen from time to time.
> 
> So, let me be clear, I think this fills the same function as *one part* of how a boxer learns a combo. There are some reasonable arguments to be made about the advantages of mitts (speed, using some power, etc.) and the advantages of using a person (can see what your block would actually contact, etc.) and whether the trade-off is worth it.


Once again, regardless of the purpose, I think the mechanics are different.   You said you see little difference.   Fundamentally, the training is constructed differently, even of both are intended to serve the same function.   I bring it up because, in my opinion, training mechanics are a significant reason why some martial arts are more efficient at building skill than others.   


now disabled said:


> I don't wanna upset again but can I ask what you consider to be good Budo taijutsu and also what you define Budo as .... I am not being nasty or provocative at all I ask cause maybe what in the west Budo is defined as may not exactly be the same as the country of origin as many things and concepts can be lost in translation ...just a simple question no more


I have no idea whatsoever what might be considered good budo taijutsu.   That’s why I ask.   I am very skeptical of the techniques demonstrated in this video, and also of the training mechanics, but those are independent of the style.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Maybe so but I do feel that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what things actually are .... and well I was just being forthright and ok the analogy was that way but to my thinking it proves a point
> 
> And the thing about the avatar well that was me being snarky
> 
> However it seems that imo a little research before blasting an art or saying things like avoid like the plague would not go amiss
> 
> Ask rather than state (and if I get it wrong I will stand corrected or if I think I am right I will try and put up some form of argument - assuming that is it can be kept civil ..)


If you do a search for kata, we have had some really interesting threads on what it is and what it might be.   Believe me, if you think you’re condescending, you haven’t seen anything yet.   Stir it up enough, and you’ll have plenty of back up from the kata faithful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Once again, regardless of the purpose, I think the mechanics are different.   You said you see little difference.   Fundamentally, the training is constructed differently, even of both are intended to serve the same function.   I bring it up because, in my opinion, training mechanics are a significant reason why some martial arts are more efficient at building skill than others.


You spoke before of the progression, and I agree on that point. This type of thing could be used where something like focus mitt drills is used, but it'll still need the other bits to complete the progression. There is also the point about power. While I don't put anything like full power into focus mitts, I certainly give them more than this kind of drill, so maybe that's a weak comparison. I tend to see things as crossing over between grappling and striking, so I draw some parallels that are conceptual, but maybe not direct enough for this discussion. This type of drill may be more analogous to the first part of a grappling progression, where the partner feeds slowly and gently and we reply the same way. In mixed work (grappling and striking) we often use the same approach on the entering strike to a grappling move in a drill.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Now I ave stayed out of this as what I am going to say will probably upset going on past experience but I will not stay silent when a very narrow minded view is adopted.
> 
> First I would suggest you go and look up what the definition of Kata means ..... then
> 
> I would suggest that you also (you seem hell bent on dumping on everything that you view as not real because of videos) go and research what Kihon waza is and why it is done ...
> 
> Also I would put to you directly this ... When you were taught to read etc , did you start of by learning from simple books and very simple sentences or did you start learning by having say War and Peace put in front of you or Shakespeare or the Greek classics?



The difference being that extensive kata practice has yet to yield any verifiable evidence of more advanced fighting ability. In fact, the evidence would show the opposite to be true.



> If you can answer that sir then and going and doing some simple research on how some arts are taught and why and finding out about Kihon and Kata  then you just might grasp things slightly better.



Mainly because of tradition. That isn't always the best reason to do something.





> Is it you just have a personal bias against any Arts that teach by use of Kata and Kihon ? or could it be that you yourself don't and do not want to understand that way?



Neither. Nice guess though




> Also may I point out that your avatar is (I presume you know who that is and his history) that in his art (that he developed and in the art the arts he developed it from) there are Kata (yes Kata has more than one meaning ) there is Katame no Kata and Nage no Kata and Randori no Kata ..................... now There is also Goshin Jutsu and Randori no waza ............ so if you are going to do the latter two then I would suggest that the other Kata have to be learned first (yes there are more Kata that them) or is that not the case? and there by you are saying then Judo is no good as how it teaches? .....



Kata and Bunkai  isn't the focus of Judo training, which was the point I was making in the OP.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd consider this training method (not the techniques, but the training) similar to the focus mitts. There is an assumption of response/situation in that. The trainer provides a set of targets and responses that's repetitive (in repetitive drills - obviously, mitts don't have to be repetitive). The issue - and I think it's what you're getting at - is if there's no sparring, they'll never know if any of these transitions are actually likely. Whereas, because they spar so often, boxers are pretty aware the combinations they train are responding to things that actually happen from time to time.
> 
> So, let me be clear, I think this fills the same function as *one part* of how a boxer learns a combo. There are some reasonable arguments to be made about the advantages of mitts (speed, using some power, etc.) and the advantages of using a person (can see what your block would actually contact, etc.) and whether the trade-off is worth it.



Boxers don't fake the outcome of a punch successfully. So you don't go from win to win which is nice but not very useful. As learning to towel up a guy who is getting rocked isn't high percentage.

So what they do is fake the defence. You punch, they slip and counter. Then you counter off that. Because, well that is handier to know.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Our opinions differ there ... and we will have to agree to disagree



There are consistencies. These accepted martial dogma that doesn't work very well but people seem to do.

Hinging reality off kata is one. So a persons point of reference is the kata rather than any link to fighting or practical application.

The stuff you do hast to work first and foremost. And it has to work consistently in a definable and observable way.

This is why magic when consistently tested doesn't work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> The difference being that extensive kata practice has yet to yield any verifiable evidence of more advanced fighting ability. In fact, the evidence would show the opposite to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because of tradition. That isn't always the best reason to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither. Nice guess though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kata and Bunkai  isn't the focus of Judo training, which was the point I was making in the OP.


Not regarding fighting, but there is minor evidence of kata, and 'traditional' martial arts being more beneficial for preventing 'delinquent'/aggressive/impulsive behavior than 'combat-oriented' martial arts.
Side note: that may have veen the most quotations I've ever had to use in a sentence.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Boxers don't fake the outcome of a punch successfully. So you don't go from win to win which is nice but not very useful. As learning to towel up a guy who is getting rocked isn't high percentage.
> 
> So what they do is fake the defence. You punch, they slip and counter. Then you counter off that. Because, well that is handier to know.


Wrestling works much the same way. “You do this, he tries to avoid it with that, then you transition to this.”

Although there are some common responses you train to spot and take advantage of.  For instance in folk style, when a guy is flat on his stomach, he’ll typically put a hand flat on the mat to push back up to his base.  Half-Nelson time.  Or throw a bar in there.  All day, every day.  And we would train that, but I realize that’s more of a situational drill as I type it out loud.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Why do you always have to wait for your opponent's attack? In training, if you always initiate the attack, the training will be in more realistic speed.

IMO, instead of "You do ..., I'll do ...", it's better to "I'll do ..., if you respond as ..., I'll do ...".


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Wrestling works much the same way. “You do this, he tries to avoid it with that, then you transition to this.”
> 
> Although there are some common responses you train to spot and take advantage of.  For instance in folk style, when a guy is flat on his stomach, he’ll typically put a hand flat on the mat to push back up to his base.  Half-Nelson time.  Or throw a bar in there.  All day, every day.  And we would train that, but I realize that’s more of a situational drill as I type it out loud.



Yet quite often we see martial arts restomping the groin. Which is silly follow up.





I did that a lot doing RSBD. and it creates a lot of wasted time learning to do what. Follow up on a guy that is rocked? That isnt the trick to fighting.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Yet quite often we see martial arts restomping the groin. Which is silly follow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did that a lot doing RSBD. and it creates a lot of wasted time learning to do what. Follow up on a guy that is rocked? That isnt the trick to fighting.



Restomping the groin has its advantages - you’ll have a better chance of the guy not getting up as you’re getting out of there.

But yeah, I completely agree.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> There are consistencies. These accepted martial dogma that doesn't work very well but people seem to do.
> 
> Hinging reality off kata is one. So a persons point of reference is the kata rather than any link to fighting or practical application.
> 
> The stuff you do hast to work first and foremost. And it has to work consistently in a definable and observable way.
> 
> This is why magic when consistently tested doesn't work.



Magic is a good analogy here. The reason we would think it works is anecdotal. But the reason we know it doesnt is scientific testing.

It is important to separate waht should work and what does.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Restomping the groin has its advantages - you’ll have a better chance of the guy not getting up as you’re getting out of there.
> 
> But yeah, I completely agree.



I am a fan of doing it. I am not a fan of spending my time and money paying someone to teach it to me.

I can come up with that on my own.

It depends how you address a fight. So if you are trained to hit someone then move because you expect a shot back. And they suprise you by falling on the ground crying. So what? 

If you were expecting them to fall down crying and they hit you back. That is a bigger issue.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> It is good to see schools like this begin to advertise what they teach on the web. I think it is also good to see what they teach so that I can avoid these schools like the plague.
> 
> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?
> 
> I see women in the video, and I just shudder to think of a woman attempting this stuff against a larger person trying to take advantage of them.
> 
> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.



By the way. If you want to stretch a concept. Try this.


----------



## paitingman

I think @JowGaWolf has given some good perspective in the past about properly taking form to function and keeping true to both. He's also given clips of his and others' approach to this I just dk where they are.


----------



## drop bear

paitingman said:


> I think @JowGaWolf has given some good perspective in the past about properly taking form to function and keeping true to both. He's also given clips of his and others' approach to this I just dk where they are.



I think he was getting pressure for duing video. secrets or something.


----------



## paitingman

drop bear said:


> By the way. If you want to stretch a concept. Try this.


Standing grappling is def part of Bunkai in traditional karate, but sweeps and armbars... nah.

On the plus side it did look some good training goes on with the guys in the video


----------



## drop bear

paitingman said:


> Standing grappling is def part of Bunkai in traditional karate, but sweeps and armbars... nah.
> 
> On the plus side it did look some good training goes on with the guys in the video



Yeah it was really weird cos the guy was good.

Probably a bit more than kata there though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Boxers don't fake the outcome of a punch successfully. So you don't go from win to win which is nice but not very useful. As learning to towel up a guy who is getting rocked isn't high percentage.
> 
> So what they do is fake the defence. You punch, they slip and counter. Then you counter off that. Because, well that is handier to know.


Thanks. That's clearer than what I said.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> Wrestling works much the same way. “You do this, he tries to avoid it with that, then you transition to this.”
> 
> Although there are some common responses you train to spot and take advantage of.  For instance in folk style, when a guy is flat on his stomach, he’ll typically put a hand flat on the mat to push back up to his base.  Half-Nelson time.  Or throw a bar in there.  All day, every day.  And we would train that, but I realize that’s more of a situational drill as I type it out loud.


And that's the other side of what I was getting at. Used properly, the exercises in the OP video serve as a situational drill. That are covering a potential sequence, rather than a guaranteed or assumed one. I'm not convinced that's how they are used in that video .


----------



## TaiChiTJ

Also may I point out that your avatar is (I presume you know who that is and his history) that in his art (that he developed and in the art the arts he developed it from) there are Kata (yes Kata has more than one meaning ) there is Katame no Kata and Nage no Kata and Randori no Kata ..................... now There is also Goshin Jutsu and Randori no waza ............ so if you are going to do the latter two then I would suggest that the other Kata have to be learned first (yes there are more Kata that them) or is that not the case? and there by you are saying then Judo is no good as how it teaches? .....[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> What you are saying is that the video clip represents just one training mode. Making a correct judgement on the entire system from one exercise is faulty.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The difference being that extensive kata practice has yet to yield any verifiable evidence of more advanced fighting ability. In fact, the evidence would show the opposite to be true.




That statement is somewhat misguided,

Are you now suggesting that Koryu did not produce advanced fighters? ...........again a little research may be in order


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Kata and Bunkai isn't the focus of Judo training, which was the point I was making in the OP.




I am going to ask you straight ....what do those terms mean to you as that statement again is somewhat misguided as ...oh jut go look it up lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Neither. Nice guess though




It is your opinion as you are stating that any use of extensive kata et al ....does not produce verifiable evidence, if that is not your opinion then whose is it? 

What are you basing that statement on vids on you tube or lack of them? 


I really do think that you are not grasping what Kata are firstly and are using terms that are not altogether correct 


As for verifiable what are you actually meaning by that?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> The difference being that extensive kata practice has yet to yield any verifiable evidence of more advanced fighting ability. In fact, the evidence would show the opposite to be true.



You seem to be confusing "[your] personal opinion" with "evidence."


----------



## now disabled

@Hanzou 

Take this analogy

Soldiers ... They do foot drill, weapons drill, Range practice, Weapon disassembly and reassembly, section attacks, company assault et al , battle camps etc......................

Now Those are all basics and forms (esp the foot dill, disassembly/reassembly section attacks) ie Kihon waza and Kata ................. they aren't called that but that is what they are now from them there is and has been analysis to obtain the techniques that are used to fight etc ie bunkai (ok bunkai is a bit wider possibly) and by learning the forms (kata) getting them down to a Tee and then the techs that lead from them (kihon waza) then they are analysed (bunkai) you then produce a fighting man/woman... and get verifiable results ........... make sense in those terms? 

So saying anything that (MA) is Kata based etc and saying tey do not produce verifiable results is far from the case and in the Japanese context I would be fairly sure that the Koryu schools would argue fairly convincingly that the have produced results.

Maybe what is not being made clear is if when you are doing Kata or Kihon waza and you do not see where the application is or how then that is when instead of saying no it doesn't work or not that useless ....ask the teacher they will then be able to explain and show you 

Also if you want to be effective and get verifiable results (as you put it)  then first you learn the basic forms then the basic tech then you analyse and take from there. After all that is done then you learn the tweaks and the nuances and there by the full applications, you don't learn the shortcuts first.

It is very easy to look on you tube and see vids that in which it may not be readily recognizable as to what the end result is so be aware of that before jumping either on band wagons or to conclusions and also if you have not studied that art then bluntly how do you know, unless you are going on others opinions (now that opinion may be good or it may be flawed, as in they either did not like or bluntly couldn't do)


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to be confusing "[your] personal opinion" with "evidence."



The evidence being traditional martial artists currently getting stomped by non-traditional and combat sport martial artists on a fairly consistent basis for the better part of a century. That certainly isn't my opinion.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to be confusing "[your] personal opinion" with "evidence."


Im curious. Is there any actual evidence that kata, or mitt training, or sparring, or any other specific part of training makes someone a better fighter? When i say evidence i dont just mean "oh its common sense" or "look at X fighter" i mean an actual scientific study to find out what training methods are more effective?

That question isnt just to you, im just replying to yours since thats what put the question in my mind.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yeah it was really weird cos the guy was good.
> 
> Probably a bit more than kata there though.



He's definitely had cross-training in Bjj. He even uses Bjj terminology in the video. I did Karate for a long time, and we never did any ground fighting. The idea that ground fighting is hidden in the kata is laughable, and nothing more than a sales gimmick.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> That statement is somewhat misguided,
> 
> Are you now suggesting that Koryu did not produce advanced fighters? ...........again a little research may be in order



Advanced Koryu fighters were produced via actual warfare, not from kata or form practice. Any time someone says that their sensei from a bygone age was some superman that could kill 20 men with the thrust of their fist you should view that person as someone who drank the kool-aid.

Additionally, there's plenty of videos of "legendary" traditional martial artists fighting on rooftops and rings displaying their fighting prowess, and it doesn't look good. It literally looks like two grown men slapping each other.

Which is what happens when all you train is kata and forms, and not actual combat.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> He's definitely had cross-training in Bjj. He even uses Bjj terminology in the video. I did Karate for a long time, and we never did any ground fighting. The idea that ground fighting is hidden in the kata is laughable, and nothing more than a sales gimmick.




You really are stating just your opinion and ignoring things totally and completely ..................as for people getting their asses stomped where are you basing that on again ....You tube ???

And you still are avoiding answering any questions I put to you .....


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Advanced Koryu fighters were produced via actual warfare, not from kata or form practice. Any time someone says that their sensei from a bygone age was some superman that could kill 20 men with the thrust of their fist you should view that person as someone who drank the kool-aid.
> 
> Additionally, there's plenty of videos of "legendary" traditional martial artists fighting on rooftops and rings displaying their fighting prowess, and it doesn't look good. It literally looks like two grown men slapping each other.
> 
> Which is what happens when all you train is kata and forms, and not actual combat.




Your just making me laugh now ............you really do not have a grasp of how MA works at all and are basing all on You tube and videos 


Pray do tell is the fighters from the past didn't learn from kata etc how did they learn ?

And what is your solution to all you see as wrong?.....I would be really interested in that 


(Oh and btw that vid you posted and got all het up about Watanabe shihan well ummm your info was not correct .....so again beware of posting and saying things before you do the research .....)


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You really are stating just your opinion and ignoring things totally and completely ..................as for people getting their asses stomped where are you basing that on again ....You tube ???



Stating that Karateka traditionally don't roll on the ground and utilize the guard and Bjj transitions isn't an opinion. In fact, I fondly remember my Karate teacher telling us that "dogs fight on the ground, and we're not dogs" right after the first UFC way back in the day.

As for traditional martial artists getting stomped, yes we're using Youtube today, but it isn't exactly a new occurrence. Again, it's been happening for the better part of a century.



> And you still are avoiding answering any questions I put to you .....



What questions?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Your just making me laugh now ............you really do not have a grasp of how MA works at all and are basing all on You tube and videos
> 
> 
> Pray do tell is the fighters from the past didn't learn from kata etc how did they learn ?



Where did I say that they didn't learn from Kata?



> And what is your solution to all you see as wrong?.....I would be really interested in that



Cross training. I wouldn't waste time trying to change traditional arts. A better use of your time would be spent learning boxing, wrestling, bjj, MMA, or similar arts.



> (Oh and btw that vid you posted and got all het up about Watanabe shihan well ummm your info was not correct .....so again beware of posting and saying things before you do the research .....)



And what info was incorrect exactly?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Stating that Karateka traditionally don't roll on the ground and utilize the guard and Bjj transitions isn't an opinion. In fact, I fondly remember my Karate teacher telling us that "dogs fight on the ground, and we're not dogs" right after the first UFC way back in the day.
> 
> As for traditional martial artists getting stomped, yes we're using Youtube today, but it isn't exactly a new occurrence. Again, it's been happening for the better part of a century.
> 
> 
> 
> What questions?




Honestly just stop your digging yourself into a mighty deep hole 

Basing on you tube ok ....really smart idea ....not, really you are jumping around like a hen on a hot griddle stating this that and the other your comparing sport to trad arts ...your saying that everyone agrees with your views ....etc etc etc you even said that due to the like you must be right ................your not lol....and you do (blunt) show a lack of insight into what things actually are etc yet you are booming off like you know .... you really are digging a hole .... if you want to pick a specific Kata or Kihon waza that you think shows a good example of things not working then do so ....infact pick several from all the arts you have said you don't like etc and I am sure there will be people on here that can state what they are the base for and how they applied .... there ya go back to you tube .... and if you have footage of trad artists on roof tops getting their asses kicked then I'd like to see them and I don't mean competitions ...go post them and back up your claims 


And UFC oh get real that is sport .....


Questions lol..... Do you know what all the terms you are using actually mean ? and the context your using same?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that they didn't learn from Kata?
> 
> 
> 
> Cross training. I wouldn't waste time trying to change traditional arts. A better use of your time would be spent learning boxing, wrestling, bjj, MMA, or similar arts.
> 
> 
> 
> And what info was incorrect exactly?



Thanks for the advice 

what was incorrect ......well he is not active as such and guess what he has fallen from grace ..... now that is not hard to find out about if you know who and where to look ................and the vid you posted was for your info not taken in the Aikikai hombu ...and that means neither of the two training halls ok before you start saying and claiming that ........ research before booming of


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't waste time trying to change traditional arts




I'd suggest then you stop bashing the trad arts and making statements about them that are not true or accurate


----------



## Dirty Dog

kempodisciple said:


> Im curious. Is there any actual evidence that kata, or mitt training, or sparring, or any other specific part of training makes someone a better fighter? When i say evidence i dont just mean "oh its common sense" or "look at X fighter" i mean an actual scientific study to find out what training methods are more effective?
> 
> That question isnt just to you, im just replying to yours since thats what put the question in my mind.



Not that I am aware of, no.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Honestly just stop your digging yourself into a mighty deep hole
> 
> Basing on you tube ok ....really smart idea ...


.

So you honestly believe that video recordings aren't evidence?



> not, really you are jumping around like a hen on a hot griddle stating this that and the other your comparing sport to trad arts ...



That's quite a bit of projection on your part.[/quote]



> your saying that everyone agrees with your views ....etc etc etc you even said that due to the like you must be right ................



I never said either of those statements. 



> your not lol....and you do (blunt) show a lack of insight into what things actually are etc yet you are booming off like you know .... you really are digging a hole .... if you want to pick a specific Kata or Kihon waza that you think shows a good example of things not working then do so ....infact pick several from all the arts you have said you don't like etc and I am sure there will be people on here that can state what they are the base for and how they applied .... there ya go back to you tube ....



Howabout you choose a kata that actually shows things working, and we can go from there?



> and if you have footage of trad artists on roof tops getting their asses kicked then I'd like to see them and I don't mean competitions ...go post them and back up your claims



I thought you didn't like YouTube being used as evidence... You now want me to post a video from YouTube as evidence?

Interesting.




> And UFC oh get real that is sport .....



The first UFCs weren't sports. They were combat exhibitions.



> Questions lol..... Do you know what all the terms you are using actually mean ? and the context your using same?



Yes. Next question.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> So you honestly believe that video recordings aren't evidence?




Not entirely no ....and if you are posting sports vids then def no and your interpretation of said is well at times misguided


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> That's quite a bit of projection on your part.


[/QUOTE]


Eh no ...you were on about trad boys getting their asses kicked on roof tops and the Karate sensei saying things at the time of UFC ... and you refer to the vids etc now they seem mainly if you are talking UFC or what ever it is called ten is that not a sport???


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Howabout you choose a kata that actually shows things working, and we can go from there?




Eh I ain't the one who has all the issues with Kata lol and the only Kata I really know anything fully about are my own Art .... however I can see in other arts where it can be applied ...I do not know the names they use as we all use different ones ... 

I can actually and do know what Kata etc are were designed for etc 


so nope you go choose and do the breakdown on the arts you feel are doing as you say etc or the individual Kata you say are flawed and wrong ...and let the guys who are qualified to reply to you on their specialty, I can only reply and talk on my own (which is pointless as you already smashed that art lol)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*When the kata is applied to self defense.*

It's 21th century. We should talk about "When the application is recorded into modern form" instead.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *When the kata is applied to self defense.*
> 
> It's 21th century. We should talk about "When the application is recorded into modern form" instead.




I get that but it can and is esp in empty hand arts ...the for example need only be changed, A very basic example an overhead strike with a sword the sword can be replaced with an over head strike with a bottle or a stick or anything else  bottle ....ok distances slightly diff but principles essentially the same


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Thanks for the advice
> 
> what was incorrect ......well he is not active as such and guess what he has fallen from grace ..... now that is not hard to find out about if you know who and where to look ................and the vid you posted was for your info not taken in the Aikikai hombu ...and that means neither of the two training halls ok before you start saying and claiming that ........ research before booming of



I never argued whether or not he was active. I argued that he was teaching magical nonsense and some Aikidoka were believing and supporting it. Also if he's fallen from grace, why is he still listed on the Aikikkai federation's main site? He may not be active (dude is in his late 80s), but I see no evidence that he has "fallen from grace" in the world of Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Not entirely no ....and if you are posting sports vids then def no and your interpretation of said is well at times misguided



Challenge videos aren't sports either....



now disabled said:


> Eh no ...you were on about trad boys getting their asses kicked on roof tops and the Karate sensei saying things at the time of UFC ... and you refer to the vids etc now they seem mainly if you are talking UFC or what ever it is called ten is that not a sport???



Yeah, you're getting some things confused here...

I didn't say that traditional martial artists were getting stomped on roof tops. *I* said that there are videos of traditional martial artists fighting, and the actual fighting looks like two men slapping each other with little skill being displayed.










Clearly when you fight like that, you're going to be in quite a bit of trouble when you go up against an MMA fighter, a Muay Thai Kickboxer, a boxer or a wrestler. That result is precisely what we're seeing in the modern day.

The sensei was my karate instructor discussing how Karatekas don't fight on the ground.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say in the last sentence.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> I get that but it can and is esp in empty hand arts ...the for example need only be changed, A very basic example an overhead strike with a sword the sword can be replaced with an over head strike with a bottle or a stick or anything else  bottle ....ok distances slightly diff but principles essentially the same


We should collect all the effective techniques used in UFC and create new forms.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> That statement is somewhat misguided,
> 
> Are you now suggesting that Koryu did not produce advanced fighters? ...........again a little research may be in order


I think what he's saying is that there's no evidence the kata (assuming that was used extensively in koryu arts - I have no real knowledge in that area) was responsible for developing that fighting ability. In other words, we find good fighters (perhaps better fighters on average) from systems that don't rely on kata. Of course, that's correlation, so an assumption of causality has to be taken with a grain of salt given all the confounding factors involved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> Im curious. Is there any actual evidence that kata, or mitt training, or sparring, or any other specific part of training makes someone a better fighter? When i say evidence i dont just mean "oh its common sense" or "look at X fighter" i mean an actual scientific study to find out what training methods are more effective?
> 
> That question isnt just to you, im just replying to yours since thats what put the question in my mind.


There are so many confounding variables, we'd literally need a controlled experiment to tell. Any comparison "in the wild" also includes other variables in training, instructional quality, time commitment, effectiveness of techniques, fitness, etc.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We should collect all the effective techniques used in UFC and create new forms.



Indeed. Sanshou is doing precisely that, and is the better for it IMO.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I think what he's saying is that there's no evidence the kata (assuming that was used extensively in koryu arts - I have no real knowledge in that area) was responsible for developing that fighting ability. In other words, we find good fighters (perhaps better fighters on average) from systems that don't rely on kata. Of course, that's correlation, so an assumption of causality has to be taken with a grain of salt given all the confounding factors involved.



The problem with the Koryu arts is that they were only tested a few times after the installation of the Edo period. They were tested in the Satsuma Rebellion in 1877, and by the Kodakan at the turn of the century. In both cases they failed spectacularly. The majority of them died out shortly after Judo's rise to prominence in the early 20th century.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Challenge videos aren't sports either....
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're getting some things confused here...
> 
> I didn't say that traditional martial artists were getting stomped on roof tops. *I* said that there are videos of traditional martial artists fighting, and the actual fighting looks like two men slapping each other with little skill being displayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly when you fight like that, you're going to be in quite a bit of trouble when you go up against an MMA fighter, a Muay Thai Kickboxer, a boxer or a wrestler. That result is precisely what we're seeing in the modern day.
> 
> The sensei was my karate instructor discussing how Karatekas don't fight on the ground.
> 
> Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say in the last sentence.


I have to say I loved that they added the sound effects to the first clip. It made all those old kung fu movies seem more real.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The problem with the Koryu arts is that they were only tested a few times after the installation of the Edo period. They were tested in the Satsuma Rebellion in 1877, and by the Kodakan at the turn of the century. In both cases they failed spectacularly. The majority of them died out shortly after Judo's rise to prominence in the early 20th century.




Ok you have lost me on the Kodakan testing things so could you enlighten me there please


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I think what he's saying is that there's no evidence the kata (assuming that was used extensively in koryu arts - I have no real knowledge in that area) was responsible for developing that fighting ability. In other words, we find good fighters (perhaps better fighters on average) from systems that don't rely on kata. Of course, that's correlation, so an assumption of causality has to be taken with a grain of salt given all the confounding factors involved.




I don't agree with you there sorry


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to be confusing "[your] personal opinion" with "evidence."


I wasn't going to respond but I clicked the disagree button and before you retaliate, which you always do, I figured I need to explain why I disagree with you.   There is plenty of evidence that koryu arts do not produce capable fighters (which we all agree is synonmous with self defense). That's not an opinion.   You may suggest that there is contrary evidence and you might also challenge the conclusion, but thats not nearly as condescending and dismissive as your snarky comment about opinions.   

If you want to contribute constructively, perhaps you could offee contrary evidence or in a substantive way challenge the conclusion.   @gpseymour is pretty good at doing this .  Maybe take a cue from him.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The problem with the Koryu arts is that they were only tested a few times after the installation of the Edo period. They were tested in the Satsuma Rebellion in 1877, and by the Kodakan at the turn of the century. In both cases they failed spectacularly. The majority of them died out shortly after Judo's rise to prominence in the early 20th century.




You are saying that the majority of the Koryu died out due to the rise of Judo ? ....ummmmm ok 

The satsuma rebellion wasn't in the Edo period btw the Boshin war was are we getting the two mixed up?


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I wasn't going to respond but I clicked the disagree button and before you retaliate, which you always do, I figured I need to explain why I disagree with you.   There is plenty of evidence that koryu arts do not produce capable fighters (which we all agree is synonmous with self defense). That's not an opinion.   You may suggest that there is contrary evidence and you might also challenge the conclusion, but thats not nearly as condescending and dismissive as your snarky comment about opinions.
> 
> If you want to contribute constructively, perhaps you could offee contrary evidence or in a substantive way challenge the conclusion.   @gpseymour is pretty good at doing this .  Maybe take a cue from him.




Where is the evidence? and what are you basing that on ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Ok you have lost me on the Kodakan testing things so could you enlighten me there please



In 1886, the Tokyo police held exhibitions to see what martial art would be used for their personal self defense system. Judo overwhelmingly beat out the Koryu arts and became the preeminent Jujitsu school in Japan. On July 24, 1905, representatives of the leading jujitsu schools (ryu) of Japan, gathered at the Butokukai Institute in Kyoto to agree upon the forms of Kodokan Judo and to continue the development of the technical forms of the sport. The ancient jujitsu techniques of each particular school were to be preserved in kata (pre-arranged form) for posterity. Here's a photo of that meeting:










now disabled said:


> You are saying that the majority of the Koryu died out due to the rise of Judo ? ....ummmmm ok



Yes.There's far more Japanese Jujitsu schools outside of Japan than inside Japan. I've heard that Japanese JJ is so rare in Japan that when you bring up Jujitsu, many think you're talking about Bjj.



> The satsuma rebellion wasn't in the Edo period btw the Boshin war was are we getting the two mixed up?



I didn't say it did. I said it occurred after the installation of the Edo period. I'm well aware that the rebellion occurred during the Meiji restoration.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Challenge videos aren't sports either....
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're getting some things confused here...
> 
> I didn't say that traditional martial artists were getting stomped on roof tops. *I* said that there are videos of traditional martial artists fighting, and the actual fighting looks like two men slapping each other with little skill being displayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly when you fight like that, you're going to be in quite a bit of trouble when you go up against an MMA fighter, a Muay Thai Kickboxer, a boxer or a wrestler. That result is precisely what we're seeing in the modern day.
> 
> The sensei was my karate instructor discussing how Karatekas don't fight on the ground.
> 
> Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say in the last sentence.




Ok is your view that MMA is the king of all ?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> In 1886, the Tokyo police held exhibitions to see what martial art would be used for their personal self defense system. Judo overwhelmingly beat out the Koryu arts and became the preeminent Jujitsu school in Japan. On July 24, 1905, representatives of the leading jujitsu schools (ryu) of Japan, gathered at the Butokukai Institute in Kyoto to agree upon the forms of Kodokan Judo and to continue the development of the technical forms of the sport. The ancient jujitsu techniques of each particular school were to be preserved in kata (pre-arranged form) for posterity. Here's a photo of that meeting:
> 
> 
> Ok ..... now where does that say they died out etc and that was due to Judo .... ?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think what he's saying is that there's no evidence the kata (assuming that was used extensively in koryu arts - I have no real knowledge in that area) was responsible for developing that fighting ability. In other words, we find good fighters (perhaps better fighters on average) from systems that don't rely on kata. Of course, that's correlation, so an assumption of causality has to be taken with a grain of salt given all the confounding factors involved.


I took it to mean that the combat (I.e., application) produced the competent fighters.   Someone earlier brought up basic training.  The military training model is grounded in a training/application/training cycle . You learn it, you do it, you learn some more and then do some more .   When I got to my first duty station, I was fully trained, but wrnt through 6 more months of ojt before I  was able to even look at ordnance with direct supervision.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Ok is your view that MMA is the king of all ?



I would say that MMA has proven itself to be highly effective, but it isn't the king. MMA is a combination of very effective martial arts (typically Bjj, MT Kickboxing, wrestling, boxing, etc.) which makes it a very effective system in of itself.

As a Bjj practitioner, I appreciate the existence of MMA because it keeps my style honest. Anytime we veer off into Berimbolo land, MMA is there to punch us in the face and bring us back to reality.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> And that's the other side of what I was getting at. Used properly, the exercises in the OP video serve as a situational drill. That are covering a potential sequence, rather than a guaranteed or assumed one. I'm not convinced that's how they are used in that video .


It’s all in the mindset/approach/whatever you call it. And we don’t know exactly what was said before and/or after the video was rolling.  But I agree that the teacher in the initial video was most likely teaching it as stuff that’ll definitely happen and not situation drills.  But early on he did pause and have the other guy throw a counter punch to explain why certain postures and hand positions were used. But definitely not enough of it.  But we’re not his students and seeing the whole picture; we’re seeing a few minute snapshot of training.  When you’re first learning stuff, training this way is acceptable.  You’re learning a strategy.  If you’re being countered right off the bat, you’re not going to get a solid grasp of how to apply it.  A great example of a technique that’s known to be effective is a single leg takedown.  If I’m teaching you it and sprawl every single time you try it, from the very first time you try it, you’re going to have a real difficult time learning it.  If I let you take me down a couple dozen times before I start countering it, you’ll get it a lot quicker and more effectively.

What the guy in the video is essentially doing is teaching the single leg takedown and not addressing the sprawl. Perhaps not until after they’ve got it down, or perhaps he never will.  We really have no way of knowing.  However many of us have been in a school that doesn’t address the sprawl and assumes the takedown will always work and goes right into the follow up and pin.

Maybe this explains it better:
Instead of MA, picture this being wrestling.  The coach says shoot a single leg takedown.  The opponent will fall to his side, landing on his stomach and put his left hand on the mat to push off and get up.  You then half Nelson that arm sticking up and turn him and pin him.  That can definitely work and go exactly as planned (I’ve done it countless times in free practice and matches), but there’s a ton of things that the opponent can and will do.  He can sprawl, throw a cross-face, and get behind you.  He can sprawl and use a spladle to pin you.  He can sprawl and turn you with an overhook, he can... and on and on.

Guys like the in video have the mentality that the single leg takedown to half Nelson will and do work every time.  They don’t train it against a guy who’s not going to let it happen.  They don’t teach what to do when it doesn’t work.  They don’t teach “ok he just sprawled, what do you do now?”  They just keep on teaching single leg takedown-half Nelson-pin-game over without any other thought.  

That’s what gives kata training and the like a bad name.  Not everyone trains it like that, but that’s who’s getting the overwhelming share of ribbing here.  And the videos of it are far too easy to find.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> He's definitely had cross-training in Bjj. He even uses Bjj terminology in the video. I did Karate for a long time, and we never did any ground fighting. The idea that ground fighting is hidden in the kata is laughable, and nothing more than a sales gimmick.



Just curious, is there anything you know of hidden in kata, or no longer know in the kata?


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Ok is your view that MMA is the king of all ?


king of what?  I know you asked hanzou but my opinion is that mma is very good at producing competent, well rounded fighters.  You can start training mma as an out of shape man or woman, and see predictable, repeatable results.   Your practical skill level will improve quickly as will your level of fitness.  I don't know about king, though.   Not sure what that means.

The same is true for any component style if trained similarly, whether thats muay thai, bjj, sambo, judo, wrestling, and even karate and tkd.   Karate isn't the problem.   It is the lack of practical application.  Sport gives you this in the absence of other examples, such as cop, bouncer, or professional hit man.  Most people find competition to be more accessible than these.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I would say that MMA has proven itself to be highly effective, but it isn't the king. MMA is a combination of very effective martial arts (typically Bjj, MT Kickboxing, wrestling, boxing, etc.) which makes it a very effective system in of itself.
> 
> As a Bjj practitioner, I appreciate the existence of MMA because it keeps my style honest. Anytime we veer off into Berimbolo land, MMA is there to punch us in the face and bring us back to reality.




Ok advice noted


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> king of what?  I know you asked hanzou but my opinion is that mma is very good at producing competent, well rounded fighters.  You can start training mma as an out of shape man or woman, and see predictable, repeatable results.   Your practical skill level will improve quickly as will your level of fitness.  I don't know about king, though.   Not sure what that means.
> 
> The same is true for any component style if trained similarly, whether thats muay thai, bjj, sambo, judo, wrestling, and even karate and tkd.   Karate isn't the problem.   It is the lack of practical application.  Sport gives you this in the absence of other examples, such as cop, bouncer, or professional hit man.  Most people find competition to be more accessible than these.



There is where we will differ ....you have your view that sport defines ...I don't ...so we agree to disagree


----------



## Hanzou

oftheherd1 said:


> Just curious, is there anything you know of hidden in kata, or no longer know in the kata?



Are you asking me if I know the Bunkai of kata? I've studied the bunkai of Shotokan karate personally (via seminar many years ago), and I've read and viewed videos from other karate systems.

Personally, I'm not a fan of it, and some applications of Bunkai have been utterly hilarious. People claiming that Bjj-style groundfighting exists inside karate kata is one such example.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> There is where we will differ ....you have your view that sport defines ...I don't ...so we agree to disagree


Not quite right.  Sport isnt the root.  Application is the root.  Sport is simply the most accessible form of application for most people. 

I'm fine if we agree to disagree procided you're disagreeing with my actual opinion and not a distortion of it .


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Not quite right.  Sport isnt the root.  Application is the root.  Sport is simply the most accessible form of application for most people.
> 
> I'm fine if we agree to disagree procided you're disagreeing with my actual opinion and not a distortion of it .




I see what you mean I just view sport as that sport ... real life doesn't have the same rules constraining it as a sport does but again we just have to agree to disagree


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I see what you mean I just view sport as that sport ... real life doesn't have the same rules constraining it as a sport does but again we just have to agree to disagree



Yes it does. Those rules are called "laws". Break those laws and you could spend quite a long time in jail, whether you were defending yourself or not.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> Are you asking me if I know the Bunkai of kata? I've studied the bunkai of Shotokan karate personally (via seminar many years ago), and I've read and viewed videos from other karate systems.
> 
> Personally, I'm not a fan of it, and some applications of Bunkai have been utterly hilarious. People claiming that Bjj-style groundfighting exists inside karate kata is one such example.



Well, what I asked was if there was anything you know of hidden in kata or no longer known (recognized as a viable technique) in the kata?  Your answer doesn't really answer that.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Yes it does. Those rules are called "laws". Break those laws and you could spend quite a long time in jail, whether you were defending yourself or not.



No in a sport you have things that are set in place to only permit certain things ....in the real world yes there are laws but those kinda go out the window if your in a scrap ...and you (or at least I have never thought) nope can't use that as it could break the law ...


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> No in a sport you have things that are set in place to only permit certain things ....in the real world yes there are laws but those kinda go out the window if your in a scrap ...and you (or at least I have never thought) nope can't use that as it could break the law ...



No they don't. If you get into a scrap and seriously hurt or kill someone, you better be prepared to talk to the police about why you felt that use of force was necessary over a spilled beer or some goon pushing you because you accidentally hit his car. If your explanation sucks, you're going away for a long time.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> No they don't. If you get into a scrap and seriously hurt or kill someone, you better be prepared to talk to the police about why you felt that use of force was necessary over a spilled beer or some goon pushing you because you accidentally hit his car. If your explanation sucks, you're going away for a long time.




That is entirely different from the sports ring


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> That is entirely different from the sports ring



The issue of contention is the belief that "tEh StreetZ" is no rules. My point is that that isn't usually the case.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The issue of contention is the belief that "tEh StreetZ" is no rules. My point is that that isn't usually the case.




Ok but no matter the law of the land .... I would not rely on said by thinking on he can't do that or I can't do this in a fight.... the referees are not usually present on the street when a scrap goes down (the cops) where as in sport they are (ok they may miss things but they are on the plot)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I took it to mean that the combat (I.e., application) produced the competent fighters.   Someone earlier brought up basic training.  The military training model is grounded in a training/application/training cycle . You learn it, you do it, you learn some more and then do some more .   When I got to my first duty station, I was fully trained, but wrnt through 6 more months of ojt before I  was able to even look at ordnance with direct supervision.


I was trying to keep from getting wordy (who, me??) so I left that half out. Maybe I left out the wrong half, because that's a better statement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I see what you mean I just view sport as that sport ... real life doesn't have the same rules constraining it as a sport does but again we just have to agree to disagree


The most important rules we deal with in MA are physics and kinesiology. Those apply roughly equally in both street and sport. Thus, what works in sport will (mostly) have application in street. It's not an absolute, but a reasonable truism, and serves well if we apply common sense. Of course, there are some bits that don't show up in sport that can and do sometimes serve in street, and we have to be more skeptical of those, because we don't have the sport experiment to test them in.

I don't personally compete, but I do use what I can learn from those who do, both from their personal experience and from reviewing sport footage. I've trained in competition styles (my experience with Juod and a brief bit of Shotokan Karate), and the approach isn't wildly different - nor should it be.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> The most important rules we deal with in MA are physics and kinesiology. Those apply roughly equally in both street and sport. Thus, what works in sport will (mostly) have application in street. It's not an absolute, but a reasonable truism, and serves well if we apply common sense. Of course, there are some bits that don't show up in sport that can and do sometimes serve in street, and we have to be more skeptical of those, because we don't have the sport experiment to test them in.
> 
> 
> I will agree mostly there I just have I guess a different view on the sports side
> 
> I did compete in two arts when I was younger and it just didn't feel right to me ...as esp in one it was limited to what and what was not permitted ...
> 
> I don't personally compete, but I do use what I can learn from those who do, both from their personal experience and from reviewing sport footage. I've trained in competition styles (my experience with Juod and a brief bit of Shotokan Karate), and the approach isn't wildly different - nor should it be.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Are you asking me if I know the Bunkai of kata? I've studied the bunkai of Shotokan karate personally (via seminar many years ago), and I've read and viewed videos from other karate systems.
> 
> Personally, I'm not a fan of it, and some applications of Bunkai have been utterly hilarious. People claiming that Bjj-style groundfighting exists inside karate kata is one such example.




I think I will let the Karate guys deal with that one 

but just for your info ....you might like to know that a very very well know Karateka studied a Koryu jiu-jutsu art


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I will agree mostly there I just have I guess a different view on the sports side
> 
> I did compete in two arts when I was younger and it just didn't feel right to me ...as esp in one it was limited to what and what was not permitted ..


The applicability of what happens in sport varies by the ruleset used. As does the value of the sport as a training tool. Both BJJ and Judo competitions produce useful feedback, but require some application of common sense to for adapting the results to self-defense, since the sports largely don't include significant strikes (there may be some BJJ competitions that allow some, but I'm not aware of them). So some positions that work well in those competitions may not be effective if the other guy decides to punch, but the techniques (especially the control principles) still work quite nicely. And we know they can be applied effectively in defensive use, because they can be applied effectively against someone of equal skill in the sport context. I've actually altered how I teach some techniques to draw on what works in Judo competitions.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Ok but no matter the law of the land .... I would not rely on said by thinking on he can't do that or I can't do this in a fight.... the referees are not usually present on the street when a scrap goes down (the cops) where as in sport they are (ok they may miss things but they are on the plot)



Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Are you asking me if I know the Bunkai of kata? I've studied the bunkai of Shotokan karate personally (via seminar many years ago), and I've read and viewed videos from other karate systems.
> 
> Personally, I'm not a fan of it, and some applications of Bunkai have been utterly hilarious. People claiming that Bjj-style groundfighting exists inside karate kata is one such example.


I guess that depends how you view kata. If it's just a collection of movements being trained, then if someone who does good BJJ-style groundwork finds useful movement references in the kata, then those movements are there. If we accept "bunkai" as application of the movements (rather than distilling the original intentions of the kata creator), then the groundwork is in that bunkai. I'm not sure what the translation/meaning of bunkai is, but I tend to see this (using movements as reference) as a better use than trying to dig back to original intent. If someone takes one of my kata and says, "Right there, that sequence of movements has the right transitions and positions for X technique", then I"m okay with that, even if that technique isn't one I am aware of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.


And one of the things I love about that approach is that it actually reduces the likelihood of continued attack, because both prioritize control above finish. Getting the throw (in Judo) is generally less important than controlling them so they can't get one on you. And then they follow takedowns to control so they don't have to do that all over again.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.




All MA teach that not just Judo lol every MA learns discipline and control ...and guess what that is what the Kata and the Kihon waza are for ....as if ya learn em and keep repeating them you keep getting that bit better as they are the base 


Steve will maybe get this bit .....how many times did you strip and reassemble a weapon ? ....and even after you could do it did ya stop doing it just because it was basic stuff....I would expect not lol as you can always get better at the basics............ 


Just like the MA no one ever should ever feel that the basics are irrelevant or they are not to be used or cannot be used and there are contained within Kata and the kihon waza  nice little nuances that when you got the basics down then you can see them 

Also if you don't understand what a movement in a Kata is for or how it can be applied then ask the teacher that is what they there for


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I guess that depends how you view kata. If it's just a collection of movements being trained, then if someone who does good BJJ-style groundwork finds useful movement references in the kata, then those movements are there. If we accept "bunkai" as application of the movements (rather than distilling the original intentions of the kata creator), then the groundwork is in that bunkai. I'm not sure what the translation/meaning of bunkai is, but I tend to see this (using movements as reference) as a better use than trying to dig back to original intent. If someone takes one of my kata and says, "Right there, that sequence of movements has the right transitions and positions for X technique", then I"m okay with that, even if that technique isn't one I am aware of.



I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it. That's when we've entered silly time. If you train in Bjj, and then apply Bjj principles to karate, I have no issue. In fact, I think that's a great idea.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> All MA teach that not just Judo lol every MA learns discipline and control ...



That is an interesting argument to make considering that YOU believe there are no rules in a "scrap".


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> That is an interesting argument to make considering that YOU believe there are no rules in a "scrap".




There are not rules in a scrap lol ...what I was saying is that all MA teach discipline in the student and restraint it not just Judo .... how the individual applies that restraint is down to them not the art itself ....and that also leads to how the individual is themselves some have more restraint than others


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it. That's when we've entered silly time. If you train in Bjj, and then apply Bjj principles to karate, I have no issue. In fact, I think that's a great idea.




I'm sure there are styles of Karate that do have grappling in them 

Again what is your definition of grappling ?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.




You are aware that Kano did send quite a few of his students to Ueshiba ? ... as and I guess there must have been a reason for that and there is also a very very well know judoka that ummm studied and taught Ueshiba's art  that competed in the first all japan judo tournament in front of his Emperor ... must be a reason why Kano sent his students to Ueshiba ??? and why a well know 5th dan Judoka became eventually a very very well known Aikidoka


----------



## oftheherd1

I have been in and out of this thread over the last couple of hours since I am at work.  Fascinating.  I only got about half way through the video posted by the OP when starting the thread.  I had to also blank out the sound.  Take that into consideration if you think you need to.

First, he shows a cross arm block at the beginning, but there is no application of it.  There may have been earlier in the instruction.  I would like to see how he used it against a punch since that seems to be most of what he is teaching.  

BTW, for whatever it may or may not be worth, did anyone notice this teaching is for what I assume is the school's Black Belt Club?  Some seem to have trainee tabs and others instructor tabs.  These aren't expected to be white belts, and are in fact are wearing black belts.  We might presume less instruction is needed if he is simply combining previously learned strikes or techniques in some new way.  That might affect my comments below, as well as the OP's.

I have been amazed nobody has directly commented on what might be missing from the application of the techniques in the video.  I would suggest that some of the blocks should not just be blocks.  The blocks to the arm are wrong for blocking the arm only; they are too close to the elbow.  However, if they are used to strike the elbow with a good strike to the proper area, they cause great pain along with the block.  So you have a block and great pain.  That arm will be impossible to use for a while, or the opponent won't want to use it for fear of more pain.  I never see the instructor pointing that out, much less demonstrating that part. 

 And I didn't see too much explanation of the strike to the upper ribs near the inner arm.  Again, that can cause a lot of pain.  That is a normally protected area and there are nerves there not accustomed to being struck, so a good place to strike.  What I would not like is his 'fist' when he strikes.  I think he is trying to create a sort of point with his thumb and index finger.  Personally I would prefer a dragon punch as more effective, but if he can make that work, it is not wrong.  I also would have put more rotation in my wrist for the slap under the chin (just me perhaps).  Some of what he is teaching is good grappling defense.  

There is a short clip around 9:15 to around 9:50 or so that might be a portion of a kata.  I couldn't think so for any reason other reason than he has everybody sort of line up facing their mirrors and do a couple or three moves.  Just me personally, I wouldn't use that to make the comment that a whole 12 something minutes of individual techniques were proof of a kata.  

Anyone agree or disagree?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> There are so many confounding variables, we'd literally need a controlled experiment to tell. Any comparison "in the wild" also includes other variables in training, instructional quality, time commitment, effectiveness of techniques, fitness, etc.


I briefly mentioned earlier in this thread, they have done this sort of study to test aggression/ delinquent behaviors, and it's been raised in a couple studies. All someone would need to do is replicate those, and change what is being measured.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> Yes it does. Those rules are called "laws". Break those laws and you could spend quite a long time in jail, whether you were defending yourself or not.



Don't you think those are different scenarios for the differing 'rule' sets.  If in a sport setting I intentionally apply a grapple for which the only outcome is a destruction of an opponent's elbow and shoulder, I have broken the sport rules and will no doubt be disqualified, maybe fined, and depending, also sued.  If I apply that same technique on the 'street' without provocation, I may be arrested and/or sued.

However, if I am defending an attack against a person with a club and destroy the attacker's elbow and shoulder, I am very unlikely to be arrested, and probably won't be sued either.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> All MA teach that not just Judo lol every MA learns discipline and control ...and guess what that is what the Kata and the Kihon waza are for ....as if ya learn em and keep repeating them you keep getting that bit better as they are the base
> 
> 
> Steve will maybe get this bit .....how many times did you strip and reassemble a weapon ? ....and even after you could do it did ya stop doing it just because it was basic stuff....I would expect not lol as you can always get better at the basics............
> 
> 
> Just like the MA no one ever should ever feel that the basics are irrelevant or they are not to be used or cannot be used and there are contained within Kata and the kihon waza  nice little nuances that when you got the basics down then you can see them
> 
> Also if you don't understand what a movement in a Kata is for or how it can be applied then ask the teacher that is what they there for


I've said this many times, but it bears repeating.   There isn't anything wrong with doing kata.  I don't even have a problem finding new application in bunkai.  

Drop Bear hit the nail when he observed that kata (and drills such as in the OP) presume success.  In sport, most similar drills build on failure.  In other words, in the OP, the first punch lands and knocks the guy off balance, then up into the jaw, parry the second punch, and voila.  In an art such as bjj or mma, the drill would have started with you punching and other guy defends, so you chain together tecjniques.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, move on.  This is why people often compare BJJ to chess.    

The other concern is that any of these drills, without application by the individual, will be unreliable.   A
Person can intellectually understand anything.  Drills and kata are training.  They can be useful, but are only step 1 on a path to proficiency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it. That's when we've entered silly time. If you train in Bjj, and then apply Bjj principles to karate, I have no issue. In fact, I think that's a great idea.


Agreed. I'm not wild about the idea of kata containing curriculum of any type. It's a useful training tool, but the knowledge is held in people's heads. Someone with poor grappling skills won't get them from kata, nor will someone with poor punching skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> You are aware that Kano did send quite a few of his students to Ueshiba ? ... as and I guess there must have been a reason for that and there is also a very very well know judoka that ummm studied and taught Ueshiba's art  that competed in the first all japan judo tournament in front of his Emperor ... must be a reason why Kano sent his students to Ueshiba ??? and why a well know 5th dan Judoka became eventually a very very well known Aikidoka


I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion of kata.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Drills and kata are training. They can be useful, but are only step 1 on a path to proficiency.




Yup 

They are the base that you work from the reference point ... 

How they are applied well that is down to how the teacher teaches and how the students apply them and also to a certain point if the students don't get it them if they ask


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I've said this many times, but it bears repeating.   There isn't anything wrong with doing kata.  I don't even have a problem finding new application in bunkai.
> 
> Drop Bear hit the nail when he observed that kata (and drills such as in the OP) presume success.  In sport, most similar drills build on failure.  In other words, in the OP, the first punch lands and knocks the guy off balance, then up into the jaw, parry the second punch, and voila.  In an art such as bjj or mma, the drill would have started with you punching and other guy defends, so you chain together tecjniques.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, move on.  This is why people often compare BJJ to chess.
> 
> The other concern is that any of these drills, without application by the individual, will be unreliable.   A
> Person can intellectually understand anything.  Drills and kata are training.  They can be useful, but are only step 1 on a path to proficiency.


I prefer the chain of failures, too. On a side note, I recall someone saying recently this fail-and-respond was built into kata in their style (or maybe just their school), but I've entirely forgotten who. @lansao, was it you mentioning this to me?


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion of kata.



ok


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it.



  This is something that I have trouble understanding. There are quite a few people that relish the idea of being what I call "karate cops". These people get offended when someone shows sub-par techniques in a video, or get upset when someone makes unsubstantiated statements about their abilities or self defense prowess. The reality is that there are probably a great many more substandard "self defense" schools than there are seriously good ones. All they warrant, in my opinion, is a passing chuckle for some of their claims. I am unable to really grasp why some people spend so much effort and thought on what others are doing. Seems to me that this large amount of effort would be better spent improving ones own training rather than worrying about others.

  I can see expressing an opinion to refute someone else's statements if one feels those statements are erroneous. However, I don't understand the need to hammer at someone else's training and practice simply because one doesn't consider it effective. Seems like a lot of effort with no reward.

  Just my (substandard) thoughts on it.


----------



## Hanzou

oftheherd1 said:


> Don't you think those are different scenarios for the differing 'rule' sets.  If in a sport setting I intentionally apply a grapple for which the only outcome is a destruction of an opponent's elbow and shoulder, I have broken the sport rules and will no doubt be disqualified, maybe fined, and depending, also sued.  If I apply that same technique on the 'street' without provocation, I may be arrested and/or sued.
> 
> However, if I am defending an attack against a person with a club and destroy the attacker's elbow and shoulder, I am very unlikely to be arrested, and probably won't be sued either.



Obviously. As I said, you better be able to explain it to the cops that you needed to destroy an elbow or a shoulder. The cops may question if such extreme force was needed, and you could still face legal action since the destruction of an elbow or a shoulder can cause life-long damage.


----------



## Hanzou

pgsmith said:


> This is something that I have trouble understanding.



You have trouble understanding why I would be concerned about martial arts instructors lying to their students?


----------



## FriedRice

The last time Kata worked for real in real life....and since then and before that, nothing::


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> Obviously. *As I said*, you better be able to explain it to the cops that you needed to destroy an elbow or a shoulder. The cops may question if such extreme force was needed, and you could still face legal action since the destruction of an elbow or a shoulder can cause life-long damage.



Amazing answer.

I guess I could explain that I was simply practicing my arts grappling kata when Lo and Behold, a man swinging a club suddenly and without warning, appeared in front of me.  What else could I do?


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> You have trouble understanding why I would be concerned about martial arts instructors lying to their students?



  Nope. I have trouble understanding why you consider it worthy of so much thought and effort on your part. People are subjected to a constant stream of lies and half truths every day. Why is this particular subject so much worse than so many others that have a much greater effect on a great many more people? *That's* what I don't understand.

  It's a pretty small group of people that's affected by poor martial arts training, and the effect is negligible overall. I just don't see why so many consider it a subject worth so much of their thought and effort. So far, no one has been able to explain it in such a way as to make it understandable to me, that's all.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I'm sure there are styles of Karate that do have grappling in them
> 
> Again what is your definition of grappling ?



There are. However, to believe that it is as extensive as Judo or Bjj is nonsense.


----------



## Hanzou

pgsmith said:


> Nope. I have trouble understanding why you consider it worthy of so much thought and effort on your part.



So you believe that a couple of posts about the topic (which amounts to about 2 paragraphs) is an example of "extensive thought and effort"?

We're simply talking about the issue as it relates to the topic at hand and giving our opinions. No one in here is going to write a research paper about this, so you can relax.


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> So you believe that a couple of posts about the topic (which amounts to about 2 paragraphs) is an example of "extensive thought and effort"?
> 
> We're simply talking about the issue as it relates to the topic at hand and giving our opinions. No one in here is going to write a research paper about this, so you can relax.



  Let's review, since you insist on being snarky about it ...

  You started this thread by posting a 12 minute video (that you obviously watched) just so you could talk about how terrible what they were doing was. That seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. I didn't even have to bother watching it to look them up and find out that they were under Stephen Hayes. That means that I wouldn't care for most of what they were doing, so I was done in about a minute. (No, that WASN'T what she said!)

  I am perfectly relaxed, thanks for worrying about me. I never insinuated that you or anyone else might ever feel a need to write a research paper about this topic or any other. I merely gave my opinion (since you said we were all giving our opinions) that I didn't understand why you (or anyone else) would find this subject worth so much effort. Seems like a grand waste of time to me when there are so many more interesting things to discuss.

 I was merely expressing my opinion, as I made sure and pointed out. I was hoping someone could explain to me why it mattered, but I guess I shall remain in the dark on this subject. This is not a problem as it was only minor curiosity, and I've already expended more effort in this thread than it merits, in my opinion.


----------



## Hanzou

pgsmith said:


> Let's review, since you insist on being snarky about it ...
> 
> You started this thread by posting a 12 minute video (that you obviously watched) just so you could talk about how terrible what they were doing was. That seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me.



Well I wasn't discussing how terrible they were in particular, I was discussing the larger issue of schools that follow a similar system and end up with similar results. In any case, I do hope you find a thread that you view is more worthy of your time.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Yup
> 
> They are the base that you work from the reference point ...
> 
> How they are applied well that is down to how the teacher teaches and how the students apply them and also to a certain point if the students don't get it them if they ask


And this is where we start to get into the expected ROI on one's time.   While I think kata might not be detrimental to learning, there are more efficient and reliable waus to build skill.


----------



## Martial D

pgsmith said:


> Nope. I have trouble understanding why you consider it worthy of so much thought and effort on your part. People are subjected to a constant stream of lies and half truths every day. Why is this particular subject so much worse than so many others that have a much greater effect on a great many more people? *That's* what I don't understand.
> 
> It's a pretty small group of people that's affected by poor martial arts training, and the effect is negligible overall. I just don't see why so many consider it a subject worth so much of their thought and effort. So far, no one has been able to explain it in such a way as to make it understandable to me, that's all.



So fakery doesn't bother you?

It does bother me. Not just in this context, but any context I am personally passionate about or deeply involved in. Not only is it dangerous for the duped students that have been sold snake oil they might actually drink to no effect when they need it most, ending up dead or grieviously injured, but because it's insulting to the science of martial arts and fighting in general. 

That I care about martial arts means I want to see it progress in a useful direction, as a whole. The prevalence of charlatans and fakers taking advantage of people for profit in this medium rubs my fur in the wrong direction.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You have trouble understanding why I would be concerned about martial arts instructors lying to their students?



Whoa ... This is getting a bit silly now ... it one thing to say and have your opinion that you don't like things but it another totally to say that instructors are lying


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> So fakery doesn't bother you?
> 
> It does bother me. Not just in this context, but any context I am personally passionate about or deeply involved in. Not only is it dangerous for the duped students that have been sold snake oil they might actually drink to no effect when they need it most, ending up dead or grieviously injured, but because it's insulting to the science of martial arts and fighting in general.
> 
> That I care about martial arts means I want to see it progress in a useful direction, as a whole. The prevalence of charlatans and fakers taking advantage of people for profit in this medium rubs my fur in the wrong direction.





Martial D said:


> So fakery doesn't bother you?
> 
> It does bother me. Not just in this context, but any context I am personally passionate about or deeply involved in. Not only is it dangerous for the duped students that have been sold snake oil they might actually drink to no effect when they need it most, ending up dead or grieviously injured, but because it's insulting to the science of martial arts and fighting in general.
> 
> That I care about martial arts means I want to see it progress in a useful direction, as a whole. The prevalence of charlatans and fakers taking advantage of people for profit in this medium rubs my fur in the wrong direction.




When you say this context are you referring to Kata etc et al ? 

To use words like Fakery etc if that is referring to Kata usage etc then that is a very dangerous ground to be treading


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> And this is where we start to get into the expected ROI on one's time.   While I think kata might not be detrimental to learning, there are more efficient and reliable waus to build skill.




I can understand your view and standpoint and have no problem in that at all, I have a  different stand point as I said they are building blocks and reference points how they are used then is up to the teacher how to teach and make them applicable etc and then for the students to ask if they either do not understand or are not seeing the application


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> When you say this context are you referring to Kata etc et al ?
> 
> To use words like Fakery etc if that is referring to Kata usage etc then that is a very dangerous ground to be treading


What I refer to is what I said. You will notice(or actually, maybe you wont) that the post I was responding to wasn't talking about 'kata usage'

I can see why someone that actually believes in 'no touch' techniques would dislike my post tho lol.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> What I refer to is what I said. You will notice(or actually, maybe you wont) that the post I was responding to wasn't talking about 'kata usage'
> 
> I can see why someone with your specific beliefs would dislike my post tho lol.




Ok


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Whoa ... This is getting a bit silly now ... it one thing to say and have your opinion that you don't like things but it another totally to say that instructors are lying



Except if they say that there is an extensive grappling curriculum hidden within kata, they ARE lying.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Except if they say that there is an extensive grappling curriculum hidden within kata, they ARE lying.


Also, why wouldn't some instructors lie? The fake martial arts game is very lucrative, and where there is opportunity there will usually be someone taking advantage of it...it's just human nature. It isn't like the decision to start teaching a martial art embues instant sainthood lol.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> Except if they say that there is an extensive grappling curriculum hidden within kata, they ARE lying.



Well, disregarding the word extensive, can this be considered an answer to my question?  Do you believe there are no grappling moves hidden in any martial arts kata?


----------



## jks9199

Tony Dismukes said:


> I double-checked. He trains Bujinkan and also Toshindo.


As far as I know, that's a nope...

Hatsumi in the Bujinkan has repirtedly made it very clear that youbcan train in his art in the Bujinkan, or in one of the offshoots, but not both.  Regardless of what those in the offshoot may feel.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1

Martial D said:


> Also, why wouldn't some instructors lie? The fake martial arts game is very lucrative, and where there is opportunity there will usually be someone taking advantage of it...it's just human nature.* It isn't like the decision to start teaching a martial art embues instant sainthood* lol.



Oh my oh my oh my!!

Please, say it ain't so!

I don't think I will be able to sleep tonight.


----------



## pdg

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, disregarding the word extensive, can this be considered an answer to my question?  Do you believe there are no grappling moves hidden in any martial arts kata?



I think "hidden" is the wrong word myself.

I think they're there, but they've either been forgotten (in old kata) or misinterpreted, even by the creator (in newer ones, because they're pretty much all rehashes of older sequences anyway).

I don't believe there's a single interpretation of the sets of moves in any kata...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I was discussing the larger issue of schools that follow a similar system and end up with similar results. .


I have raised this concern many years ago. When I saw a teacher demonstrated on his student that when the student made 1 attack, the teacher countered with 6 moves as if the teacher was 6 times faster than the student. The student just frozen himself in the air. I started to ask myself, how could I avoid this kind of training issue. The answer is simple. I always attack first. If I attack fast, I will force my opponent to respond fast. It then will force me to respond to his respond fast.

In the normal situation, when you make one move, your opponent will respond with one move.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

jks9199 said:


> As far as I know, that's a nope...
> 
> Hatsumi in the Bujinkan has repirtedly made it very clear that youbcan train in his art in the Bujinkan, or in one of the offshoots, but not both.  Regardless of what those in the offshoot may feel.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I know. I suspect that in this case the guy is just not bringing his affiliation with Toshindo to the attention of Hatsumi or the shihans when he visits Japan. Unless things have changed, the Bujinkan doesn’t exactly have a cadre of enforcers checking to make sure foreign students are playing by the rules.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Except if they say that there is an extensive grappling curriculum hidden within kata, they ARE lying.




Just be careful on what you are saying that all just be careful


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Someone with poor grappling skills won't get them from kata, ...


The problem is there are just too many missing elements in the form.

When I learned long fist, I asked my long fist teacher what was the purpose of kick the leg back after kicking. He told me it can be used to kick someone's leg behind me. Since my opponent is a moving object and also I can't see behind, I didn't know how to use that technique. Until I started to learn Chinese wrestling, I then noticed that I have to control my opponent's upper body first before I can apply that "spring".

Can I learn how to control my opponent's upper body from the long fist system? I cannot because that training is missing in the long fist system. In a striking art, you just don't learn head lock, under hook, over hook, waist wrap, bear hug, ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And this is where we start to get into the expected ROI on one's time.   While I think kata might not be detrimental to learning, there are more efficient and reliable waus to build skill.


This is part of the discussion that gets more subjective, IMO. The ROI for most of us includes more than direct fighting/defensive application. I added kata to my curriculum not because I thought they taught good technique (for grappling, especially, I don't see how they could), but because I found many students enjoyed the challenge of working on them, they make a good warm-up routine that also lets me correct movement principles, and they give me some reference points for other work. I doubt they do any of that more efficiently (time-wise) than separate tools might, but they are among the few tools I found that give all of those options for use.

And, like training aiki techniques and principles, I don't need everything to be time-efficient. Sometimes, it's more about what you can learn along the way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, disregarding the word extensive, can this be considered an answer to my question?  Do you believe there are no grappling moves hidden in any martial arts kata?


If they are hidden in there, what use is it?


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> If they are hidden in there, what use is it?




"Hidden" my be a broader concept as is the way in the east ...possibly more thru using or studying there can be other application just my opinion there tho 

Also and this you may think is irrelevant but Hiden may be and could cause confusion as how we in the west take it again the east have a slightly different idea on that


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is there are just too many missing elements in the form.
> 
> When I learned long fist, I asked my long fist teacher what was the purpose of kick the leg back after kicking. He told me it can be used to kick someone's leg behind me. Since my opponent is a moving object and also I can't see behind, I didn't know how to use that technique. Until I started to learn Chinese wrestling, I then noticed that I have to control my opponent's upper body first before I can apply that "spring".
> 
> Can I learn how to control my opponent's upper body from the long fist system? I cannot because that training is missing in the long fist system. In a striking art, you just don't learn head lock, under hook, over hook, waist wrap, bear hug, ...


This would be a good example of someone with knowledge finding a useful movement in a kata. So, if you were teaching Long Fist, you could include that bit of teaching, using that kata movement as a reference point, though it's probably not what that movement was originally intended for. The kata becomes a handy reference for movement, but still requires your (the instructor's) knowledge to get to how to use those movements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> "Hidden" my be a broader concept as is the way in the east ...possibly more thru using or studying there can be other application just my opinion there tho
> 
> Also and this you may think is irrelevant but Hiden may be and could cause confusion as how we in the west take it again the east have a slightly different idea on that


Be that as it may, if it's not disclosed ("hidden"), then it's not doing students any good. And if someone finds a new use for a movement from kata, I don't see that as something "hidden" in the kata. It's jut something new (to them) someone figured out that happens to use a movement present in a kata.


----------



## lansao

gpseymour said:


> I prefer the chain of failures, too. On a side note, I recall someone saying recently this fail-and-respond was built into kata in their style (or maybe just their school), but I've entirely forgotten who. @lansao, was it you mentioning this to me?



Not me but our forms do have recovery aspects.


----------



## Buka

Rousing thread. Lots of great posts, great thoughts, lots of passion. Gotta' have passion in Martial Arts, just gotta'.

So many with so much knowledge. I love to listen to all of it.

I learned to apply my particular style of Karate to ground work. But was taught to by a ground guy. Helped me and mine a great deal. I highly recommend it. 

And, Hanzou, you are like a fine spice rack in a great kitchen. I could cook perfectly fine without you, but why the hell would I?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> it's probably not what that movement was originally intended for.


Sometime we may give too much credit to the original form creator. The following is one of my favor jokes.

A: Dear master, when you did your form at the 8th move, you move your hip a bit side way. Is there any secret application for that?
B: A bee just landed on my hip and I tried to get ride of it.
A: ...


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Be that as it may, if it's not disclosed ("hidden"), then it's not doing students any good. And if someone finds a new use for a movement from kata, I don't see that as something "hidden" in the kata. It's jut something new (to them) someone figured out that happens to use a movement present in a kata.




i get your understanding and can see the logic there 

i was just offering a different concept on that no more


----------



## JR 137

pgsmith said:


> Let's review, since you insist on being snarky about it ...
> 
> You started this thread by posting a 12 minute video (that you obviously watched) just so you could talk about how terrible what they were doing was. That seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. I didn't even have to bother watching it to look them up and find out that they were under Stephen Hayes. That means that I wouldn't care for most of what they were doing, so I was done in about a minute. (No, that WASN'T what she said!)
> 
> I am perfectly relaxed, thanks for worrying about me. I never insinuated that you or anyone else might ever feel a need to write a research paper about this topic or any other. I merely gave my opinion (since you said we were all giving our opinions) that I didn't understand why you (or anyone else) would find this subject worth so much effort. Seems like a grand waste of time to me when there are so many more interesting things to discuss.
> 
> I was merely expressing my opinion, as I made sure and pointed out. I was hoping someone could explain to me why it mattered, but I guess I shall remain in the dark on this subject. This is not a problem as it was only minor curiosity, and I've already expended more effort in this thread than it merits, in my opinion.


I can explain why it matters...

If we expose fraudulent training methods and schools, bad ways to train, and improper MA thinking here on Martial Talk, the entire world listens and does everything they can to make sure they change their evil ways.  We are the worldwide MA council, and we set the standards for every MA school’s training, regardless of style.

They’re all reading our posts and correcting all of their wrongdoing.  If they don’t correct themselves, plenty of others are also reading and will pay them a visit with a cease and desist order.

Bullshido used to be the council, but they were proven to be too MMA biased, so we took over because we’re more neutral, like Switzerland.  This is the Geneva Convention of MA.  

Trust me, I’m in pre-med.  Or is it pre-law?  What’s the difference.  My advice to you is drink heavily.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> if someone finds a new use for a movement from kata, I don't see that as something "hidden" in the kata. It's jut something new (to them) someone figured out that happens to use a movement present in a kata.


One application that I have figured out myself from my form is to

- hold on my opponent's shirt.
- bend my leg and draw out a dagger from my boots.
- stab my dagger into my opponent's chest.

Did the form creator have this application in mind? I truly don't know.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JR 137 said:


> I can explain why it matters...
> 
> If we expose fraudulent training methods and schools, bad ways to train, and improper MA thinking here on Martial Talk, the entire world listens and does everything they can to make sure they change their evil ways.  We are the worldwide MA council, and we set the standards for every MA school’s training, regardless of style.
> 
> They’re all reading our posts and correcting all of their wrongdoing.  If they don’t correct themselves, plenty of others are also reading and will pay them a visit with a cease and desist order.
> 
> Bullshido used to be the council, but they were proven to be too MMA biased, so we took over because we’re more neutral, like Switzerland.  This is the Geneva Convention of MA.
> 
> Trust me, I’m in pre-med.  Or is it pre-law?  What’s the difference.  My advice to you is drink heavily.


I know this is a reference but cant quite place it. Animal house?


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Rousing thread. Lots of great posts, great thoughts, lots of passion. Gotta' have passion in Martial Arts, just gotta'.
> 
> So many with so much knowledge. I love to listen to all of it.
> 
> I learned to apply my particular style of Karate to ground work. But was taught to by a ground guy. Helped me and mine a great deal. I highly recommend it.
> 
> And, Hanzou, you are like a fine spice rack in a great kitchen. I could cook perfectly fine without you, but why the hell would I?


I don't always understand what you mean, but I always like the way you say it!


----------



## JowGaWolf

paitingman said:


> I think @JowGaWolf has given some good perspective in the past about properly taking form to function and keeping true to both. He's also given clips of his and others' approach to this I just dk where they are.


Long story short.  The videos got me in trouble along with me asking questions in an effort to learn more about some of the traditional non fighting aspects of Kung Fu.  I was kicked out of the school.  True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."   It's an odd thing to say to someone who trains how to use kung fu for self-defense.  It's also a historical preservation as well.  I'm not just learning how to fight but I'm also preserving the functionality of an "ancient" fighting system.

The good news is that the videos will come back along with some new ones as I'm no longer bound by the school that I was in.



drop bear said:


> I think he was getting pressure for duing video. secrets or something.


Yep. But all of that is in the past now.

The full story is actually a really good one.  I don't get many interesting stories like this in my life, but this one even had me surprised and honored.  One of the things I really want to do is to get some video of me sparring with some of the people here in Martial Talk.  I just have to remember which who spars to win so I don't get my head knocked off lol.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Long story short.  The videos got me in trouble along with me asking questions in an effort to learn more about some of the traditional non fighting aspects of Kung Fu.  I was kicked out of the school.  True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."   It's an odd thing to say to someone who trains how to use kung fu for self-defense.  It's also a historical preservation as well.  I'm not just learning how to fight but I'm also preserving the functionality of an "ancient" fighting system.
> 
> The good news is that the videos will come back along with some new ones as I'm no longer bound by the school that I was in.
> 
> Yep. But all of that is in the past now.
> 
> The full story is actually a really good one.  I don't get many interesting stories like this in my life, but this one even had me surprised and honored.  One of the things I really want to do is to get some video of me sparring with some of the people here in Martial Talk.  I just have to remember which who spars to win so I don't get my head knocked off lol.


Wait, your JOWGa school actually kicked you out for posting those sparring videos? What the hell man.

If anything seeing it actually used for something would be good publicity wouldn't it?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Long story short.  The videos got me in trouble along with me asking questions in an effort to learn more about some of the traditional non fighting aspects of Kung Fu.  I was kicked out of the school.  True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."   It's an odd thing to say to someone who trains how to use kung fu for self-defense.  It's also a historical preservation as well.  I'm not just learning how to fight but I'm also preserving the functionality of an "ancient" fighting system.
> 
> The good news is that the videos will come back along with some new ones as I'm no longer bound by the school that I was in.
> 
> Yep. But all of that is in the past now.
> 
> The full story is actually a really good one.  I don't get many interesting stories like this in my life, but this one even had me surprised and honored.  One of the things I really want to do is to get some video of me sparring with some of the people here in Martial Talk.  I just have to remember which who spars to win so I don't get my head knocked off lol.



Can't say I'm really surprised. Maybe now you'll train in some MMA or Bjj? There's no issue with fighting in those martial arts.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> And, Hanzou, you are like a fine spice rack in a great kitchen. I could cook perfectly fine without you, but why the hell would I?



LoL! Thank you my friend. I'm glad I can add a little spice to the pot.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Long story short.  The videos got me in trouble along with me asking questions in an effort to learn more about some of the traditional non fighting aspects of Kung Fu.  I was kicked out of the school.  True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."   It's an odd thing to say to someone who trains how to use kung fu for self-defense.  It's also a historical preservation as well.  I'm not just learning how to fight but I'm also preserving the functionality of an "ancient" fighting system.
> 
> The good news is that the videos will come back along with some new ones as I'm no longer bound by the school that I was in.
> 
> Yep. But all of that is in the past now.
> 
> The full story is actually a really good one.  I don't get many interesting stories like this in my life, but this one even had me surprised and honored.  One of the things I really want to do is to get some video of me sparring with some of the people here in Martial Talk.  I just have to remember which who spars to win so I don't get my head knocked off lol.



There are two types of martial artists. Those that spar to win and those that lie about it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Can't say I'm really surprised. Maybe now you'll train in some MMA or Bjj? There's no issue with fighting in those martial arts.


Nope.  I'm still Jow Ga all the way.  I admit that the experience sucked and it took a long time for me to fight the bitterness that was trying to grow inside.  But I did and I won. I didn't let it rot who I am.   

I still train Jow Ga for practical use and that's just going to be my way to honor the system.  Besides  I'll get more satisfaction by doing Jow Ga and "beating"  MMA and BJJ than joining those turkeys..


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> There are two types of martial artists. Those that spar to win and those that lie about it.


ha ha ha.. yeah you are on the top of my list.  Don't spar with drop bear.  I'll be trying something new and you'll take full advantage of that lol.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Can't say I'm really surprised. Maybe now you'll train in some MMA or Bjj? There's no issue with fighting in those martial arts.



Sanda  keep the kung fu vibe alive.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. yeah you are on the top of my list.  Don't spar with drop bear.  I'll be trying something new and you'll take full advantage of that lol.



We love people coming in to spar. And we are a small enough gym that we don't have a vegi patch.

Which means access to quality guys.

And my coach is an slippery gypsy counter fighter. Which basically is how gar.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JowGaWolf said:


> Long story short.  The videos got me in trouble along with me asking questions in an effort to learn more about some of the traditional non fighting aspects of Kung Fu.  I was kicked out of the school.  True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."   It's an odd thing to say to someone who trains how to use kung fu for self-defense.  It's also a historical preservation as well.  I'm not just learning how to fight but I'm also preserving the functionality of an "ancient" fighting system.
> 
> The good news is that the videos will come back along with some new ones as I'm no longer bound by the school that I was in.
> 
> Yep. But all of that is in the past now.
> 
> The full story is actually a really good one.  I don't get many interesting stories like this in my life, but this one even had me surprised and honored.  One of the things I really want to do is to get some video of me sparring with some of the people here in Martial Talk.  I just have to remember which who spars to win so I don't get my head knocked off lol.


Wait you got kicked out for that? Seriously?
Welp...time to start your own jow ga school


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Wait, your JOWGa school actually kicked you out for posting those sparring videos? What the hell man.
> 
> If anything seeing it actually used for something would be good publicity wouldn't it?


I want to say that it was actually good publicity.  Not sure if this is a good measure but after the videos got out a lot of Jow Ga people from China sent me friend requests lol. I've never had anyone outside of the school complain about the presentation of it with the music.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> Wait you got kicked out for that? Seriously?
> Welp...time to start your own jow ga school


Yes, but it's ok. I survived the bitterness and it doesn't bother me anymore.  It has given me the opportunity to do more with my passion for Jow Ga and martial arts in general.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JowGaWolf said:


> I want to say that it was actually good publicity.  Not sure if this is a good measure but after the videos got out a lot of Jow Ga people from China sent me friend requests lol. I've never had anyone outside of the school complain about the presentation of it with the music.


So what exactly was the schools reasoning? Beyond "you fight too much"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."


You are not alone. I share the same experience as you have. When I and my students competed in Karate tournament back in the 70th (1973 - 1978), my long fist teacher also said that "I focus too much of fighting". But I don't regret a bit even today.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are not alone. I share the same experience as you have. When I and my students competed in Karate tournament back in the 70th, my long fist teacher said that "I focus too much of fighting." But I don't regret a bit even today.



Absurd reasoning IMO. It isn't like you or Jowga are out in the streets picking fights with people. I think someone seeking the martial proficiency of their art should be applauded, not shunned.


----------



## JR 137

kempodisciple said:


> I know this is a reference but cant quite place it. Animal house?


Yes


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> So what exactly was the schools reasoning? Beyond "you fight too much"?


 I was told that I didn't contribute to the school.  After my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, I stopped training and teaching at the school.  My reasoning was that the cancer took priority as well as the bills that came with it.  When I came back to the school I couldn't train 5 days a week like before. As much as I like kung fu and martial arts, those things are not "priority 1."  

Some other things happened as well that lead up to my situation but were actions that were done to me and not me screwing up.  As some of you know when I screw up I don't have any problem with giving an honest apology.  In my opinion, after I returned to training at the school, it felt like they were trying to make me submit and be submissive to the leadership of the school.  Culturally as a black person (history of slavery, segregation etc.)  I don't handle that type of submission very well.  I was raised to never be in this position.  To me it felt like they wanted me to be mentally in this position.  It no longer felt that I should be respectful, it felt like I should submit and worse of all, it felt like I was the only one being pushed to submit.  There was more going on and I would have to write an article about it to cover it all.  But this is how I felt. It felt like I couldn't be who I am as a person.






I do this in my family when I greet elders from my wife's side of the family and it never feels like submission.  Keep in mind that all schools are not like this, some people get power hungry and feel the need to bend and break the will of a person.  It's not just a kung fu thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> my long fist teacher also said that "I focus too much of fighting". But I don't regret a bit even today.


I don't regret it either.  I learned more about kung fu, peripheral vision, timing, body mechanics, human behavior, emotions, self-control, and focus by training to fight.  Which is why I always say "The more I learn about fighting the less it becomes about fighting"  Fighting is really a very small part in comparison to everything else that makes fighting effective.

You can put 2 people from the street in a ring and tell them to fight, and you can put 2 formally train fighters in the ring and those 2 fighters will tell anyone that there's more to it than just punching like 2 people from the street.


----------



## oftheherd1

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is there are just too many missing elements in the form.
> 
> When I learned long fist, I asked my long fist teacher what was the purpose of kick the leg back after kicking. He told me it can be used to kick someone's leg behind me. Since my opponent is a moving object and also I can't see behind, I didn't know how to use that technique. Until I started to learn Chinese wrestling, I then noticed that I have to control my opponent's upper body first before I can apply that "spring".
> 
> Can I learn how to control my opponent's upper body from the long fist system? I cannot because that training is missing in the long fist system. In a striking art, you just don't learn head lock, under hook, over hook, waist wrap, bear hug, ...



Did you ever consider that moving your leg back like that might increase the force of your strike: action and reaction?

In your second video, have you considered the pressure point at the elbow, near where your left hand is but using your right hand, and shifting your left hand to the pressure point on the back of the opponent's hand?  That is best done as you see the arm coming in front of you face, but will still work.

BTW:  Poor little puppy, just wanted to play. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> One application that I have figured out myself from my form is to
> 
> - hold on my opponent's shirt.
> - bend my leg and draw out a dagger from my boots.
> - stab my dagger into my opponent's chest.
> 
> Did the form creator have this application in mind? I truly don't know.



In the TKD I studied, we had a move similar to that in one of the kata.  However, the forward moving arm was with a spear hand, and I don''t remember for sure, but I think the arm across the chest might have been a fist.  I think I see similarities.

I like your move and like more that you began learning alternative uses for your moves.

Thanks for the videos.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> If they are hidden in there, what use is it?



Can't argue with that.  I have mentioned before I had a student who  was a 4th Dan in TKD.  Once I was teaching a Hapkido move and he got this funny look on his face, then explained.  He recognized the move from a kata he had learned along the way.  It seemed senseless with no discernible practical use, so he asked.  He was told the old saw that it was part of the 'art' side of TKD.  But he was able to recognize the technique I was teaching was actually that move in the kata that was explained as kata.  That happened a couple of times.  

I have a few times seen moves in kata that appear to have no practical use, except that I know techniques that start off with moves similar to that move.  It usually appears to be a block leading to a grapple.  But I can't confirm that is what it is.

So if it is hidden, that is incorrectly said to be art and of no other use, indeed what use is it.


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> Rousing thread. Lots of great posts, great thoughts, lots of passion. Gotta' have passion in Martial Arts, just gotta'.
> 
> So many with so much knowledge. I love to listen to all of it.
> 
> I learned to apply my particular style of Karate to ground work. But was taught to by a ground guy. Helped me and mine a great deal. I highly recommend it.
> 
> And, Hanzou, you are like a fine spice rack in a great kitchen. I could cook perfectly fine without you, but why the hell would I?



As @Steve said, I also like the way you word things, and the often little pearls of wisdom hidden in them (sort of like hidden moves in kata?).

Your last sentence in the above post is classic Buka.  Thanks.  It put a big smile on my face to start my day.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Nope.  I'm still Jow Ga all the way.  I admit that the experience sucked and it took a long time for me to fight the bitterness that was trying to grow inside.  But I did and I won. I didn't let it rot who I am.
> 
> I still train Jow Ga for practical use and that's just going to be my way to honor the system.  Besides  I'll get more satisfaction by doing Jow Ga and "beating"  MMA and BJJ than joining those turkeys..



If your goal is to beat a high ranking Bjj or MMA exponent, you will need to lay off the form/kata practice. It won't do you any favors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lansao said:


> Not me but our forms do have recovery aspects.


It was a guess. My memory sucks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime we may give too much credit to the original form creator. The following is one of my favor jokes.
> 
> A: Dear master, when you did your form at the 8th move, you move your hip a bit side way. Is there any secret application for that?
> B: A bee just landed on my hip and I tried to get ride of it.
> A: ...


I think we often give too much credit to our progenitors in traditional(ish) arts. We forget they mostly weren't wizened old veterans when they put together the curriculum their first students learned from, and there were things they taught that they later decided weren't so good. And sometimes, they were just plain human.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One application that I have figured out myself from my form is to
> 
> - hold on my opponent's shirt.
> - bend my leg and draw out a dagger from my boots.
> - stab my dagger into my opponent's chest.
> 
> Did the form creator have this application in mind? I truly don't know.


I like it! Someday, I'm sending you a video of my kata, and you can find something like that in there, and I'll claim it's exactly what I intended.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Long story short.  The videos got me in trouble along with me asking questions in an effort to learn more about some of the traditional non fighting aspects of Kung Fu.  I was kicked out of the school.  True quote about the direction of my training and teaching "I focus too much of fighting."   It's an odd thing to say to someone who trains how to use kung fu for self-defense.  It's also a historical preservation as well.  I'm not just learning how to fight but I'm also preserving the functionality of an "ancient" fighting system.
> 
> The good news is that the videos will come back along with some new ones as I'm no longer bound by the school that I was in.
> 
> Yep. But all of that is in the past now.
> 
> The full story is actually a really good one.  I don't get many interesting stories like this in my life, but this one even had me surprised and honored.  One of the things I really want to do is to get some video of me sparring with some of the people here in Martial Talk.  I just have to remember which who spars to win so I don't get my head knocked off lol.


Oooh, pick me! Get me on a bad-knee day, and there's no way I can stay low enough to deal with your deep stance. You'll destroy me. It'll be fantastic for your YouTube channel. You can post about how all non-Chinese arts are ********.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Wait, your JOWGa school actually kicked you out for posting those sparring videos? What the hell man.
> 
> If anything seeing it actually used for something would be good publicity wouldn't it?


Some instructors' thinking just baffles me, man.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If your goal is to beat a high ranking Bjj or MMA exponent, you will need to lay off the form/kata practice. It won't do you any favors.


The form practice helps me.  There have been multiple times when I successfully used a technique straight from the form in sparring on a first attempt.   Forms practice is just repetition drilling.  Telling me not to do forms is like telling a boxer not to shadow box or punch a bag.  In Jow Ga the forms are actually made of practical fighting combinations mixed in with single strikes and grabbling.    The forms help me train the motion and body mechanics needed to be successful with the technique.  The sparring helps train the timing and application of the technique.  

Forms are a practical reference in which I can organize possible striking and grappling techniques vs trying to remember each on separately.

Forms serve one purpose sparring serves another.  I think too many people try to make Forms vs Sparring an "either or" choice. The reality is that you can do both and benefit from both with each helping a person to accomplish a more complete training.    

The fact that I train forms and was told that I focus too much on fighting pretty much highlights that it's possible to do both.   The Martial Artist just has to be honest with their training by matching the training requirements with the goal.  Don't just do Form training thinking that it's a substitute for sparring.  That's not being honest with one's training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Oooh, pick me! Get me on a bad-knee day, and there's no way I can stay low enough to deal with your deep stance. You'll destroy me. It'll be fantastic for your YouTube channel. You can post about how all non-Chinese arts are ********.


I'm planning to meet you in person soon.  lol.  I just have to get some things on my end organized.  I'm hoping to do a day trip before the end of the year, provided that your schedule allows.  I'll know more on my end in the coming weeks.  My work life may be changing.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The form practice helps me.  There have been multiple times when I successfully used a technique straight from the form in sparring on a first attempt.   Forms practice is just repetition drilling.  Telling me not to do forms is like telling a boxer not to shadow box or punch a bag.  In Jow Ga the forms are actually made of practical fighting combinations mixed in with single strikes and grabbling.    The forms help me train the motion and body mechanics needed to be successful with the technique.  The sparring helps train the timing and application of the technique.
> 
> Forms are a practical reference in which I can organize possible striking and grappling techniques vs trying to remember each on separately.
> 
> Forms serve one purpose sparring serves another.  I think too many people try to make Forms vs Sparring an "either or" choice. The reality is that you can do both and benefit from both with each helping a person to accomplish a more complete training.
> 
> The fact that I train forms and was told that I focus too much on fighting pretty much highlights that it's possible to do both.   The Martial Artist just has to be honest with their training by matching the training requirements with the goal.  Don't just do Form training thinking that it's a substitute for sparring.  That's not being honest with one's training.



When boxers shadowbox, they utilize the actual fighting method that they use when they're actually fighting.






 I have yet to see a traditional martial arts form that resembles the actual fighting method of the martial art itself. Even in your videos, your actual fighting method more closely resembled kickboxing or what we see from MMA than the elaborate movements from your forms. I experienced the same thing in Karate. I personally loved the Bassai Dai kata, but there's no way I would ever look like that when I was actually fighting, unless I wanted to get socked in the face.

Which is why I believe you'd be better served by simply doing MMA. If you wish to keep it Chinese-based, Sanshou would be a nice option as well. Wasting your time dancing around with antiquated stances and weapons isn't a good use of your time if your goal is to make Jowga a practical martial arts system.

However, to each their own....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm planning to meet you in person soon.  lol.  I just have to get some things on my end organized.  I'm hoping to do a day trip before the end of the year, provided that your schedule allows.  I'll know more on my end in the coming weeks.  My work life may be changing.


Just don't plan it in the middle of September - I'll be in India.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I think asking "is kata practice good for developing fighting ability" is way too broad and simplistic a question. I think it's helpful to break it down further than that...

First, separate out solo kata/form practice (a la CMA, Karate, TKD, etc) from paired kata (a la koryu and koryu-derived arts). In my opinion, the two have fundamentally different purposes, strengths, and weaknesses.

Next, the following questions can be asked (about both general types of "kata" and the specific kata within a given system):

Does the kata help develop some specific skill, understanding, or attribute that can be useful for using the art in an actual fight?

What specifically are those skills, understandings, or attributes?

What _different_ benefits might be gained from different kata (or the same kata performed in different ways)?

Can those skills, understandings, or attributes be developed through some other training method? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the kata versus the other methods for developing these?

Are the kata sufficient to develop fighting ability by themselves without some other form of training? (I'd argue that the answer is generally "no.")

Assuming you find value in kata (and in other forms of training), what is the best ratio of time spent on kata vs other training? Why?

_How_ should the kata be trained in order to maximize the development of the desired skills, understandings, or attributes? I've seen many approaches to kata that I would consider ... counterproductive.

Is this particular kata (whatever you are studying at the moment) really optimized for developing the skills/understandings/attributes most relevant to the particular fighting style you are trying to develop? For example: if your fighting style involves punching from a high guard but your kata have all punches coming from the hip, is that optimal? Should you change the kata to punch from a high guard? Should you change your fighting style to punch from the hip? Is there a good reason to do them differently? I'd strongly recommend against making assumptions either way before investigation.

If you find that a particular kata or set of kata have useful benefits for you, is it necessary (or even desirable) to keep the kata beat-for-beat unchanged in perpetuity? I occasionally come up with short sequences for my BJJ students which could easily be formalized as a kata if BJJ culture leaned that way. The way I think about training them is similar to some descriptions I have read about the koryu approach to kata. However I don't see the need to lock down the sequence and have students memorize if for future use. They're just drills I come up with for the lesson I'm trying to impart at the moment.

Just a thought, but we might shed a little more light on the topic with more focused questions like these.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> When boxers shadowbox, they utilize the actual fighting method that they use when they're actually fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * I have yet to see a traditional martial arts form that resembles the actual fighting method of the martial art itself*. Even in your videos, your actual fighting method more closely resembled kickboxing or what we see from MMA than the elaborate movements from your forms. I experienced the same thing in Karate. I personally loved the Bassai Dai kata, but there's no way I would ever look like that when I was actually fighting, unless I wanted to get socked in the face.
> 
> Which is why I believe you'd be better served by simply doing MMA. If you wish to keep it Chinese-based, Sanshou would be a nice option as well. Wasting your time dancing around with antiquated stances and weapons isn't a good use of your time if your goal is to make Jowga a practical martial arts system.
> 
> However, to each their own....



It has been a very long time since I did forms in studying TKD, and the highest I got was starting learning forms for I think 7th green gup.  I agree we focused on kicks and therefore kick defense, but also punches and punch defense.  Those things were in our kata. We practiced multiple attacker defense in our forms.  I think I remember seeing that once by black belts.  I also remember a member of my unit who got his black belt in Korea, and mentioned part of his black belt test was to fight against two higher black belts.

I'm so sorry you have not seen a martial art that taught moves in its kata that could be used in sparring.  Maybe you would not have abandoned TMA for MMA.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> I have yet to see a traditional martial arts form that resembles the actual fighting method of the martial art itself.


Another question to add to my list above: should a given training method (such as kata) always closely resemble the actual fighting application of the art? If not, what are some good reasons for divergence between the two? Do those reasons actually apply to the particular kata (or other training method) you are currently examining?


----------



## Hanzou

oftheherd1 said:


> It has been a very long time since I did forms in studying TKD, and the highest I got was starting learning forms for I think 7th green gup.  I agree we focused on kicks and therefore kick defense, but also punches and punch defense.  Those things were in our kata. We practiced multiple attacker defense in our forms.  I think I remember seeing that once by black belts.  I also remember a member of my unit who got his black belt in Korea, and mentioned part of his black belt test was to fight against two higher black belts.
> 
> I'm so sorry you have not seen a martial art that taught moves in its kata that could be used in sparring.  Maybe you would not have abandoned TMA for MMA.



Not what I said. What I said is that the movements, techniques, and transitions shown in kata rarely appear when the exponents are actually fighting each other (or anyone else). Additionally we have evidence of plenty of effective martial arts that have discarded kata completely, so clearly kata isn't a requirement to develop an effective fighting method as some people believe.

For example, take my favorite Shotokan kata Bassai Dai:






You will never see anyone fight that way.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have raised this concern many years ago. When I saw a teacher demonstrated on his student that when the student made 1 attack, the teacher countered with 6 moves as if the teacher was 6 times faster than the student. The student just frozen himself in the air. I started to ask myself, how could I avoid this kind of training issue. The answer is simple. I always attack first. If I attack fast, I will force my opponent to respond fast. It then will force me to respond to his respond fast.
> 
> In the normal situation, when you make one move, your opponent will respond with one move.


You can also avoid the issue by training your defenses under the assumption that your opponent gets one move for every move you make.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Another question to add to my list above: should a given training method (such as kata) always closely resemble the actual fighting application of the art?



Yes. Extensive practice in techniques, transitions, and stances you're never going to use is a waste of time, and can actually lead to some levels of confusion.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Boxers don't fake the outcome of a punch successfully. So you don't go from win to win which is nice but not very useful. As learning to towel up a guy who is getting rocked isn't high percentage.
> 
> So what they do is fake the defence. You punch, they slip and counter. Then you counter off that. Because, well that is handier to know.


Here we hit on what I consider to be the biggest single problem with the training methods in the Bujinkan. It’s all based on going from win to win and not on the idea that your opponent will do something intelligent to negate your techniques.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> When boxers shadowbox, they utilize the actual fighting method that they use when they're actually fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a traditional martial arts form that resembles the actual fighting method of the martial art itself. Even in your videos, your actual fighting method more closely resembled kickboxing or what we see from MMA than the elaborate movements from your forms. I experienced the same thing in Karate. I personally loved the Bassai Dai kata, but there's no way I would ever look like that when I was actually fighting, unless I wanted to get socked in the face.
> 
> Which is why I believe you'd be better served by simply doing MMA. If you wish to keep it Chinese-based, Sanshou would be a nice option as well. Wasting your time dancing around with antiquated stances and weapons isn't a good use of your time if your goal is to make Jowga a practical martial arts system.
> 
> However, to each their own....


I'm happy to say that my fighting looks nothing like kickboxing..  lol.  just for you I'll add a video of me doing kung fu shadow boxing, forms, and drills so you can see the similarities.  Some will be exactly the same and other will be variations.  None of it looks like kickboxing.  Are you sure we are looking at the same videos?


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Just don't plan it in the middle of September - I'll be in India.


Nice.  I knew you traveled but I didn’t know it was out of country as well.  I hope to do the same in the future.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think asking "is kata practice good for developing fighting ability" is way too broad and simplistic a question. I think it's helpful to break it down further than that...
> 
> First, separate out solo kata/form practice (a la CMA, Karate, TKD, etc) from paired kata (a la koryu and koryu-derived arts). In my opinion, the two have fundamentally different purposes, strengths, and weaknesses.
> 
> Next, the following questions can be asked (about both general types of "kata" and the specific kata within a given system):
> 
> Does the kata help develop some specific skill, understanding, or attribute that can be useful for using the art in an actual fight?
> 
> What specifically are those skills, understandings, or attributes?
> 
> What _different_ benefits might be gained from different kata (or the same kata performed in different ways)?
> 
> Can those skills, understandings, or attributes be developed through some other training method? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the kata versus the other methods for developing these?
> 
> Are the kata sufficient to develop fighting ability by themselves without some other form of training? (I'd argue that the answer is generally "no.")
> 
> Assuming you find value in kata (and in other forms of training), what is the best ratio of time spent on kata vs other training? Why?
> 
> _How_ should the kata be trained in order to maximize the development of the desired skills, understandings, or attributes? I've seen many approaches to kata that I would consider ... counterproductive.
> 
> Is this particular kata (whatever you are studying at the moment) really optimized for developing the skills/understandings/attributes most relevant to the particular fighting style you are trying to develop? For example: if your fighting style involves punching from a high guard but your kata have all punches coming from the hip, is that optimal? Should you change the kata to punch from a high guard? Should you change your fighting style to punch from the hip? Is there a good reason to do them differently? I'd strongly recommend against making assumptions either way before investigation.
> 
> If you find that a particular kata or set of kata have useful benefits for you, is it necessary (or even desirable) to keep the kata beat-for-beat unchanged in perpetuity? I occasionally come up with short sequences for my BJJ students which could easily be formalized as a kata if BJJ culture leaned that way. The way I think about training them is similar to some descriptions I have read about the koryu approach to kata. However I don't see the need to lock down the sequence and have students memorize if for future use. They're just drills I come up with for the lesson I'm trying to impart at the moment.
> 
> Just a thought, but we might shed a little more light on the topic with more focused questions like these.


Like always excellent analysis.  I would also like to add "setting purpose to action."  Just because 2 people are doing the same form doesn't mean they are training the same things nor does it mean they are trainin with the same perspective.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hanzou said:


> Not what I said. What I said is that the movements, techniques, and transitions shown in kata rarely appear when the exponents are actually fighting each other (or anyone else). Additionally we have evidence of plenty of effective martial arts that have discarded kata completely, so clearly kata isn't a requirement to develop an effective fighting method as some people believe.
> 
> For example, take my favorite Shotokan kata Bassai Dai:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will never see anyone fight that way.



I have never trained boxing so I don't really know, but it looks like Mr. Tyson is combining a lot of different combinations, which seems to be what most kata do.  But I think it senseless to argue.  We each seem to have our own belief on the subject, and don't want to change.  I respect your beliefs but I guess we just need to let it go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think asking "is kata practice good for developing fighting ability" is way too broad and simplistic a question. I think it's helpful to break it down further than that...
> 
> First, separate out solo kata/form practice (a la CMA, Karate, TKD, etc) from paired kata (a la koryu and koryu-derived arts). In my opinion, the two have fundamentally different purposes, strengths, and weaknesses.
> 
> Next, the following questions can be asked (about both general types of "kata" and the specific kata within a given system):
> 
> Does the kata help develop some specific skill, understanding, or attribute that can be useful for using the art in an actual fight?
> 
> What specifically are those skills, understandings, or attributes?
> 
> What _different_ benefits might be gained from different kata (or the same kata performed in different ways)?
> 
> Can those skills, understandings, or attributes be developed through some other training method? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the kata versus the other methods for developing these?
> 
> Are the kata sufficient to develop fighting ability by themselves without some other form of training? (I'd argue that the answer is generally "no.")
> 
> Assuming you find value in kata (and in other forms of training), what is the best ratio of time spent on kata vs other training? Why?
> 
> _How_ should the kata be trained in order to maximize the development of the desired skills, understandings, or attributes? I've seen many approaches to kata that I would consider ... counterproductive.
> 
> Is this particular kata (whatever you are studying at the moment) really optimized for developing the skills/understandings/attributes most relevant to the particular fighting style you are trying to develop? For example: if your fighting style involves punching from a high guard but your kata have all punches coming from the hip, is that optimal? Should you change the kata to punch from a high guard? Should you change your fighting style to punch from the hip? Is there a good reason to do them differently? I'd strongly recommend against making assumptions either way before investigation.
> 
> If you find that a particular kata or set of kata have useful benefits for you, is it necessary (or even desirable) to keep the kata beat-for-beat unchanged in perpetuity? I occasionally come up with short sequences for my BJJ students which could easily be formalized as a kata if BJJ culture leaned that way. The way I think about training them is similar to some descriptions I have read about the koryu approach to kata. However I don't see the need to lock down the sequence and have students memorize if for future use. They're just drills I come up with for the lesson I'm trying to impart at the moment.
> 
> Just a thought, but we might shed a little more light on the topic with more focused questions like these.


As usual, an excellent synopsis of the issue, Tony.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Not what I said. What I said is that the movements, techniques, and transitions shown in kata rarely appear when the exponents are actually fighting each other (or anyone else). Additionally we have evidence of plenty of effective martial arts that have discarded kata completely, so clearly kata isn't a requirement to develop an effective fighting method as some people believe.
> 
> For example, take my favorite Shotokan kata Bassai Dai:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will never see anyone fight that way.


I haven’t seen or heard anyone saying they are a requirement for effective fighting development; rather, that they are a useful tool for same.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Nice.  I knew you traveled but I didn’t know it was out of country as well.  I hope to do the same in the future.


This one wasn’t in my list of desired trips. I just can’t seem to find a client that needs my assistance in Western Europe.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm happy to say that my fighting looks nothing like kickboxing..  lol.  just for you I'll add a video of me doing kung fu shadow boxing, forms, and drills so you can see the similarities.  Some will be exactly the same and other will be variations.  None of it looks like kickboxing.  Are you sure we are looking at the same videos?



Very well. Let's take a different approach.....






This is a Jowga sparring drill, and it would appear to more closely resemble traditional hand techniques. Do you believe that these techniques would be effective against someone trying to legitimately attack them, much less a trained fighter?


----------



## Hanzou

oftheherd1 said:


> I have never trained boxing so I don't really know, but it looks like Mr. Tyson is combining a lot of different combinations, which seems to be what most kata do.  But I think it senseless to argue.  We each seem to have our own belief on the subject, and don't want to change.  I respect your beliefs but I guess we just need to let it go.



The point is that if you look at Mike Tyson's actual bouts, he's doing the exact same movements that he's doing in that shadowboxing clip.

Unlike say....Shaolin Kung fu?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I haven’t seen or heard anyone saying they are a requirement for effective fighting development; rather, that they are a useful tool for same.



There is running belief in traditional MA that bad kata/form means your fighting ability will be greatly reduced.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> There is running belief in traditional MA that bad kata/form means your fighting ability will be greatly reduced.


I think doing any drill badly can actually have that effect. There’s a difference between bad kata and no kata.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Very well. Let's take a different approach.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Jowga sparring drill, and it would appear to more closely resemble traditional hand techniques. Do you believe that these techniques would be effective against someone trying to legitimately attack them, much less a trained fighter?


My first response without looking is "depends on how they train and if they are honest about training for the specific purpose of using the techniques to fight."

My second response after watching the video is that yes some of those techniques will work as I have already shown through some of my videos.  Some of the techniques I saw were done incorrectly by the students and it was clear to me that there was a lot of forcing of the technique vs using the right technique at the right time.  in terms of sparring it was a class full of beginners.  It also doesn't look like their goal for that session is focused on how to fight using Jow Ga.  It seems that sparring session is an exploratory session.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> When boxers shadowbox, they utilize the actual fighting method that they use when they're actually fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a traditional martial arts form that resembles the actual fighting method of the martial art itself. Even in your videos, your actual fighting method more closely resembled kickboxing or what we see from MMA than the elaborate movements from your forms. I experienced the same thing in Karate. I personally loved the Bassai Dai kata, but there's no way I would ever look like that when I was actually fighting, unless I wanted to get socked in the face.
> 
> Which is why I believe you'd be better served by simply doing MMA. If you wish to keep it Chinese-based, Sanshou would be a nice option as well. Wasting your time dancing around with antiquated stances and weapons isn't a good use of your time if your goal is to make Jowga a practical martial arts system.
> 
> However, to each their own....



FirstTyson threw a bunch of machine gun upper cuts that people don't fight with. 
Second, shadow boxing Is not the only training method boxers use and not every training method resembles the fight.

Lomanchenko was taken out of boxing to focus on dance and he credits those skills for his footwork. Yet people with your disposition struggle to see the benefits of combat adjacent practices like kata and drills.

There is a discussion to be had around how much time one might spend on these kinds of training or if they are to be surpassed after a certain point. But a blanket dismissal is as foolish as blind acceptance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The point is that if you look at Mike Tyson's actual bouts, he's doing the exact same movements that he's doing in that shadowboxing clip.
> 
> Unlike say....Shaolin Kung fu?


Again.you picked a random video of people doing forms and assume their purpose of action and training is to fight. 

There are many focuses for sparring, drills, and forms training.  You can't just pick someone doing a form and say that's not valid for fighting.  If I did my form you would be able to clearly tell my purpose of action.


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> FirstTyson threw a bunch of machine gun upper cuts that people don't fight with.
> Second, shadow boxing Is not the only training method boxers use and not every training method resembles the fight.
> 
> Lomanchenko was taken out of boxing to focus on dance and he credits those skills for his footwork. Yet people with your disposition struggle to see the benefits of combat adjacent practices like kata and drills.
> 
> There is a discussion to be had around how much time one might spend on these kinds of training or if they are to be surpassed after a certain point. But a blanket dismissal is as foolish as blind acceptance.



Throwing multiple uppercuts (Tyson's signature punch btw) isnt the same as doing stances and techniques that you would never use in fight.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> My first response without looking is "depends on how they train and if they are honest about training for the specific purpose of using the techniques to fight."
> 
> My second response after watching the video is that yes some of those techniques will work as I have already shown through some of my videos.  Some of the techniques I saw were done incorrectly by the students and it was clear to me that there was a lot of forcing of the technique vs using the right technique at the right time.  in terms of sparring it was a class full of beginners.  It also doesn't look like their goal for that session is focused on how to fight using Jow Ga.  It seems that sparring session is an exploratory session.



Really? So you think it is good to teach beginners a bunch of techniques loaded with bad habits early on just to glean a couple of useful techniques later on? 

A boxer with 2 weeks experience would knock their head off.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> Throwing multiple uppercuts (Tyson's signature punch btw) isnt the same as doing stances and techniques that you would never use in fight.



Again, nobody uppercuts 2 inches infront of their chest in a fight, just like nobody hits a person like they hit a speedball.

And I'm curious, what part of Bassai dai is a stance or technique you would never use in a fight?


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Again, nobody uppercuts 2 inches infront of their chest in a fight, just like nobody hits a person like they hit a speedball.



But they do uppercut, and general positioning and motion are the same. I have yet to see anyone perform a Uchi-Uke while fighting.

And that should answer your second question.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Really? So you think it is good to teach beginners a bunch of techniques loaded with bad habits early on just to glean a couple of useful techniques later on?
> 
> A boxer with 2 weeks experience would knock their head off.


Depends.  If the students are just exploring the technique then it won't matter if the get the application correct because at that point function doesn't matter.  However a student can't take that same approach if they plan on actually using those same techniques in a fight.  

TKD Tricking is full of bad habits that aren't good for fighting.  If your goal and focus isn't to learn how to fight then those bad habits aren't going to hurt you.  Unless you try to use them in a fight.  At that point the students aren't honest with themselves or their training because they are trying to apply a skill set that was never intended for fighting. 

Some people train martial arts with the only focus of being good exercise or something they think is cool.  It's not fair to expect them to fight when nothing about their training says "I'm training to fight" It doesn't mean that the techniques are useless it just means they aren't training how to fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Really? So you think it is good to teach beginners a bunch of techniques loaded with bad habits early on just to glean a couple of useful techniques later on?
> 
> A boxer with 2 weeks experience would knock their head off.


Just because someone trains martial arts doesn't mean they are training to fight.  You are making the assumption that if person A trains martial arts, then person A also trains fighting. A boxer with 2 weeks experience?  Boxers wouldn't even say something like that. It's unrealistic to expect that of a beginner.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Just because someone trains martial arts doesn't mean they are training to fight.  You are making the assumption that if person A trains martial arts, then person A also trains fighting. A boxer with 2 weeks experience?  Boxers wouldn't even say something like that. It's unrealistic to expect that of a beginner.



In that video they're all training the exact same thing. Are you really going to argue that no one on that training floor was there to learn how to fight? Are you also going to argue that those techniques they were learning would be useful for that goal (fighting)?

As for the boxer reference, I'm simply saying that based on skills attained at the 2 week point, the boxer would have no problem clocking those people in the face over and over again. Expand that boxer's experience to a year, and it wouldn't even be a contest. I'd even put sifu on the chopping block.


----------



## Buka

I think people look at the whole Kata debate wrong. It seems it's always a one way or another thing. What I mean is - we always did a lot of things in our training. We drilled, we stretched, we lifted, we did bag work, focus mitts, kicking shields, sparring, push ups, sit ups, chin ups, sprinting, jump rope, two man Kumite type drills, grappling, grappling drills, multiples work, verbal drills, take downs, resisting take downs, blocking, slipping, parrying, bobbing and weaving, ducking, jamming, sweeping, reaping, throwing, chokes, armlocks/wristlocks, reversals, escapes, blah, blah, blah and yada yada yada.

Okay.....take out any one thing from above and you know what? We would still be damn good Karateka and above average fighters. Same thing if Kata was on that list and we were to take it off. Kata, at least what I know of it, is part of most Martial training. But it seems that non Kata people treat it like it's the scourge of the earth and Kata people treat it like the Ark of the Covenant.

I always found that somewhat odd. But somewhat interesting, too.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> In that video they're all training the exact same thing. Are you really going to argue that no one on that training floor was there to learn how to fight? Are you also going to argue that those techniques they were learning would be useful for that goal (fighting)?
> 
> As for the boxer reference, I'm simply saying that based on skills attained at the 2 week point, the boxer would have no problem clocking those people in the face over and over again. Expand that boxer's experience to a year, and it wouldn't even be a contest.


Yes and they will even tell you themselves.  Ask any martial artist why they train martial arts and you'll discover that very few will respond "to learn how to fight."   most people say for fun and exercise.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Buka said:


> I think people look at the whole Kata debate wrong. It seems it's always a one way or another thing. What I mean is - we always did a lot of things in our training. We drilled, we stretched, we lifted, we did bag work, focus mitts, kicking shields, sparring, push ups, sit ups, chin ups, sprinting, jump rope, two man Kumite type drills, grappling, grappling drills, multiples work, verbal drills, take downs, resisting take downs, blocking, slipping, parrying, bobbing and weaving, ducking, jamming, sweeping, reaping, throwing, chokes, armlocks/wristlocks, reversals, escapes, blah, blah, blah and yada yada yada.
> 
> Okay.....take out any one thing from above and you know what? We would still be damn good Karateka and above average fighters. Same thing if Kata was on that list and we were to take it off. Kata, at least what I know of it, is part of most Martial training. But it seems that non Kata people treat it like it's the scourge of the earth and Kata people treat it like the Ark of the Covenant.
> 
> I always found that somewhat odd. But somewhat interesting, too.


People assume that if you know kata or forms that you automatically are training to fight.  It's a very limited way of thinking and we probably have Hollywood to thank for that image.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes and they will even tell you themselves.  Ask any martial artist why they train martial arts and you'll discover that very few will respond "to learn how to fight."   most people say for fun and exercise.



If the majority of martial artists were taking up martial arts for "fun and exercise", why do they believe that their art of choice would be effective against a boxer or a wrestler, and why does so much TMA training revolve around beating those types of fighters?


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> I think people look at the whole Kata debate wrong. It seems it's always a one way or another thing. What I mean is - we always did a lot of things in our training. We drilled, we stretched, we lifted, we did bag work, focus mitts, kicking shields, sparring, push ups, sit ups, chin ups, sprinting, jump rope, two man Kumite type drills, grappling, grappling drills, multiples work, verbal drills, take downs, resisting take downs, blocking, slipping, parrying, bobbing and weaving, ducking, jamming, sweeping, reaping, throwing, chokes, armlocks/wristlocks, reversals, escapes, blah, blah, blah and yada yada yada.
> 
> Okay.....take out any one thing from above and you know what? We would still be damn good Karateka and above average fighters. Same thing if Kata was on that list and we were to take it off. Kata, at least what I know of it, is part of most Martial training. But it seems that non Kata people treat it like it's the scourge of the earth and Kata people treat it like the Ark of the Covenant.
> 
> I always found that somewhat odd. But somewhat interesting, too.



When I studied TKD we usually (almost always) did kata in steps.  In the Hapkido I studied, and most other Hapkido kwans, there are no kata (it was considered in the mid-80s, and GM were encouraged to submit samples and agreements or disagreements).  The thought on kata was not adopted.  So I guess the gist of the threat argument is that we are superior to those that do kata.  I would not agree.  More importantly perhaps, I should say that kata are made up of a lot of different steps, or techniques.  They are strung together.  Would anyone do a kata in a fight?  That would be fun to watch if very unproductive for defense.  But as provided by the video of M. Tyson; he also strung a lot of moves together, stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum of looking like a real strong fighter.  

Dummy me, I don't see that as any different from forms.  When I did forms, I always imagined each move was a specific defense or attack.  Please forgive me.  I was young and inexperienced.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> doing stances and techniques that you would never use in fight.


Agree! Lifetime is too valuable to be wasted.

There are 3 different kind of techniques in the form. Those that you

1. have used in sparring successfully.
2. like to use in sparring but not very successful.
3. have never used in sparring.

You should keep 1, 2 and discard 3.

The following is a modern created form for American Combat Shuai Chiao Association. If I say it's an ancient form, nobody will be able to notice any difference.

Please notice that this form is created from application and not the other way around.


----------



## Hanzou

oftheherd1 said:


> When I studied TKD we usually (almost always) did kata in steps.  In the Hapkido I studied, and most other Hapkido kwans, there are no kata (it was considered in the mid-80s, and GM were encouraged to submit samples and agreements or disagreements).  The thought on kata was not adopted.  So I guess the gist of the threat argument is that we are superior to those that do kata.  I would not agree.



The evidence shows otherwise. We're still waiting for that Tai Chi master to emerge and wipe the floor with the Muay Thai champ, but it still hasn't happened yet.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The evidence shows otherwise. We're still waiting for that Tai Chi master to emerge and wipe the floor with the Muay Thai champ, but it still hasn't happened yet.



Oh for goodness sake please do you actually mean that for real or are you trying to stir up the pot?


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> But they do uppercut, and general positioning and motion are the same. I have yet to see anyone perform a Uchi-Uke while fighting.
> 
> And that should answer your second question.



There's just so much wrong with your starting assumptions that as I skim over.your posts I struggle to know where to begin.

So instead I will reiterate the glaring hole in your logic that you completely failed to observe when I raised it earlier.

One of the best boxers of the present day attributes much of his success to a year plus of traditional dance classes.

Training, but not following the form of the modern boxing match. 

I'm pretty shocked that you choose Uchi uke as it is everywhere. That you haven't seen it is more about you than the technique.

Your trouble is just one of dogma. X is how a real fight looks, therefore not X is not real fight.

No. Nothing is ever that simple.

These arts just come from a place and time that thought differently to you. When you get inside that mindset you find advantages. If you can't or won't then you miss it. Not all arts fit all people, but just because you miss it doesn't mean everyone does.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> The evidence shows otherwise. We're still waiting for that Tai Chi master to emerge and wipe the floor with the Muay Thai champ, but it still hasn't happened yet.





now disabled said:


> Oh for goodness sake please do you actually mean that for real or are you trying to stir up the pot?



Seems like a salient and factual point to make. Are you saying you disagree, and if so, why?


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> There's just so much wrong with your starting assumptions that as I skim over.your posts I struggle to know where to begin.
> 
> So instead I will reiterate the glaring hole in your logic that you completely failed to observe when I raised it earlier.
> 
> One of the best boxers of the present day attributes much of his success to a year plus of traditional dance classes.



So what. Anderson Silva (a master of Muay Thai and striking arts in general) said that Steven Segal taught him the basic front kick. Fighters say all kinds of kooky stuff to get attention.



> I'm pretty shocked that you choose Uchi uke as it is everywhere. That you haven't seen it is more about you than the technique.



Then please show it being used in a fight. There's plenty of examples of Karatekas fighting other styles, including Machida in the UFC. Where is the Uchi Uko being used? Clearly if it was being used "everywhere" you should have no problem finding it right?


----------



## now disabled

DaveB said:


> There's just so much wrong with your starting assumptions that as I skim over.your posts I struggle to know where to begin.
> 
> So instead I will reiterate the glaring hole in your logic that you completely failed to observe when I raised it earlier.
> 
> One of the best boxers of the present day attributes much of his success to a year plus of traditional dance classes.
> 
> Training, but not following the form of the modern boxing match.
> 
> I'm pretty shocked that you choose Uchi uke as it is everywhere. That you haven't seen it is more about you than the technique.
> 
> Your trouble is just one of dogma. X is how a real fight looks, therefore not X is not real fight.
> 
> No. Nothing is ever that simple.
> 
> These arts just come from a place and time that thought differently to you. When you get inside that mindset you find advantages. If you can't or won't then you miss it. Not all arts fit all people, but just because you miss it doesn't mean everyone does.




thank goodness I ain't the only one that thinks he is missing large chunks of why this is done etc

and is also of the same opinion that just because he can't see it or as you say doesn't want to then it has to be wrong


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> If the majority of martial artists were taking up martial arts for "fun and exercise", why do they believe that their art of choice would be effective against a boxer or a wrestler, and why does so much TMA training revolve around beating those types of fighters?


Now you're just trolling.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Seems like a salient and factual point to make. Are you saying you disagree, and if so, why?




Ummm most masters are well into their later years and are very unlikely to be going wrong looking for fights and that is just the starting point on that ... I will say this again just because you personally do not think something is right and you cannot find the all important vids then it has to be your thoughts are correct and that is just not right at all it your own opinion and if you can't see things then it does not mean in any way they are not there


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Now you're just trolling.



Am I?


















And there's countless more.

It would seem that traditional martial artists are quite worried about how they stand up to boxers and wrestlers. Seems a bit odd to worry about that if you're just doing it for "fun".


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> When boxers shadowbox, they utilize the actual fighting method that they use when they're actually fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see a traditional martial arts form that resembles the actual fighting method of the martial art itself. Even in your videos, your actual fighting method more closely resembled kickboxing or what we see from MMA than the elaborate movements from your forms. I experienced the same thing in Karate. I personally loved the Bassai Dai kata, but there's no way I would ever look like that when I was actually fighting, unless I wanted to get socked in the face.
> 
> Which is why I believe you'd be better served by simply doing MMA. If you wish to keep it Chinese-based, Sanshou would be a nice option as well. Wasting your time dancing around with antiquated stances and weapons isn't a good use of your time if your goal is to make Jowga a practical martial arts system.
> 
> However, to each their own....



This got me to thinking....

I like shadow boxing, been doing it like forever. But just had the thought that to make it an exercise more like actual fighting, maybe one should emulate getting hit. Because you're going to get hit while boxing, no matter what.

Maybe the next time I shadow box I'll play with that. But I'll probably forget.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> So what. Anderson Silva (a master of Muay Thai and striking arts in general) said that Steven Segal taught him the basic front kick. Fighters say all kinds of kooky stuff to get attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Then please show it being used in a fight. There's plenty of examples of Karatekas fighting other styles, including Machida in the UFC. Where is the Uchi Uko being used? Clearly if it was being used "everywhere" you should have no problem finding it right?




Fistly maybe seagal did how do you know he didn't ? 

secondly get of the UFC wagon there is way way way more to MA than that 

and yes I do actually think you are just trying to troll and start fights or arguments


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Am I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there's countless more.
> 
> It would seem that traditional martial artists are quite worried about how they stand up to boxers and wrestlers. Seems a bit odd to worry about that if you're just doing it for "fun".




I think you have a serious you tube addiction personally


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Ummm most masters are well into their later years and are very unlikely to be going wrong looking for fights and that is just the starting point on that ... I will say this again just because you personally do not think something is right and you cannot find the all important vids then it has to be your thoughts are correct and that is just not right at all it your own opinion and if you can't see things then it does not mean in any way they are not there


Ohhh. Another case of a super well kept secret. Righto then. No evidence required.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Ohhh. Another case of a super well kept secret. Righto then. No evidence required.




eh most masters in any of the arts are in their later years so do pray tell how that is hiding anything ...and I am not talking about the ones who say they are masters but the ones that really are


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Ummm most masters are well into their later years and are very unlikely to be going wrong looking for fights and that is just the starting point on that ... I will say this again just because you personally do not think something is right and you cannot find the all important vids then it has to be your thoughts are correct and that is just not right at all it your own opinion and if you can't see things then it does not mean in any way they are not there



So your argument is that the overall skill level of TMAs have degraded? Where are the NEW masters?

Just a point of comparison: The general skill level of Bjj practitioners is quite a bit higher than when Royce Gracie won the first UFC 25 years ago. Which is why the Gracies don't really compete anymore, the overall skill level of the art has evolved way past them. 

Interesting that you believe that only the old masters could stand a chance in the modern day, and that modern exponents don't possess or exceed their skill level...



now disabled said:


> Fistly maybe seagal did how do you know he didn't ?



Anderson Silva has thrown that kick before. Again, it was the BASIC front kick.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Seems like a salient and factual point to make. Are you saying you disagree, and if so, why?


It's a 5 yr olds point.

Are you seriously saying that you critically assessed that statement in the context of the discussion and found no fault with it?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> So your argument is that the overall skill level of TMAs have degraded? Where are the NEW masters?
> 
> Just a point of comparison: The general skill level of Bjj practitioners is quite a bit higher than when Royce Gracie won the first UFC 25 years ago. Which is why the Gracies don't really compete anymore, the overall skill level of the art has evolved way past them.
> 
> Interesting that you believe that only the old masters could stand a chance in the modern day, and that modern exponents don't possess or exceed their skill level...
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson Silva has thrown that kick before. Again, it was the BASIC front kick.




Whose opinion is that on the Gracies ? and why yet again bring them into it they are a respected family and deserve to be given tat respect and not given your treatment 

Secondly where did I say any TMA standards have dropped ? again that seems to be your sole opinion 

 again what do you know that means you say Seagal didn't teach him that do you have a hotline somewhere 

Any other art you want to tell the world that is wrong and give your expert opinion on 

Actually I never would ask this but I will to you 

What ranks do you hold that gives you the right to be the expert and be careful what you pick to say as well jsut be careful as to date you haven't shown that you really understand things at all so pray do tell what ranks do you hold


----------



## now disabled

DaveB said:


> It's a 5 yr olds point.
> 
> Are you seriously saying that you critically assessed that statement in the context of the discussion and found no fault with it?



Don't you will get no where at all


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> I think you have a serious you tube addiction personally


People always said that there are Taiji masters live in the mountain who can kick Mike Tyson's butt. I don't believe that kind of statement. If you declare something, you will need to prove it.

I have not met a single Taiji person (without cross training) who can fight. Video is the best way to prove something.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> People always said that there are Taiji masters live in the mountain who can kick Mike Tyson's butt. I don't believe that kind of statement. If you declare something, you will need to prove it.
> 
> I have not met a single Taiji person (without cross training) who can fight. Video is the best way to prove something.



sorry I don't agree that fighting proves anything more than that person can fight ...ok some want to prove they can others don't doesn't mean they can't and video jeez why is everyone so hung up on video. Personally when I got into any fights or scraps of nasty situation the last thing I thought was stop hold it time out dont have a vid camera on me ........sorry had more pressing things on my mind


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> why is everyone so hung up on video.


If you (general YOU) said that you have punching power, you can just punch on your heavy bag 20 times. Record it on your cell phone. Put up you clip. Everybody will agree that you have punching power. Video is an excellent way to record the fact.

Through video, I can see my long fist young brothers still spend so much time in form training. Should I keep my mouth shut without offend my long fist teacher, or should I speak out that too much form training is wrong, wrong, and still wrong.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you (general YOU) said that you have punching power, you can just punch on your heavy bag 20 times. Record it on your cell phone. Put up you clip. Everybody will agree that you have punching power. Video is an excellent way to record the fact.



ok fair point but not everyone wants to make or be in vids ...I'm not disagreeing you have a valid argument ..just as I said not everyone wants to be on you tube


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If the majority of martial artists were taking up martial arts for "fun and exercise", why do they believe that their art of choice would be effective against a boxer or a wrestler, and why does so much TMA training revolve around beating those types of fighters?


  You are confusing the validity of a system with the ability of the practitioner.  

As for TMA specifically revolving their training around beating boxers or wrestling,  I don't know anyone who does TMA that does that.  So I'm not sure who you hang around with that would make you think that is Majority of the focus in TMA.  Do you even do TMA?  If so what that the focus of the training in your school?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> not everyone wants to be on you tube


What do you think the reason behind it? I have recorded over 500 personal video clips on my computer. For any MA discussion, I can always find some clips to add into that discussion.

If you (general YOU) don't record what you can do today, you may not be able to do it when you get old. One day when you die, you will leave no trace on this world.

The following clip shows that I could do the Bruce Lee famous 3 kicks combo.  If I said that I can, nobody will believe me. If I put my clip up, I have just proved what I have said.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you think the reason behind it? I have recorded over 500 personal video clips on my computer. For any MA discussion, I can always find some clips to add into that discussion.
> 
> If you (general YOU) don't record what you can do today, you may not be able to do it when you get old. One day when you die, you will leave no trace on this world.



i dunno just some like to remain private some may not know how to or just plain do't want to 

I am not important enough to wish to leave any public memories really ..I'm sure there are plenty pics around but to me memories aren't on film or in pics they are within a person and that to me is how you remember but that just my way


----------



## JowGaWolf

now disabled said:


> video jeez why is everyone so hung up on video.


For me video is a learning tool.  It helps me to get better at what I do and it helps me to teach or show other people what is possible.  People would have doubt about half the stuff I say I could do if it wasn't for video.  Video makes provides insight that not only helps me but others even if they are from a different system.

I'm still trying to find my VHS tapes of me in my early 20's using karate techniques in sparring.  Much of the debate about Martial Arts would be void had the video camera been around in abundance during the height of martial arts fighting.  So many misconceptions and assumptions can be straighten out with a simple video.  I used to put videos on youtube simply because it was free and made it easy to share with people in this group.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you think the reason behind it? I have recorded over 500 personal video clips on my computer. For any MA discussion, I can always find some clips to add into that discussion.
> 
> If you (general YOU) don't record what you can do today, you may not be able to do it when you get old. One day when you die, you will leave no trace on this world.
> 
> The following clip shows that I could do the Bruce Lee famous 3 kicks combo.  If I said that I can, nobody will believe me. If I put my clip up, I have just proved what I have said.


That's really you in the video? nice.  I wish I had started recording sooner than I did.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> That's really you in the video? nice.  I wish I had started recording sooner than I did.


That was me.  Back then (when Bruce Lee was still alive) if you can't do high kick, you won't be able to get any students.

Today everything is ground game. Back then everything was high kick.


----------



## JowGaWolf

now disabled said:


> I am not important enough to wish to leave any public memories really


Everyone matters.  It may not seem important to you but it could be very important to someone else.  Don't sell yourself short. Not everyone has the same life experiences.


----------



## now disabled

JowGaWolf said:


> For me video is a learning tool.  It helps me to get better at what I do and it helps me to teach or show other people what is possible.  People would have doubt about half the stuff I say I could do if it wasn't for video.  Video makes provides insight that not only helps me but others even if they are from a different system.
> 
> I'm still trying to find my VHS tapes of me in my early 20's using karate techniques in sparring.  Much of the debate about Martial Arts would be void had the video camera been around in abundance during the height of martial arts fighting.  So many misconceptions and assumptions can be straighten out with a simple video.  I used to put videos on youtube simply because it was free and made it easy to share with people in this group.



I didn't say vids were bad as you say properly used and if the viewer actually understands then yeah they are good I can watch vids of my art and do get why a person is doing what there doing and why ... but to say vids prove or disprove or lack of vids do that same is an assumption I am not willing to agree to


----------



## now disabled

JowGaWolf said:


> Everyone matters.  It may not seem important to you but it could be very important to someone else.  Don't sell yourself short. Not everyone has the same life experiences.




I'm not lol just I remember in my own way that all no more no less


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That was me.  Back then (when Bruce Lee was still alive) if you can't do high kick, you won't be able to get any students.
> 
> Today everything is ground game. Back then everything was high kick.


Ha. that leg sweep.  You could have just posted that one and I would have thought " that looks like something you would do." lol. 
Thanks for sharing


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Whose opinion is that on the Gracies ? and why yet again bring them into it they are a respected family and deserve to be given tat respect and not given your treatment



Mine. Again, based on evidence. The Gracies have been beaten many times. While the name still carries weight and respect, it is mostly because they started the whole thing. Of course Rickson is a national treasure, but that's another matter entirely.



> Secondly where did I say any TMA standards have dropped ? again that seems to be your sole opinion



You said that the "masters are into their old age" implying that all the greats of TMA are senior citizens. So the question then becomes, where are the NEW masters?



> again what do you know that means you say Seagal didn't teach him that do you have a hotline somewhere



I know that a fat, out of shape actor who does Aikido didn't teach a world champion UFC fighter how to do a front kick.



> What ranks do you hold that gives you the right to be the expert and be careful what you pick to say as well jsut be careful as to date you haven't shown that you really understand things at all so pray do tell what ranks do you hold



Where did I say I was an expert? I'm merely discussing what I'm observing and asking some questions.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Mine. Again, based on evidence. The Gracies have been beaten many times. While the name still carries weight and respect, it is mostly because they started the whole thing. Of course Rickson is a national treasure, but that's another matter entirely.



Yes your opinion so that is all your opinion


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You are confusing the validity of a system with the ability of the practitioner.



A martial art is only as good as the people who practice it.



> As for TMA specifically revolving their training around beating boxers or wrestling,  I don't know anyone who does TMA that does that.  So I'm not sure who you hang around with that would make you think that is Majority of the focus in TMA.  Do you even do TMA?  If so what that the focus of the training in your school?



Didn't you make a big stink about how you could stop a double leg takedown?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Yes your opinion so that is all your opinion



Not entirely:






Royler was outclassed, and he had lost to Bravo before.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You said that the "masters are into their old age" implying that all the greats of TMA are senior citizens. So the question then becomes, where are the NEW masters?




You asked why the Tai chi "masters are not going round kicking butt ....from there you managed to get that TMA standards are dropping and now your saying cause they are in old age where are the new masters ....they are still studying but I would thought that would have been kinda obvious


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I know that a fat, out of shape actor who does Aikido didn't teach a world champion UFC fighter how to do a front kick.




So in other words yet again your opinion 

An I would refrain from giving and name calling no matter your opinion as that is not respectful ...yes he is outta shape now but he was at one point the real deal in his Art but hey you mighta missed that


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> It's a 5 yr olds point.
> 
> Are you seriously saying that you critically assessed that statement in the context of the discussion and found no fault with it?



Sure, even a 5 year old can see there ain't nobody winning fights with tai chi. The relevant question is why is that?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You asked why the Tai chi "masters are not going round kicking butt ...



And you said that all the masters are old age. Thus the logical question is, where are the new masters? If there are no new masters, then the art has degraded.



now disabled said:


> So in other words yet again your opinion
> 
> An I would refrain from giving and name calling no matter your opinion as that is not respectful ...yes he is outta shape now but he was at one point the real deal in his Art but hey you mighta missed that



Segal is a woman-beating pig, so you'll excuse me if my respect for the man is near the basement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> You asked why the Tai chi "masters are not going round kicking butt ....from there you managed to get that TMA standards are dropping and now your saying cause they are in old age where are the new masters ....they are still studying but I would thought that would have been kinda obvious


The problem of Taiji is not Taiji master are in old age. The problem is Taiji training was wrong in the past 200 years. I believe Taiji could be used in fighting 200 years ago. I can come up a list of issues that Taiji has today.

Every time that I met a Taiji instructor, I always asked him, "Which Taiji move will you use to end a fight if needed?" They all looked at me as if I came from another planet.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say I was an expert? I'm merely discussing what I'm observing and asking some questions.




Well your bashing Arts and people so usually a person that does that can at least claim to be experienced enough and studied enough (there by gaining rank ) before starting pulling things apart and basing it basically on you tube and the internet opinions and maybe a dash of experience.

Trust me it does kinda show believe it or not


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> And you said that all the masters are old age. Thus the logical question is, where are the new masters? If there are no new masters, then the art has degraded.




What part of they are still studying are you not grasping ....like the hundred other things that seem to fly past


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> So in other words yet again your opinion
> 
> An I would refrain from giving and name calling no matter your opinion as that is not respectful ...yes he is outta shape now but he was at one point the real deal in his Art but hey you mighta missed that


What if there was evidence of him throwing that kick before segal consulted with him?(hint, there is loads of it. Watch some of his fights from the early/mid 2000s)


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Well your bashing Arts and people so usually a person that does that can at least claim to be experienced enough and studied enough (there by gaining rank ) before starting pulling things apart and basing it basically on you tube and the internet opinions and maybe a dash of experience.
> 
> Trust me it does kinda show believe it or not


 
Where am I bashing arts? @JowGaWolf said that the majority of TMA practitioners aren't doing it to learn to fight, they're just doing it for "fun". That actually coincides with everything I've been saying throughout this thread.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Segal is a woman-beating pig, so you'll excuse me if my respect for the man is near the basement.



This is not the place for that comment at all ...right or wrong it really isn't


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> A martial art is only as good as the people who practice it.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you make a big stink about how you could stop a double leg takedown?


Defending against a double leg takedown has nothing to do with trying to beat a wrestler or boxer.  It's learning how to defend against an attack that someone may try, regardless of the system they may or may not know.   A double leg take down is not only done by wrestlers.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> What if there was evidence of him throwing that kick before segal consulted with him?(hint, there is loads of it. Watch some of his fights from the early/mid 2000s)




Oh great ok ya missed the point again like 99% of other points ...look just leave it or put me on ignore or I will do that to you as honestly you miss the points totally and continually go vid vid vid vid


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> A martial art is only as good as the people who practice it.


Explain


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Oh great ok ya missed the point again like 99% of other points ...look just leave it or put me on ignore or I will do that to you as honestly you miss the points totally and continually go vid vid vid vid


How did I miss the point? You argued that the fact segal didn't teach that kick to Silva was only opinion, which I merely showed can be easily disproved.  It's a fact which can be checked.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Defending against a double leg takedown has nothing to do with trying to beat a wrestler or boxer.  It's learning how to defend against an attack that someone may try, regardless of the system they may or may not know.   A double leg take down is not only done by wrestlers.



It is a move done primarily by wrestlers, and is generally taught to the general population via wrestling. Bjj and MMA exponents made it a point to learn DLTs from wrestlers, because their method is simply the best around.

An untrained moron isn't going to be doing double leg takedowns, they'll be doing tackles. So you're pretty much learning DLT defense to stop a trained grappler which more than likely is going to be a wrestler.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Where am I bashing arts?



Pretty much consistently in every post where you claim any form practice is detrimental.

Admittedly, you're not picking on a specific art ("X is crap") but basically bashing anything that isn't mma.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem of Taiji is not Taiji master are in old age. The problem is Taiji training was wrong in the past 200 years. I believe Taiji could be used in fighting 200 years ago. I can come up a list of issues that Taiji has today.
> 
> Every time that I met a Taiji instructor, I always asked him, "Which Taiji move will you use to end a fight if needed?" They all looked at me as if I came from another planet.


Unfortunately it's really difficult to find someone who knows how to still use it as a fighting system, which is a shame.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Pretty much consistently in every post where you claim any form practice is detrimental.



Hardly. You can strip the forms away from traditional arts, and they will be just fine. In fact, I would argue that they would be better off, because you would streamline the curriculum, dump the nonsense saved only by tradition, and focus on the most effective techniques.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Where am I bashing arts? @JowGaWolf said that the majority of TMA practitioners aren't doing it to learn to fight, they're just doing it for "fun". That actually coincides with everything I've been saying throughout this thread.



Don't pull another in and try and get them to defend you 

Bashing arts ok no you haven't at all apart from saying that TMA (and again gonna s you to define that and your interpretation of that phrase or title) is just practiced for fun ...how the heck do you know ??? 

Karate you said there were no grappling in said or alluded to that (your Karate teacher said only dogs fight in the dirt or something like that) well umm define grappling again as umm I don't think your grasping again and ummm do you know all the Karate styles?

Koryu you said after the rise of Judo it disappeared and even posted a pic of the Kodakan and said look here that proves it and that there are more JJ schools outside Japan than inside ummm doh the rest of the world is kinda bigger so that does not really take much thought and really well ...nope not gonna say it 

 and that is not including the original vid and the avoid like the plague comment 

Need I go on or are ya gonna try wriggling out of that too and go running looking for others to agree ...seem to remember a post saying well according to all the likes .........remember that ?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Hardly. You can strip the forms away from traditional arts, and they will be just fine. In fact, I would argue that they would be better off, because you would streamline the curriculum, dump the nonsense saved only by tradition, and focus on the most effective techniques.




Are you serious ? truly or are you just being a troll?


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Another question to add to my list above: should a given training method (such as kata) always closely resemble the actual fighting application of the art? If not, what are some good reasons for divergence between the two? Do those reasons actually apply to the particular kata (or other training method) you are currently examining?



Dropping in to funky stances help train stability and movement.

That is why people do animal walks.

When I start thinking there is a secret move hidden within a frog jump. Then I might need some reality injected in to my training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> Admittedly, you're not picking on a specific art ("X is crap") but basically bashing anything that isn't mma.


Hanzou just points out that without using "sport" as the path, you can't reach to the final "combat" goal. I agree with him 100% on that.

I don't believe Hanzon has ever criticized boxing, wrestling, Chinese wrestling, MT, Judo, Sanda, Sanshou, kick boxing, ...

If you (general YOU) think your MA style works, go into the ring, or step on the mat, and prove it.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Hardly. You can strip the forms away from traditional arts, and they will be just fine. In fact, I would argue that they would be better off, because you would streamline the curriculum, dump the nonsense saved only by tradition, and focus on the most effective techniques.



In your opinion.

In my opinion, most would be worse off.

In fact, in my opinion most wouldn't exist.

If it was purely about "effective fighting" my school would have maybe one member (not me) and no instructors. This forum would be you and two others arguing about whether to stay standing or go to ground.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Don't pull another in and try and get them to defend you
> 
> Bashing arts ok no you haven't at all apart from saying that TMA (and again gonna s you to define that and your interpretation of that phrase or title) is just practiced for fun ...how the heck do you know ???



Again that wasn't me;



JowGaWolf said:


> Yes and they will even tell you themselves.  Ask any martial artist why they train martial arts and you'll discover that very few will respond "to learn how to fight."  * most people say for fun and exercise*.





> Karate you said there were no grappling in said or alluded to that (your Karate teacher said only dogs fight in the dirt or something like that) well umm define grappling again as umm I don't think your grasping again and ummm do you know all the Karate styles?



I didn't say there wasn't any grappling in Karate, I said it wasn't as extensive as Bjj or Judo.



> Koryu you said after the rise of Judo it disappeared and even posted a pic of the Kodakan and said look here that proves it and that there are more JJ schools outside Japan than inside ummm doh the rest of the world is kinda bigger so that does not really take much thought and really well ...nope not gonna say it



I didn't say they disappeared, I said that they largely died out, and they're exceedingly rare in Japan.

Hope that helps.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> In that video they're all training the exact same thing. Are you really going to argue that no one on that training floor was there to learn how to fight? Are you also going to argue that those techniques they were learning would be useful for that goal (fighting)?
> 
> As for the boxer reference, I'm simply saying that based on skills attained at the 2 week point, the boxer would have no problem clocking those people in the face over and over again. Expand that boxer's experience to a year, and it wouldn't even be a contest. I'd even put sifu on the chopping block.



Think crossfit.

Being good at crossfit will help a fighter. Doing whatever that crossfit self defence thing is. Won't.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you think your MA style works, go into the ring, or step on the mat, and prove it.



I kinda do, two or three times a month.

About 75% of the time I'm putting 'my' tkd against kick boxers.

I'd happily go to work with any other art too, if I could find anyone...

Oh, and just for fun - I use quite a few 'moves' that I practice in patterns.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say there wasn't any grappling in Karate, I said it wasn't as extensive as Bjj or Judo.




ya kinda did and no bjj and judo aren't the same as they are grappling arts so lol you want a gold star for that ?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Again that wasn't me;




Then do pray tell how it appears as your post ? or are you trying to offload again ?


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Ummm most masters are well into their later years and are very unlikely to be going wrong looking for fights and that is just the starting point on that ... I will say this again just because you personally do not think something is right and you cannot find the all important vids then it has to be your thoughts are correct and that is just not right at all it your own opinion and if you can't see things then it does not mean in any way they are not there



We don't make a judgement based on evidence that isn't there.

You probably don't have a supply of fairy repellant. Even though there isn't evidence fairies don't exist.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say they disappeared, I said that they largely died out, and they're exceedingly rare in Japan.




You ever been in japan or is this another of your opinions based on your own opinion ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You ever been in japan or is this another of your opinions based on your own opinion ?



Twice. 

However to be honest, I was there for the girls and the night life, not spend my time looking for Jujutsu schools.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Let's compare the following 2 teaching methods.

1. You learn a MA form. You then learn how to use the material out of that form.
2. You learn 10 different partner drills. You then link those 10 moves into a sequence to help you to remember.

Which method is better?

IMO, 2 > 1. It's a such simple logic. I just don't understand why anybody may prefer method 1 over method 2.

For example, If I have learned 15 different ways to set up a single leg, and 10 different ways to finish with it. I can link all these information together as a "single leg form". Whether you like to use depth first, or breadth first approach will be up to you.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I kinda do, two or three times a month.
> 
> About 75% of the time I'm putting 'my' tkd against kick boxers.
> 
> I'd happily go to work with any other art too, if I could find anyone...
> 
> Oh, and just for fun - I use quite a few 'moves' that I practice in patterns.




Bro please don't mention the Kata form or pattern words or the majority of the bandwidth will get used up trying to once again explain what they are what the term actually means in context, why they are used etc etc etc etc .......please lol please lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Twice.
> 
> However to be honest, I was there for the girls and the night life, not spend my time looking for Jujutsu schools.




You went to Japan looking for girls ....yeah there ain't many dojos in that district that for sure


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> Bro please don't mention the Kata form or pattern words or the majority of the bandwidth will get used up trying to once again explain what they are what the term actually means in context, why they are used etc etc etc etc .......please lol please lol



Gotta keep it going


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Twice.
> 
> However to be honest, I was there for the girls and the night life, not spend my time looking for Jujutsu schools.




However you may well have met or seen some of the gentlemen who love tattoo's there ... if you go back a tip don't upset them I would suggest you don't tell any of them that umm well what you have here ...ya might regret that


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's compare the following 2 teaching methods.
> 
> 1. You learn a MA form. You then learn how to use the material out of that form.
> 2. You learn 10 different partner drills. You then link those 10 moves into a sequence to help you to remember.
> 
> Which method is better?
> 
> IMO, 2 > 1. It's a such simple logic. I just don't understand why anybody may prefer method 1 over method 2.



I view them as more or less equal.

But it depends on the student and how they interpret what they're doing.

I can take apart a pattern and look at each move/transition/series and see how to apply it in a few ways (which may or may not agree with the book description).

I can also use partner drills to 'create' a pattern and reassess what it contains.

I can see how a lot of people can't do that though - they'll be given the book spiel and wonder why it doesn't function...


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> So in other words yet again your opinion
> 
> An I would refrain from giving and name calling no matter your opinion as that is not respectful ...yes he is outta shape now but he was at one point the real deal in his Art but hey you mighta missed that


Guys, can we stop calling any old thing an opinion?  It’s killing me a little every time.   Facts are things that are objective.  Opinions are things that are subjective.   Assertions are unsubstantiated statements that may or may not be fact.   But even if untrue, they aren’t opinions.  Get it together, people.


----------



## pdg

pdg said:


> I can take apart a pattern and look at each move/transition/series and see how to apply it in a few ways (which may or may not agree with the book description).



A for instance...

The first pattern we learn starts with a 90° turn into a low block, step into a punch, 180 to another low block.

How about the block 'chamber' being the block, the 'block' being a hammer fist to the opponents knee, the punch being a grab and the 180 to low block being a throw?

Won't find that in the book, but it'd work as a partner drill and (circumstances permitting the sequence) work 'fo realz' too.


----------



## now disabled

now disabled said:


> However you may well have met or seen some of the gentlemen who love tattoo's there ... if you go back a tip don't upset them I would suggest you don't tell any of them that umm well what you have here ...ya might regret that



now did you spot the mistake about the dojo's or is that gonna fly past aswell


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> This is not the place for that comment at all ...right or wrong it really isn't


This is an example of an opinion.  


Spoiler: Why?



because it’s subjective


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Assertions are unsubstantiated statements that may or may not be fact. But even if untrue, they aren’t opinions.



My dictionary says that an assertion is "a confident and forceful statement of a fact, belief or opinion'...


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Guys, can we stop calling any old thing an opinion?  It’s killing me a little every time.   Facts are things that are objective.  Opinions are things that are subjective.   Assertions are unsubstantiated statements that may or may not be fact.   But even if untrue, they aren’t opinions.  Get it together, people.




Hey Horatio you be wanting Shakespeare again instead lol....your to high brow in that post but one good thing if ya on the train ya must have ya glasses on lol ....no spelling mistakes lol


----------



## pdg

pdg said:


> My dictionary says that an assertion is "a confident and forceful statement of a fact, belief or opinion'...



No requirement to be unsubstantiated at all...


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion, most would be worse off.
> 
> In fact, in my opinion most wouldn't exist.
> 
> If it was purely about "effective fighting" my school would have maybe one member (not me) and no instructors. This forum would be you and two others arguing about whether to stay standing or go to ground.


Come on!  You can’t say, in fact, in my opinion.   Mrs. Wagner, my 4th grade, Language Arts teacher is literally rolling in her grave.

Just kidding...  she’s not literally doing anything anymore.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> No requirement to be unsubstantiated at all...




eh talking to ones self ummmmm there is a name for that too lol


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Come on!  You can’t say, in fact, in my opinion.   Mrs. Wagner, my 4th grade, Language Arts teacher is literally rolling in her grave.
> 
> Just kidding...  she’s not literally doing anything anymore.



I can by the grammatical rules of English.

Because, it's a fact that I hold that opinion.

I'd dearly love you to show how it's not factual that I hold said opinion.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> No requirement to be unsubstantiated at all...


Fair enough.  My point is that an unsubstantiated fact is not an opinion.


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> eh talking to ones self ummmmm there is a name for that too lol



I've always found that talking to myself ensures intelligent arguments are made and rebutted - it's simply a choice to converse with a better class of debater


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> I can by the grammatical rules of English.
> 
> Because, it's a fact that I hold that opinion.
> 
> I'd dearly love you to show how it's not factual that I hold said opinion.


It’s just, you should be ashamed.  It’s not elegant.  It’s like when someone says, “Don’t do that.  What you do do is this.”  Do do? Come on.  We are better than this.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Then do pray tell how it appears as your post ? or are you trying to offload again ?


You should probably quote people saying things when you make these sorts of accusations. Otherwise, it appears quite disingenuous.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Fair enough.  My point is that an unsubstantiated fact is not an opinion.



According to the rules of the internet, all your reasons are rendered null and void by the final mistake.

It doesn't matter whether anything else was right or wrong, it's all been overruled.

It'd be like spelling something incorrectly, or using the wrong there/their/they're


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> It’s just, you should be ashamed.  It’s not elegant.  It’s like when someone says, “Don’t do that.  What you do do is this.”  Do do? Come on.  We are better than this.




No you just sitting on a train glasses on(with cord attached) setting a new fashion statement ...and are bored


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> According to the rules of the internet, all your reasons are rendered null and void by the final mistake.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether anything else was right or wrong, it's all been overruled.
> 
> It'd be like spelling something incorrectly, or using the wrong there/their/they're


Dammit!


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> According to the rules of the internet, all your reasons are rendered null and void by the final mistake.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether anything else was right or wrong, it's all been overruled.
> 
> It'd be like spelling something incorrectly, or using the wrong there/their/they're




Don't you start getting all high brow too


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> However you may well have met or seen some of the gentlemen who love tattoo's there ... if you go back a tip don't upset them I would suggest you don't tell any of them that umm well what you have here ...ya might regret that



On a more serious note, I said earlier that Judo largely supplanted traditional Japanese jujitsu, and Bjj and MMA is finishing the job. The same is occurring in China where MMA and Bjj are gaining in popularity, especially as exponents of MMA and similar arts beat traditional stylists in highly publicized challenge matches.

This is largely my point: People aren't dumb, and excuses and promises of "masters hiding in the mountains" only goes so far. Despite common belief, people are attracted to martial arts in order to improve their general fighting ability. Many of us didn't get into martial arts to learn how to dance, many of us got into it because we saw Bruce Lee spin kicking a goon in a face like some sort of superhero, and we wanted to be like him. More recently, people got into martial arts because they saw a small man from Brazil submit people much larger than him with relative ease. In the end, if your art isn't producing the results you desire you either create a fantasy around it, or you leave and seek the martial art that you feel is producing results. However, we'd be lying to ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that people are headed in a similar direction.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> You should probably quote people saying things when you make these sorts of accusations. Otherwise, it appears quite disingenuous.




You really wanna get into it again ? so you can tell me all the things that you do or are you just for the sake of all others gonna back off ? 

Your call


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> It’s just, you should be ashamed.  It’s not elegant.  It’s like when someone says, “Don’t do that.  What you do do is this.”  Do do? Come on.  We are better than this.



You expect a bastardised amalgam of at least 10 disparate languages to be elegant?

That's as bad as asking me to look pretty for a photo


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> On a more serious note, I said earlier that Judo largely supplanted traditional Japanese jujitsu, and Bjj and MMA is finishing the job. The same is occurring in China where MMA and Bjj are gaining in popularity, especially as exponents of MMA and similar arts beat traditional stylists in highly publicized challenge matches.
> 
> This is largely my point: People aren't dumb, and excuses and promises of "masters hiding in the mountains" only goes so far. Despite common belief, people are attracted to martial arts in order to improve their general fighting ability. Many of us didn't get into martial arts to learn how to dance, many of us got into it because we saw Bruce Lee spin kicking a goon in a face like some sort of superhero, and we wanted to be like him. More recently, people got into martial arts because they saw a small man from Brazil submit people much larger than him with relative ease. In the end, if your art isn't producing the results you desire you either create a fantasy around it, or you leave and seek the martial art that you feel is producing results.



 I give up 

you should be a politician ...honestly you 'd be fantastic they to can wriggle and roll like you and try and get outta things .... run for office I'm sure you'd win 

just don't tell em you were in the Kabukicho that may lead to some rather unpleasant ads getting run against ya


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I give up
> 
> you should be a politician ...honestly you 'd be fantastic they to can wriggle and roll like you and try and get outta things .... run for office I'm sure you'd win



I practice Bjj. You didn't know that I can wriggle and roll to get out of things? That's sort of my specialty.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> People aren't dumb



Citation required


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I practice Bjj. You didn't know that I can wriggle and roll to get out of things? That's sort of my specialty.




I'd never have guessed that at all


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> You really wanna get into it again ? so you can tell me all the things that you do or are you just for the sake of all others gonna back off ?
> 
> Your call


No, I was just offering advice on how to engage in productive conversation. You have claimed I have said things that I haven't said mid conversation if you don't like a fact or argument put in front of you, and now I see you are doing it to someone else. 

If you actually provide a quote of them saying it, then all doubt is removed. Then you are responding to something that was actually said, rather than something you made up. Dealing with made up responses does nothing to advance a dialogue.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> What if there was evidence of him throwing that kick before segal consulted with him?(hint, there is loads of it. Watch some of his fights from the early/mid 2000s)


Then it would conclusively prove that Hanzou has tricked you into debating a piece of nonsense so that nobody scrutinises the perfect example I gave of his dumb ideas about ma training being proven worthless.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Where am I bashing arts? @JowGaWolf said that the majority of TMA practitioners aren't doing it to learn to fight, they're just doing it for "fun". That actually coincides with everything I've been saying throughout this thread.


I'm pretty sure that's not what you are saying.


----------



## JowGaWolf

now disabled said:


> Are you serious ? truly or are you just being a troll?


He's being a troll lol.  it's the "same song" every time.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Then it would conclusively prove that Hanzou has tricked you into debating a piece of nonsense so that nobody scrutinises the perfect example I gave of his dumb ideas about ma training being proven worthless.


That's a completely separate argument. I was responding to that point only vis a vis Silva/front kicks.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just don't understand why anybody may prefer method 1 over method 2.


My guess would be that most striking martial arts have movement that is foreign to most people.  As a teacher I would watch older students try to get their body to move a certain way and you can see them struggle with it. I've seen students rush through learning the movement and do horrible in applying the movement simply because their brain got in the way.


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Then it would conclusively prove that Hanzou has tricked you into debating a piece of nonsense so that nobody scrutinises the perfect example I gave of his dumb ideas about ma training being proven worthless.



Where did I say that MA training was proven to be worthless? I said that there's little evidence to show that kata/forms training makes you a better fighter, and in fact the evidence appears to show that the opposite is the case.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not what you are saying.



That's exactly what I'm saying. If the true goal of TMAs is "fun" and "exercise",  over learning how to fight and defend yourself then that Jow Ga sparring drill doesn't need to be effective against a similarly trained boxer, and forms are just exercises that teach you about the culture and history of your style.

Some would definitely consider that "fun".


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I practice Bjj. You didn't know that I can wriggle and roll to get out of things? That's sort of my specialty.


This is where I go drown myself lol.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

now disabled said:


> You really wanna get into it again ? so you can tell me all the things that you do or are you just for the sake of all others gonna back off ?
> 
> Your call


I've been thinking this for a bit, but you get too uptight and think too much about other people's responses. No one is offended by what you said, and I doubt anyone is concerned if you're offended.

More related to this, some people on this forum, if you make a claim they disagree with, want proof of it. That proof can be video, research studies, logic that they accept, or something else, but some sort of proof. If you have that proof, share it and continue, or if you don't have any way to substantiate it, say "I can't prove that point, nevermind. Otherwise it leads (has lead in the past) to absolutely ridiculous claims. The other option is what you've been doing, which is insisting that people accept your claims without proof, causing them to continue asking for proof, and it'll cause a back to forth for about 10 pages on each thread.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying. If the true goal of TMAs is "fun" and "exercise",  over learning how to fight and defend yourself then that Jow Ga sparring drill doesn't need to be effective against a similarly trained boxer, and forms are just exercises that teach you about the culture and history of your style.
> 
> Some would definitely consider that "fun".


Finally Hanzou and Jow Ga agree on something.   Starting the stopwatch to see how long world peace lasts lol.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying. If the true goal of TMAs is "fun" and "exercise",  over learning how to fight and defend yourself then that Jow Ga sparring drill doesn't need to be effective against a similarly trained boxer, and forms are just exercises that teach you about the culture and history of your style.
> 
> Some would definitely consider that "fun".



You know what I find confusing? And this is to nobody in specific.

Traditionally, and in every martial arts legend, you find master's fighting each other to prove what style is the best. CMA is full of this sort of thing. People talk about great master's fighting on rooftops and all that jazz.

Yet here we are in 2018 actually doing that, and it's the ones with all the legends and great fighting master's rejecting the results wholesale. It seems like counterproductive pride to me.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Finally Hanzou and Jow Ga agree on something.   Starting the stopwatch to see how long world peace lasts lol.



Join a Bjj or MMA gym and the peace will be eternal.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Join a Bjj or MMA gym and the peace will be eternal.


Or just work out with those guys and spar them until you can jow ga their faces off.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> You know what I find confusing? And this is to nobody in specific.
> 
> Traditionally, and in every martial arts legend, you find master's fighting each other to prove what style is the best. CMA is full of this sort of thing. People talk about great master's fighting on rooftops and all that jazz.
> 
> Yet here we are in 2018 actually doing that, and it's the ones with all the legends and great fighting master's rejecting the results wholesale. It seems like counterproductive pride to me.



I mean a bit hyperbolic there. But the gyst.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying. If the true goal of TMAs is "fun" and "exercise",  over learning how to fight and defend yourself then that Jow Ga sparring drill doesn't need to be effective against a similarly trained boxer, and forms are just exercises that teach you about the culture and history of your style.
> 
> Some would definitely consider that "fun".



By the way training to win fights is rarely about fun.

Nobody has a gay old time during a fight camp. Fighting might be fun. Winning is fun. But the camp is just crap.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> By the way training to win fights is rarely about fun.
> 
> Nobody has a gay old time during a fight camp. Fighting might be fun. Winning is fun. But the camp is just crap.


Training MMA hurts. It's not easy to do it every damn day that's for sure. Not even for 5 days a week.

I mean..it is..but pain isn't. And there will be pain ..


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Training MMA hurts. It's not easy to do it every damn day that's for sure. Not even for 5 days a week.
> 
> I mean..it is..but pain isn't. And there will be pain ..



It is all very nietzsche


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> It is all very nietzsche


With a splash of machiavelli.


----------



## Hanzou

Martial D said:


> You know what I find confusing? And this is to nobody in specific.
> 
> Traditionally, and in every martial arts legend, you find master's fighting each other to prove what style is the best. CMA is full of this sort of thing. People talk about great master's fighting on rooftops and all that jazz.
> 
> Yet here we are in 2018 actually doing that, and it's the ones with all the legends and great fighting master's rejecting the results wholesale. It seems like counterproductive pride to me.



To be fair, some of the old masters weren't all that good, and some of those legends are just bullshido.

For example, remember that legend about Huo Yuanjia? You may have heard about it, he was portrayed by Jet Li in "Fearless". Supposedly he defeated several foreign fighters in duels and defeated them all using traditional Kung Fu. However, before he could defeat his last opponent, he was poisoned by the Japanese.

Watching the film (and listening to the legends) you'd think this guy flattened over a dozen people. In reality, he didn't fight anyone. He had two challenge matches. One guy fled, and he supposedly the second fight was a knockdown contest. However, there's evidence to suggest that that guy fled too.

Even the part about him being poisoned is contested, saying that in reality he had a negative reaction to medicine, ala Bruce Lee.

Then we have the rooftop battles between masters. Here's an example of one:






Yeaaaaahhhhhhh

The simple reality is that those guys are out there, and they're not stepping forward, because they know what's going to happen when they do.


















Who wants to be on the receiving end of that?


----------



## lansao

Hanzou said:


> Hardly. You can strip the forms away from traditional arts, and they will be just fine. In fact, I would argue that they would be better off, because you would streamline the curriculum, dump the nonsense saved only by tradition, and focus on the most effective techniques.



I think forms can be incredibly beneficial for improvisational application. They behave a lot like patterns and scales do for jazz musicians who practice really small abstract transitions that make no sense without the context of their backup.

I mean, they still practice their sheet music (drills) and play in bands (spar/fight) but don’t hate on the fundamentals or you’ll be nothing but a “tin can of clams.” (Brass/Sax player who hits a bunch of wrong notes or “clams”).

These exercises help free up fighters from getting hung up on specific and sometimes predictable drills.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Join a Bjj or MMA gym and the peace will be eternal.


Dammit Hanzou.. you just couldn't resist lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Or just work out with those guys and spar them until you can jow ga their faces off.


I already got a plan


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> My guess would be that most striking martial arts have movement that is foreign to most people.  As a teacher I would watch older students try to get their body to move a certain way and you can see them struggle with it. I've seen students rush through learning the movement and do horrible in applying the movement simply because their brain got in the way.


The problem of form first and application later is you may train something that's totally worthless.

This short clip contains the first 2 move of the 1st long fist form Lien Bu Chuan.

1. Your opponent punches you, you use your palm to push up on his elbow joint.
2. You then palm strike back on his waist.

I'll never use a vertical palm block to deal with a straight punch. I'll also never strike on my opponent's waist with a side palm like that. If I repeat that form 10,000 times in my life, I'll have wasted a lot of training time that I can do something more useful.

If I use the application first approach, I probably will never want to learn that form in the first place.

As a teacher, you (general YOU) don't want to force your students to learm something that he will never use for the rest of his life.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. Your opponent punches you, you use your palm to push up on his elbow joint.
> 2. You then palm strike back on his waist.


  I don't know the system so I can't really comment on what that movement is.   However, I'm always eager to offer an outside view based on what I know.from my system and things that I've thought about.  This will give you some a little understanding of how I analyze things and in turn discover things.

When I look at the video you posted I make the assumption that their is value in the techniques.  The only thing is to understand where that value begins and ends, and in what context the technique is.  Keep in mind that I could be totally wrong about the video. I can only base the following on what I think I'm seeing. 
*
The first technique*
The first technique don't seem as it's addressing a punch. The reason why is because it looks really open, if I were to trade strikes, it is likely that I will get punched in the face and trade a strike to the waist which in practice actually slips off if not done at the right angle.  In the context of a moving opponent in sparring or fighting, that strike to the waist probably won't interrupt my opponent enough to stop his second strike.  With this in mind I assume that I may have been told incorrectly or was given the worst example of use of this technique on purpose.  This is the same process I use for Jow Ga.  Sometimes applications get lost over time and as a result a teacher will learn the incorrect application. Other times teachers forget and try to piece things together without having real sparring or fighting experience.  It's just a reality.  So at this point I'm trying to figure in what context does the first technique make sense.

And here is what came up with based on looking and not actually doing, which is it's own risk and something I normally don't do.
So to address the big open appearance.
*Possibility 1:*  The first technique is done to redirect to the outside of a punch.  In this case you are addressing my right punch.  This is the only way I can think of, that would allow you not to be at risk of getting punched with the other hand.   I can't really tell what your hand is doing but it's got a strange movement to it, so I'm assuming that the movement.  In this case grabbing and pulling down on my striking hand.

*Concern #1*:  If you are grabbing and pulling down on my striking hand then my guess is that you would need to slow the punch down, so I'm thinking that this technique is one that "grinds" the incoming punch before the punch is fully extending.  This is based on the knowledge of some things I do that work.  

*Practical outcome:*  If you can grab that hand and pull their arm downward then you can disrupt the other punch that is trying to come in.  This will prevent you from being knocked out.  If you are able to hold onto the arm even for a second, you will prevent it from reloading as the pull downward should create some imbalance in your opponents body.


*The second technique - Palm strike to waist*
This doesn't look like a Palm strike to the waist.  In Jow Ga we target the same height as our own body.  For example, a strike to the face would be my face height,  A strike to the waist would be my waist height.   If I apply that logic to what I see, then I would have to assume you are targeting the ribs as the strike is at your Ribs height.  This makes more sense to me than a strike at the waist.  In Jow Ga we have similar hand positions and that would definitely be at ribs.  Normally it wouldn't be effective, but if you do technique 1 successfully with the grab and pull then you should be able to cause some very real damage.  The effectiveness of the damage is because you are striking the ribs when I wouldn't be able to defend or prepare for the impact especially if I'm already off balance.  In addition to that you are pulling me downward into the strike at the same time you are striking.  This is good body mechanics so it should allow you to maintain your root in the process.  If you notice in the video.  One arm pulls me in at the same time you are sending the other one out.  (Good form by the way, most people would have made that a 1 then 2 step vs, both going at the same time.).  If you hit me in the ribs like this then I would feel it because I'm in the worst position to resist it.

I'm not sure but I'm guessing that when someone pulls you off balance unexpectingly the body breathes in. which makes the strike even worse because now you are hitting me while I'm inhaling. 

*The movement of the feet Stepping in*
The stepping in looks like it's securing the root as well as closing the distance, which helps to reduce the effectiveness of a punch from your opponents left hand.

*The dropping / Sinking*
This looks like something is going on but I can't tell what the purpose may be.  I would actually have to spar with you and take note of my own reaction to that movement to see if the motion is causing me to delay my attack, sort of like a feint.  I'm lost with the goal and function of that one.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As a teacher, you (general YOU) don't want to force your students to learm something that he will never use for the rest of his life.


lol.  pretty much 90% of everything in kung fu. lol.   In my case even if I don't use it, I still want to pass that knowledge on.   I may not use it, but that doesn't mean my student won't excel in it.  Out of all of the class at my old school I was the only one that really used sweeps and foot hooks.  Had the instructor thought it was useless and that I wouldn't use it, then I would have never had the opportunity to learn it.


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> I've been thinking this for a bit, but you get too uptight and think too much about other people's responses. No one is offended by what you said, and I doubt anyone is concerned if you're offended.
> 
> More related to this, some people on this forum, if you make a claim they disagree with, want proof of it. That proof can be video, research studies, logic that they accept, or something else, but some sort of proof. If you have that proof, share it and continue, or if you don't have any way to substantiate it, say "I can't prove that point, nevermind. Otherwise it leads (has lead in the past) to absolutely ridiculous claims. The other option is what you've been doing, which is insisting that people accept your claims without proof, causing them to continue asking for proof, and it'll cause a back to forth for about 10 pages on each thread.
> 
> I am insisting on nothing at all
> 
> If you have that view then that is your right
> 
> your comments are noted


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> That's a completely separate argument. I was responding to that point only vis a vis Silva/front kicks.


Which was a piece of whataboutism raised to distract from his selective approach to evidence.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that MA training was proven to be worthless? I said that there's little evidence to show that kata/forms training makes you a better fighter, and in fact the evidence appears to show that the opposite is the case.



Your dumb ideas are worthless, not ma training.

You were trying to argue that training not directly following the form used in combat is of little value. You were given a great example of this being rubbish so you threw up the Steven Seagal defence.

At the point that you dismissed an inconvenient fact you lost what little credibility you had with me.  

And lastly, the vast majority of life is not on video.
If you can't work out why a few YouTube clips do not constitute proof of anything beyond the existence of YouTube, then my advice is to forget martial arts and work on your critical thinking skills. You will need them far more than you'll need to know how to fight.


----------



## now disabled

DaveB said:


> Your dumb ideas are worthless, not ma training.
> 
> You were trying to argue that training not directly following the form used in combat is of little value. You were given a great example of this being rubbish so you threw up the Steven Seagal defence.
> 
> At the point that you dismissed an inconvenient fact you lost what little credibility you had with me.
> 
> And lastly, the vast majority of life is not on video.
> If you can't work out why a few YouTube clips do not constitute proof of anything beyond the existence of YouTube, then my advice is to forget martial arts and work on your critical thinking skills. You will need them far more than you'll need to know how to fight.




Fair point well made 

Cherry picking things and ignoring other things seems to be the way and I agree vids are not everything and can and are taken out of context depending on how the person viewing wants to see them


----------



## DaveB

For the record.

The problem TMA has in not producing great fighters, is based in how most people, including masters of the arts, train.

Most TMA trains to develop skill in performing the key elements of the art. Karate performs striking techniques, aikido performs blending techniques, wing.chun performs Chi Sao, tai chi performs slow motion forms etc.

From a base of uncoordinated newb, Training twice a week for a couple of hours at a time just about gives enough time to learn these key points and some peripheral skills. Fighting takes a back seat to learning skills, and the pool of hobbyist students in a single school is the bulk of most clubs resources for fighting experience.

This creates lots of "masters" within these small self contained pools, most of whom got that level precisely because they were never much interested in fighting.

You'll find that TMA with a sport format are the ones that produce the most fighters because when you say fighters what you mean is sportsmen. If you follow Hanzou logic that means your Tai chi ufc fighter will appear with a big enough Tai chi competition scene. 

As I pointed out though his logic is deeply flawed because if Tai chi people wanted to fight they either wouldn't be doing Tai chi or would already have a big competition circuit. 

And this is the crux of the issue. We all know we can fight at boxing or kick boxing gyms etc. We do tma for other reasons. Not exclusively, but enough that most of us Don't Care.

And Yes, plenty "Masters" are deluded about what their mastery of tma skills can do in a match. The days when people fought with martial arts are long long gone because we have laws now and prisons. The people mastering those skills don't always realise they are not learning from people who fought or that.the last GM to train like a pro died 100 years ago.

The thing is, more and more of those in TMA are fully aware of this. Certainly everybody on a forum like this has figured out that building paths that.take their skills into regular sparring practice is essential, if fighting is what they want. 

Some of us knew it 20 plus years ago. 

But how much a given club or teacher focuses training towards fighting is not a reflection of the art or of the other training elements within that art. It is just a choice, made for a variety of reasons just like any other.


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Your dumb ideas are worthless, not ma training.
> 
> You were trying to argue that training not directly following the form used in combat is of little value. You were given a great example of this being rubbish so you threw up the Steven Seagal defence.



I never said that it was of little "value". "Value" is a subjective thing, and in the grand scheme of things, kata has proven to be an unnecessary aspect of martial arts training if your goal is to become a competent fighter. Clearly, there are people practicing MA who aren't seeking to use their martial art to defend themselves or to fight off an attacker, and for those people, learning ancient kata is a way for them to connect to the culture and history of their classical art. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when their instructor starts feeding them nonsense about their ability to take down trained fighters utilizing hidden techniques within their kata or other antiquated training method. Or that if they just train more they can easily stop that MMA guy or wrestler trying to take their head off.

Further, a random boxer saying that he gained something from taking dance lessons is an irrelevant point that doesn't really change the general argument that martial arts that perform extensive amounts of kata have performed rather poorly against martial arts that don't perform extensive amounts of kata.



> At the point that you dismissed an inconvenient fact you lost what little credibility you had with me.



Again, I dismissed that fact because it was irrelevant. I'm sure no one told that boxer that he could find hidden techniques, or learn to grapple like a Bjj practitioner from his dancing. However, that is exactly what is being told to martial arts students around the world about their version of dancing within their martial arts.



> And lastly, the vast majority of life is not on video.
> If you can't work out why a few YouTube clips do not constitute proof of anything beyond the existence of YouTube, then my advice is to forget martial arts and work on your critical thinking skills. You will need them far more than you'll need to know how to fight.



Again, Youtube is simply evidence to support an argument. You're free to use other types of evidence if you wish. For example, I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Uchi-Uke is being used in fights "everywhere" like you claimed. If it is, evidence of your claim should be easy to find. Don't worry, unlike you, I'm perfectly fine if you use a few videos to support that claim.


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> For the record.
> 
> The problem TMA has in not producing great fighters, is based in how most people, including masters of the arts, train.
> 
> Most TMA trains to develop skill in performing the key elements of the art. Karate performs striking techniques, aikido performs blending techniques, wing.chun performs Chi Sao, tai chi performs slow motion forms etc.
> 
> From a base of uncoordinated newb, Training twice a week for a couple of hours at a time just about gives enough time to learn these key points and some peripheral skills. Fighting takes a back seat to learning skills, and the pool of hobbyist students in a single school is the bulk of most clubs resources for fighting experience.
> 
> This creates lots of "masters" within these small self contained pools, most of whom got that level precisely because they were never much interested in fighting.
> 
> You'll find that TMA with a sport format are the ones that produce the most fighters because when you say fighters what you mean is sportsmen. If you follow Hanzou logic that means your Tai chi ufc fighter will appear with a big enough Tai chi competition scene.
> 
> As I pointed out though his logic is deeply flawed because if Tai chi people wanted to fight they either wouldn't be doing Tai chi or would already have a big competition circuit.
> 
> And this is the crux of the issue. We all know we can fight at boxing or kick boxing gyms etc. We do tma for other reasons. Not exclusively, but enough that most of us Don't Care.
> 
> And Yes, plenty "Masters" are deluded about what their mastery of tma skills can do in a match. The days when people fought with martial arts are long long gone because we have laws now and prisons. The people mastering those skills don't always realise they are not learning from people who fought or that.the last GM to train like a pro died 100 years ago.
> 
> The thing is, more and more of those in TMA are fully aware of this. Certainly everybody on a forum like this has figured out that building paths that.take their skills into regular sparring practice is essential, if fighting is what they want.
> 
> Some of us knew it 20 plus years ago.
> 
> But how much a given club or teacher focuses training towards fighting is not a reflection of the art or of the other training elements within that art. It is just a choice, made for a variety of reasons just like any other.



I have no issue with anything you said here.

Here's what I do have issue with; There are Tai Chi practitioners who do feel that their art of choice can be used for fighting, which is why we see Tai Chi practitioners enter challenge matches against trained fighters and get beaten rather quickly. Clearly they didn't get the memo, and that's occurring in the homeland of Tai Chi, China.


----------



## drop bear

Going to say though if you understand your martial art you should be able to perform it under some sort of impartial conditions.

Otherwise we may as well accept no touch as a valid defence as well. Cos that works like the business so long as the opponents are hand picked.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Going to say though if you understand your martial art you should be able to perform it under some sort of impartial conditions.
> 
> Otherwise we may as well accept no touch as a valid defence as well. Cos that works like the business so long as the opponents are hand picked.



So is the problem that many people simply don't understand their arts?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> So is the problem that many people simply don't understand their arts?



Yeah. I mean a judo guy can throw you a BJJ guy can submit you and a boxer can punch you in the head. Even if they are not about fighting.

You should really be able to do the thing if you understand it.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> So is the problem that many people simply don't understand their arts?




Many may not fully understand .... Many may not wish to fully understand ... Many may only practice in the arts for leisure or numerous other reasons.

Every person has there own path in MA and it is there path ... what they wish to take from it is again their own path, No person can say it has to be this way or that.

If as you see it things are wrong then that is your judgement, other's may agree, other's may not and that is the world we live in


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I have no issue with anything you said here.
> 
> Here's what I do have issue with; There are Tai Chi practitioners who do feel that their art of choice can be used for fighting, which is why we see Tai Chi practitioners enter challenge matches against trained fighters and get beaten rather quickly. Clearly they didn't get the memo, and that's occurring in the homeland of Tai Chi, China.




If a Tai Chi practitioner chooses to do that then that is his/her choice and from that you can't extrapolate that to which you are .... 

You have issues with the TMA and so be it. I think we got that just be aware if you start citing things and saying things that are your opinion then say they are your opinion not that it is proven beyond all doubt


----------



## marques

Hanzou said:


> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important.


Yep. That is gold.

I will not complain against this or that specific style, because diversity is fun and we have seen in combat sports that are the ones less vulgar that get the belts (and sell tickets). 

But, when an art is all about cooperation (or even solo moves), it cannot be a martial thing, by definition. Martial implies opposition; and knowing (and learning from) the opposition (arts or artists) is a smart move.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Many may not fully understand .... Many may not wish to fully understand ... Many may only practice in the arts for leisure or numerous other reasons.
> 
> Every person has there own path in MA and it is there path ... what they wish to take from it is again their own path, No person can say it has to be this way or that.
> 
> If as you see it things are wrong then that is your judgement, other's may agree, other's may not and that is the world we live in



The problem with this argument is that I can go to a Bjj gym, Kyokushin dojo, or a Judo dojo and the vast majority of students understand things just fine. Why does this "understand" "not understand" mumbo-jumbo only apply to TMAs?



now disabled said:


> If a Tai Chi practitioner chooses to do that then that is his/her choice and from that you can't extrapolate that to which you are ....



Actually I can. I've observed how they train, and I've observed the results of practitioners who have tested their art against other systems, and I've formed a hypothesis with a predicted result. It's simple science really. Granted the sample size of the latter is small, but thus far the results are arriving at their logical conclusion.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> The problem with this argument is that I can go to a Bjj gym, Kyokushin dojo, or a Judo dojo and the vast majority of students understand things just fine. Why does this "understand" "not understand" mumbo-jumbo only apply to TMAs?



It does not and I never said it did solely apply to TMA (again we can discuss what you are deeming to be TMA), And again your saying that the vast majority understand, I would add to that depending on what stage they are at 

Before I say more about TMA what is your definition of same as that might differ from mine


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Actually I can. I've observed how they train, and I've observed the results of practitioners who have tested their art against other systems, and I've formed a hypothesis with a predicted result. It's simple science really. Granted the sample size of the latter is small, but thus far the results are arriving at their logical conclusion.



You missed a bit out again lol

You say you have observed how they train ... ok is that in reality as in being there or is that by the wonderful You tube videos ? ...


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> It does not and I never said it did solely apply to TMA (again we can discuss what you are deeming to be TMA), And again your saying that the vast majority understand, I would add to that depending on what stage they are at



We are talking about advanced students/instructors here. I have yet to run across instructors or advanced students in those MAs I mentioned who don't understand their martial art on a functional level. The Tai Chi guys who fought in those challenge matches and got throttled were instructors or advanced practitioners.



> Before I say more about TMA what is your definition of same as that might differ from mine



Any martial art that adheres to a traditional methodology and refuses to adapt to changing methodologies.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> We are talking about advanced students/instructors here. I have yet to run across instructors or advanced students in those MAs I mentioned who don't understand their martial art on a functional level. The Tai Chi guys who fought in those challenge matches and got throttled were instructors or advanced practitioners.
> 
> 
> 
> Any martial art that adheres to a traditional methodology and refuses to adapt to changing methodologies.




Ok we you didn't say you were talking instructors etc ...you said the vast majority

Anyway again if they want to do that and fight then that is their own choice ....It has zero to do with if they understand it or not .... Just because you fully understand does not mean your a good fighter, 


That statement is very wide ranging about TMA and can cover nearly everything ...If you are going to in my opinion say TMA your going to have to be a tad more specific


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> We are talking about advanced students/instructors here. I have yet to run across instructors or advanced students in those MAs I mentioned who don't understand their martial art on a functional level. The Tai Chi guys who fought in those challenge matches and got throttled were instructors or advanced practitioners.
> 
> 
> 
> Any martial art that adheres to a traditional methodology and refuses to adapt to changing methodologies.




Actually name the arts you think in your opinion are TMA and fit into what you stated


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Ok we you didn't say you were talking instructors etc ...you said the vast majority



Yes, in response to your notion that somehow people who fight in challenge matches don't understand their art. And yeah, I'll happily extend the notion that the vast majority of people who practice Judo, Kyokyushin, or Bjj for a decent amount of time understand their arts on a functional level.



> Anyway again if they want to do that and fight then that is their own choice ....It has zero to do with if they understand it or not .... Just because you fully understand does not mean your a good fighter,



Why not? Shouldn't something like Tai Chi or Wing Chun give you the tools to become a good fighter?



> That statement is very wide ranging about TMA and can cover nearly everything ...If you are going to in my opinion say TMA your going to have to be a tad more specific



Nah, that's my definition and I'm sticking to it.

BTW, please stop dividing my posts in your responses. You're cluttering the thread.



now disabled said:


> Actually name the arts you think in your opinion are TMA and fit into what you stated



Aikido, Wing Chun, Tang Soo Do, Jow Ga, Shotokan, Tai Chi, Hung Gar, Ninjutsu, Daito-Ryu, etc. Frankly too many to name.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Your dumb ideas are worthless, not ma training.
> 
> You were trying to argue that training not directly following the form used in combat is of little value. You were given a great example of this being rubbish so you threw up the Steven Seagal defence.
> 
> At the point that you dismissed an inconvenient fact you lost what little credibility you had with me.
> 
> And lastly, the vast majority of life is not on video.
> If you can't work out why a few YouTube clips do not constitute proof of anything beyond the existence of YouTube, then my advice is to forget martial arts and work on your critical thinking skills. You will need them far more than you'll need to know how to fight.


Personally, I think many ancillary activities can contribute to being better at something .   for example, a lot of guys feel yoga is very synergistic with BJJ.

But I also think the proof is in tje pudding.   Dancing helped your boxer be a better boxer.  We can't say it didn't because he was an excellent boxer.   There is evidence.

The converse is when a person declares that something (kata) helps them to fight better, when the assertion that they fight well is still in question.

Said another way, we can see from lyoto machida that kata wasn't the thing that helped him apply his considerable karate skills against other, well trained opponents.  In order to bring his karate skill to bear, he added a competitive training model to his karate and also crosstrained in other, complementary styles.

Did kata help or hinder?  Who knows . If he says it helps, who am I to say?   But I think there is evidence that kata wasn't the difference because the things that did clearly help machida are the same things that produce predictable, reliable, repeatable, and demonstrable results in literally any person who trains in the same way, who do not do kata.

Edit to add an analogy, just because.     If I weigh 400 lbs when you see me and then 2 years later I weight 185 lbs, you might say, "hey man.  Congrats!  How'd you do it?"  I could say, "dude, I owe it all to meditation.  100%.  Oh, I also started eating clean and training BJJ."  Was it really the meditation?  Maybe that helped me stay committed to training and eating healthy but the diet and exercise probably had a more direct influence on the weight loss.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Aikido, Wing Chun, Tang Soo Do, Jow Ga, Shotokan, Tai Chi, Hung Gar, Ninjutsu, Daito-Ryu, etc. Frankly too many to name



I will only comment on arts I know about 

Daito-ryu ..... that is Koryu,  Aikido ...developed from the former (along with other bits) so explain what you mean by they have not developed and refuse to do so ..... or is this another of your opinions? (fair enough if is)

Ninjutsu .......is there anyone actually teaching that?.........and well do you know what that is or is it just another thing that has randomly popped into your head ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> The evidence shows otherwise. We're still waiting for that Tai Chi master to emerge and wipe the floor with the Muay Thai champ, but it still hasn't happened yet.


Let's look beyond the extremes, shall we? What if we looked at Shotokan and Hapkido. One has forms, the other doesn't. Is there a glaring difference in ability if they spar together (assuming we stay within areas both arts cover)?

I don't think the kata is the major difference. You're exercising confirmation bias.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> This got me to thinking....
> 
> I like shadow boxing, been doing it like forever. But just had the thought that to make it an exercise more like actual fighting, maybe one should emulate getting hit. Because you're going to get hit while boxing, no matter what.
> 
> Maybe the next time I shadow box I'll play with that. But I'll probably forget.


Every time I emulate getting hit, I fall down and lay there for a while. Y'know, for realism. I can shadow box much longer that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Whose opinion is that on the Gracies ? and why yet again bring them into it they are a respected family and deserve to be given tat respect and not given your treatment
> 
> Secondly where did I say any TMA standards have dropped ? again that seems to be your sole opinion
> 
> again what do you know that means you say Seagal didn't teach him that do you have a hotline somewhere
> 
> Any other art you want to tell the world that is wrong and give your expert opinion on
> 
> Actually I never would ask this but I will to you
> 
> What ranks do you hold that gives you the right to be the expert and be careful what you pick to say as well jsut be careful as to date you haven't shown that you really understand things at all so pray do tell what ranks do you hold


Respected martial artists are not above critique. They are human, and are good, commonly-known, figures for discussion. Discussing their ability levels, marketing tactics, personal failing, etc. doesn't diminish their MA accomplishments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Hardly. You can strip the forms away from traditional arts, and they will be just fine. In fact, I would argue that they would be better off, because you would streamline the curriculum, dump the nonsense saved only by tradition, and focus on the most effective techniques.


Here you seem to be making a different argument, Hanzou. So, if the forms (and art) were regularly updated, then the forms wouldn't be an issue? Or, if we dumped the forms, but kept the superfluous techniques, the problem remains largely the same?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Dropping in to funky stances help train stability and movement.
> 
> That is why people do animal walks.
> 
> When I start thinking there is a secret move hidden within a frog jump. Then I might need some reality injected in to my training.


Of course there isn't. You hide the secret moves in the sloth crawl. Nobody will think to look there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It’s just, you should be ashamed.  It’s not elegant.  It’s like when someone says, “Don’t do that.  What you do do is this.”  Do do? Come on.  We are better than this.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I will only comment on arts I know about
> 
> Daito-ryu ..... that is Koryu,  Aikido ...developed from the former (along with other bits) so explain what you mean by they have not developed and refuse to do so ..... or is this another of your opinions? (fair enough if is)



While Aikido is a fairly new art, it adheres to its traditions over incorporating new techniques or pushing the evolution of the style. They believe that O'Sensei had it right and was an amazing martial artist (in some cases even deifying the man), so the goal is to reach his level, instead of attempting to surpass it. Meanwhile in Judo, there's plenty of Judoka who have surpassed Kano's skill level. That occurred even while Kano was still alive. He is respected as a genius who created the system, but no one believes that he was the pinnacle of the art itself, and to this day, Judo will incorporate new techniques to make it a better system.



> Ninjutsu .......is there anyone actually teaching that?.........and well do you know what that is or is it just another thing that has randomly popped into your head ?



Whatever Masaaki Hatsumi teaches. Those guys believe that they're practicing Koryu art and they're pretty staunch traditionalists in my experience. I just call it Ninjutsu because I don't feel like typing out the full name.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Let's look beyond the extremes, shall we? What if we looked at Shotokan and Hapkido. One has forms, the other doesn't. Is there a glaring difference in ability if they spar together (assuming we stay within areas both arts cover)?
> 
> I don't think the kata is the major difference. You're exercising confirmation bias.



I was under the impression that Hapkido does have forms. What system of Hapkido doesn't have forms?



gpseymour said:


> Here you seem to be making a different argument, Hanzou. So, if the forms (and art) were regularly updated, then the forms wouldn't be an issue? Or, if we dumped the forms, but kept the superfluous techniques, the problem remains largely the same?



If the forms were updated to include the techniques actually utilized while fighting, then yes the forms wouldn't be an issue.

I do believe that there is a descendant style of Kyokushin karate that removed all kata from the system, and it remains a highly effective style.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> While Aikido is a fairly new art, it adheres to its traditions over incorporating new techniques or pushing the evolution of the style. They believe that O'Sensei had it right and was an amazing martial artist (in some cases even deifying the man), so the goal is to reach his level, instead of attempting to surpass it. Meanwhile in Judo, there's plenty of Judoka who have surpassed Kano's skill level. That occurred even while Kano was still alive. He is respected as a genius who created the system, but no one believes that he was the pinnacle of the art itself, and to this day, Judo will incorporate new techniques to make it a better system.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Masaaki Hatsumi teaches. Those guys believe that they're practicing Koryu art and they're pretty staunch traditionalists in my experience. I just call it Ninjutsu because I don't feel like typing out the full name.




You just have a loathing of Aikido pure and simple ....umm you said Daito-ryu so where is the response to that? or are we cherry picking again 

Well if you can't type it out then best not state what you think it is


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem of form first and application later is you may train something that's totally worthless.
> 
> This short clip contains the first 2 move of the 1st long fist form Lien Bu Chuan.
> 
> 1. Your opponent punches you, you use your palm to push up on his elbow joint.
> 2. You then palm strike back on his waist.
> 
> I'll never use a vertical palm block to deal with a straight punch. I'll also never strike on my opponent's waist with a side palm like that. If I repeat that form 10,000 times in my life, I'll have wasted a lot of training time that I can do something more useful.
> 
> If I use the application first approach, I probably will never want to learn that form in the first place.
> 
> As a teacher, you (general YOU) don't want to force your students to learm something that he will never use for the rest of his life.


I'd argue that's a problem with a specific form, rather than a problem with teaching the form first. If I pulled together the 8 moves I use most in sparring, combined them into a form, then taught that form before anything else, it wouldn't have that problem.

I don't like form-first for an entirely different reason. Adults learn best when they understand context. Forms lack natural context, so people don't really understand (unless they are given copious descriptions) what the movement is meant to do, and cannot use good intent with it. If they learn the technique (with application) first, then they can get closer to useful intent right away in the form.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You just have a loathing of Aikido pure and simple ....umm you said Daito-ryu so where is the response to that? or are we cherry picking again



I have no loathing towards Aikido. The exact opposite in fact.

You can take what I said about Aikido and apply it to Daito-Ryu as well.



> Well if you can't type it out then best not state what you think it is



Except everyone knows what Ninjutsu is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> But I also think the proof is in tje pudding. Dancing helped your boxer be a better boxer. We can't say it didn't because he was an excellent boxer. There is evidence.


I love this post, just one quick point. We actually don't have evidence the dancing helped. We have a correlation (only a single point, but still a correlation), and an assumed causality. I don't think that actually rises to the level of evidence. I get nit-picky about that because I see people in the business world all the time telling exactly what made them successful at something (easiest to find in sales), but they don't really know. Sometimes you get two guys giving entirely contradictory conclusions ("I sell a lot because I give my customers lots of information up front" vs. "I sell a lot because I stay away from giving information that might confuse them into not buying"). Both might be correct, or both might be wrong. Not enough data to really know.

Okay, I'm done picking nits. Keep up the good posts!


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Let's look beyond the extremes, shall we? What if we looked at Shotokan and Hapkido. One has forms, the other doesn't. Is there a glaring difference in ability if they spar together (assuming we stay within areas both arts cover)?
> 
> I don't think the kata is the major difference. You're exercising confirmation bias.


Well, it's also possible that forms arent the problem, where two styles have similar problems with the training model .  What I mean is, if a yoga instructor and a tai chi instruxtor fight, their lack of martial skill isn't because one does yoga.  It's because neither are developing martial skill .


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue that's a problem with a specific form, rather than a problem with teaching the form first. If I pulled together the 8 moves I use most in sparring, combined them into a form, then taught that form before anything else, it wouldn't have that problem.
> 
> I don't like form-first for an entirely different reason. Adults learn best when they understand context. Forms lack natural context, so people don't really understand (unless they are given copious descriptions) what the movement is meant to do, and cannot use good intent with it. If they learn the technique (with application) first, then they can get closer to useful intent right away in the form.




You make a good point there about learning ...

Just a thought ...the arts that do have forms or Kata (as in grouped together and named) could it be possible that when they were first grouped or taught or "invented" (can't think of a better word) the people that were students then would have known what they were for as in application of same ...ie a strike or a cut they more than likely would have seen so the response to same would be easier to put into context ..or the response to a thrusting stab with a sword or the response to a fast drawn sword etc et al they more than likely would have seen that and could place it easier than possibly folks today? 

Maybe just maybe if say for example in my art someone says Shomenuchi strike yes it based on the sword strike (overhand to the head) so folks think ok never seen that or can't picture it etc ...how about if it were said ok replace sword with bottle in an overhead strike that folks might be able to equate more to ...the response is the same (ok there are more than one) just the weapon is different


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I was under the impression that Hapkido does have forms. What system of Hapkido doesn't have forms?


Maybe it does. I thought it didn't.




> If the forms were updated to include the techniques actually utilized while fighting, then yes the forms wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> I do believe that there is a descendant style of Kyokushin karate that removed all kata from the system, and it remains a highly effective style.


This was my early point. I don't think forms/no-forms is the primary differentiator. I think there's a correlation, but other factors (probably several others) make the real difference. It's like the early studies that showed coffee was really bad for health. It turns out most of that "bad for health" was because coffee drinking and cigarette smoking had a high correlation at the time.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I have no loathing towards Aikido. The exact opposite in fact.
> 
> You can take what I said about Aikido and apply it to Daito-Ryu as well.
> 
> Daito -ryu no .... no you certainly cannot
> 
> And no I really don't think everyone actually understand what Ninjutsu actually is lol
> 
> 
> 
> Except everyone knows what Ninjutsu is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Well, it's also possible that forms arent the problem, where two styles have similar problems with the training model .  What I mean is, if a yoga instructor and a tai chi instruxtor fight, their lack of martial skill isn't because one does yoga.  It's because neither are developing martial skill .


Yes. I think the issue is the wider question of training approach. In general, where you don't see forms, you probably see a higher percentage of time in sparring/competition/resistive training. You probably see a higher average of fitness (though some forms-intensive programs do spend a lot of time sweating). You probably also see more hobbyists in the forms-intensive stuff, because maybe it starts easier and more folks stick it out.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> You make a good point there about learning ...
> 
> Just a thought ...the arts that do have forms or Kata (as in grouped together and named) could it be possible that when they were first grouped or taught or "invented" (can't think of a better word) the people that were students then would have known what they were for as in application of same ...ie a strike or a cut they more than likely would have seen so the response to same would be easier to put into context ..or the response to a thrusting stab with a sword or the response to a fast drawn sword etc et al they more than likely would have seen that and could place it easier than possibly folks today?
> 
> Maybe just maybe if say for example in my art someone says Shomenuchi strike yes it based on the sword strike (overhand to the head) so folks think ok never seen that or can't picture it etc ...how about if it were said ok replace sword with bottle in an overhead strike that folks might be able to equate more to ...the response is the same (ok there are more than one) just the weapon is different


That's entirely possible. I created kata for my curriculum. My students know exactly what's going on in those, because I made it obvious. Give it a few generations, with the natural loss of stuff and changes in the art, and those exact same forms might be far less than obvious. In fact, if you taught the movements to someone from elsewhere in the art, they wouldn't understand some of the movements, because I teach about half of the techniques differently than they do.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That's entirely possible. I created kata for my curriculum. My students know exactly what's going on in those, because I made it obvious. Give it a few generations, with the natural loss of stuff and changes in the art, and those exact same forms might be far less than obvious. In fact, if you taught the movements to someone from elsewhere in the art, they wouldn't understand some of the movements, because I teach about half of the techniques differently than they do.




It was just a thought as to if you substitute the sword strike and say think bottle folks might be able to picture that coming as that is more likely than a sword.

Would you possibly agree that the tech or form in response is basically the same (ok the distance different but the response is the same)


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Yes. I think the issue is the wider question of training approach. In general, where you don't see forms, you probably see a higher percentage of time in sparring/competition/resistive training. You probably see a higher average of fitness (though some forms-intensive programs do spend a lot of time sweating). You probably also see more hobbyists in the forms-intensive stuff, because maybe it starts easier and more folks stick it out.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



I would say that more folks stick it out in forms-intensive styles because they aren't getting beat up everyday. MMA, Judo, Bjj, Kyokushin, etc. beats their students up on a regular basis. When you aren't getting beat up, you begin to believe that you're better at fighting than what you really are, and your ego gets out of control. No one is there to sock you in the face and bring you back to reality.


----------



## now disabled

Also if for example someone is out walking or hiking and has say a hiking pole or a shepherds crook as an aid with them them the same basic techs can be applied as that of the jo (ok maybe one or to transfers won't work) and the responses are the same be it a jo or a person coming at you with a stick ...I guess the hanbo the same both ways


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I would say that more folks stick it out in forms-intensive styles because they aren't getting beat up everyday. MMA, Judo, Bjj, Kyokushin, etc. beats their students up on a regular basis. When you aren't getting beat up, you begin to believe that you're better at fighting than what you really are, and your ego gets out of control. No one is there to sock you in the face and bring you back to reality.



So your saying that in the arts you state people get beat up in the training halls? 

Again I do think that you are not interpreting Kata or form correctly and what they are


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yes. I think the issue is the wider question of training approach. In general, where you don't see forms, you probably see a higher percentage of time in sparring/competition/resistive training. You probably see a higher average of fitness (though some forms-intensive programs do spend a lot of time sweating). You probably also see more hobbyists in the forms-intensive stuff, because maybe it starts easier and more folks stick it out.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


I think they're all disconnected .  Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset. 

You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill.  The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model.   Results are virtually gauranteed.    

So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains?  Maybe . 

But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid .  in a competitive environment, that is easy to see .  In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question.   Can the average aikidoka fight?  Can the average ninja fight?   Can the average boxer fight?   Can the average mmaist fight?   I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes.   At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes .  and that's being very generous to  aikido and ninjutsu.  

The trick we see is to say, yeah well that's not what aikido is for.  Okay . so then what is it for?


----------



## Steve

On another note, it's not as simple as saying adults learn best when context is provided.  As people become more expert in an area, they will overcome issues and through experience have context .  Providing too much context for these people in training can actually delay skill development because the learner will need to reconcile the context you provide then with their own .  Slows things down.  This is another advantage of experiential learning and why arts that do not apply skills in a context are unreliable at building expertise.  Said simply, everything remains academic, which we see in some of the self defense "experts" here who acknowledge having no practical experience.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I think they're all disconnected .  Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset.
> 
> You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill.  The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model.   Results are virtually gauranteed.
> 
> So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains?  Maybe .
> 
> But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid .  in a competitive environment, that is easy to see .  In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question.   Can the average aikidoka fight?  Can the average ninja fight?   Can the average boxer fight?   Can the average mmaist fight?   I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes.   At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes .  and that's being very generous to  aikido and ninjutsu.
> 
> The trick we see is to say, yeah well that's not what aikido is for.  Okay . so then what is it for?




If your talking about Aikidoka in a sports ring then no otherwise well yes (well average depends on what you mean by average) I would consider myself as slightly above average and I have used it to take knives bottles and other items of people and to subdue them


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> On another note, it's not as simple as saying adults learn best when context is provided.  As people become more expert in an area, they will overcome issues and through experience have context .  Providing too much context for these people in training can actually delay skill development because the learner will need to reconcile the context you provide then with their own .  Slows things down.  This is another advantage of experiential learning and why arts that do not apply skills in a context are unreliable at building expertise.  Said simply, everything remains academic, which we see in some of the self defense "experts" here who acknowledge having no practical experience.




See when you were in the mob lol did you umm have stripes on your sleeve or pips on the shoulder and were you part of the head shed mob? lol........


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> If your talking about Aikidoka in a sports ring then no otherwise well yes (well average depends on what you mean by average) I would consider myself as slightly above average and I have used it to take knives bottles and other items of people and to subdue them


so if I took a group of 1000 random aikidoka with at least, say, 1 year of serious training, and had random people assaukt them, they would successfully defend themselves?  I am skeptical.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> So your saying that in the arts you state people get beat up in the training halls?



You cannot progress in Bjj, Judo, MMA, or Kyokushin without fighting. So yes, actual fighting is an integral part of those styles, and you're constantly fighting in those styles. I would also argue that there is far more physical contact in those systems than form-intensive systems, which also adds to people wanting to stick with the latter more often.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> so if I took a group of 1000 random aikidoka with at least, say, 1 year of serious training, and had random people assaukt them, they would successfully defend themselves?  I am skeptical.




Some might ....a year of training probably not


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You cannot progress in Bjj, Judo, MMA, or Kyokushin without fighting. So yes, actual fighting is an integral part of those styles, and you're constantly fighting in those styles.



In the sport side ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> In the sport side ?



Period. Classical Kyokushin for example makes you perform full contact sparring for each belt grade. When you go for your black belt, you have to fight multiple black belts in non-stop full contact sparring.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I think they're all disconnected .  Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset.
> 
> You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill.  The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model.   Results are virtually gauranteed.
> 
> So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains?  Maybe .
> 
> But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid .  in a competitive environment, that is easy to see .  In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question.   Can the average aikidoka fight?  Can the average ninja fight?   Can the average boxer fight?   Can the average mmaist fight?   I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes.   At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes .  and that's being very generous to  aikido and ninjutsu.
> 
> The trick we see is to say, yeah well that's not what aikido is for.  Okay . so then what is it for?


Yes agree but there's some buts in there, any one who starts as a novice should be a much better fighter in quite short order, the fact your practising how to punch and kick should guarantee that, are they a good fighter, depends on who you are measuring them against, you just need to be better than who ever is confrontIng  you, which if it's self defence situation could be nearly any level . so fat drunk at the bus stop, easy meat, super fit sports man, a lot less so. if you want to fight, the sports man you need to come at least close enough to matching him for fitness and be good at your ma.

That is true of mma, and bJj as it is of tmas,


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Period. Classical Kyokushin for example makes you perform full contact sparring for each belt grade. When you go for your black belt, you have to fight multiple black belts in non-stop full contact sparring.




And your point is?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> And your point is?



That it doesn't just revolve around sports.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> That it doesn't just revolve around sports.



Ok so how are the basics of fighting in that style taught and how are the techniques that are used in fighting taught 

You are basing everything you say on fight fight fight ......ok that may be some peoples goal but not everybody does MA to fight etc 

@jobo made a good point in the real world all you need to be is better than the guy who attacks you ............now is every attacker going to be this highly trained BJJ or MMA etc fighter ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Ok so how are the basics of fighting in that style taught and how are the techniques that are used in fighting taught



I never studied Kyokushin, so I don't know. However, I have practiced its parent system, and observed their sparring and the end results of their training. Despite their use of kata, the style produces some excellent fighters.



> You are basing everything you say on fight fight fight ......ok that may be some peoples goal but not everybody does MA to fight etc



And Wing Chun guys don't get giddy about Ip Man movies...



> @jobo made a good point in the real world all you need to be is better than the guy who attacks you ............now is every attacker going to be this highly trained BJJ or MMA etc fighter ?



So what if your attacker IS trained in MMA, Bjj, Boxing, Wrestling, etc? You just curl up and take your beating?


----------



## oftheherd1

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where I go drown myself lol.



I'm quite sorry sir!  That will not be allowed until you complete and successfully demonstrate the kata for drowning at least three times.  And you will have to satisfy the judges that you had fun while you were doing it.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I never studied Kyokushin, so I don't know. However, I have practiced its parent system, and observed their sparring and the end results of their training. Despite their use of kata, the style produces some excellent fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> And Wing Chun guys don't get giddy about Ip Man movies...
> 
> 
> 
> So what if your attacker IS trained in MMA, Bjj, Boxing, Wrestling, etc? You just curl up and take your beating?




you are actually making me laugh ....now your on about movies 

you state an art say blah blah blah about it then you say oops only studied it's parent art ....come on I really think enough is enough don't you


----------



## now disabled

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm quite sorry sir!  That will not be allowed until you complete and successfully demonstrate the kata for drowning at least three times.  And you will have to satisfy the judges that you had fun while you were doing it.




He can't as Kata don't teach you anything ....didn't ya get that memo from the OP .......lol


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> you are actually making me laugh ....now your on about movies
> 
> you state an art say blah blah blah about it then you say oops only studied it's parent art ....come on I really think enough is enough don't you



The fighting prowess of Kyokushin karateka isn't exactly a secret. Those guys are respected even within the combat sports community as a tough group of fighters. Plenty of people use Kyokushin as their striking base in MMA.

Additionally, I knew quite a few Shotokan karate practitioners who have actively converted their style of teaching to more closely resemble the Kyokushin model. So the styles are very similar.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Some might ....a year of training probably not


Some people with no training might also.   I should have said, do you think they would perform well vs a control group of untrained people?  I think any competitive training model would demonstrate clear skill development .


----------



## Martial D

[
]


now disabled said:


> You are basing everything you say on fight fight fight ......ok that may be some peoples goal but not everybody does MA to fight etc


Remove the martial and you are left with only an 'art'. Much like ballet.


> @jobo made a good point in the real world all you need to be is better than the guy who attacks you ............now is every attacker going to be this highly trained BJJ or MMA etc fighter ?



Would you rather have a Nerf hammer that will only work on wimps or an aluminum bat that works on everyone?


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> [
> ]
> 
> Remove the martial and you are left with only an 'art'. Much like ballet.
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a Nerf hammer that will only work on wimps or an aluminum bat that works on everyone?


And we have recently agreed that self defense and fighting are synonymous.  So fighting skills are relevant.


----------



## oftheherd1

now disabled said:


> He can't as Kata don't teach you anything ....didn't ya get that memo from the OP .......lol



This thing is devolving faster than expected.  I am not on the judges selection committee, but from incontestable opinions I have gathered a sliding scale of possible facts; the first being that @Hanzou and @Martial D were the first to volunteer with the selection committee and have in fact been selected.  There is now a fierce fight for the third judges slot.  The third incontestable opinion is that @JowGaWolf was disqualified by unanimous vote of the first two judges and that being thought underhanded by the committee, @JowGaWolf may be selected to referee.  That has been contested by a faction of @gpseymour supporters who may win out that position for him after all.  It gets worse.

@elder999 hung back until he could quietly sneak himself into the rules committee, even without formal consent of the Rules Committee selection board.  I'm told they didn't have enough opinions one way or the other to stop him, and that's a fact.  He then demanded @now disabled be on the Rules Committee as well, along with @Steve.  @pgsmith and @Kung Fu Wang will be backups if they agree to give up all facts in their possession first.

If that wasn't enough, some guy with the crazy name of @oftheherd1 will be the fact checker with two as yet unnamed scribes and a pharisee to assist him.

What a mess.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> And we have recently agreed that self defense and fighting are synonymous.  So fighting skills are relevant.



There is more to self defense than fighting


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> It was just a thought as to if you substitute the sword strike and say think bottle folks might be able to picture that coming as that is more likely than a sword.
> 
> Would you possibly agree that the tech or form in response is basically the same (ok the distance different but the response is the same)


I think you've quoted the wrong post. I'm not sure what you're replying to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I would say that more folks stick it out in forms-intensive styles because they aren't getting beat up everyday. MMA, Judo, Bjj, Kyokushin, etc. beats their students up on a regular basis. When you aren't getting beat up, you begin to believe that you're better at fighting than what you really are, and your ego gets out of control. No one is there to sock you in the face and bring you back to reality.


Assume by getting "beat up", you mean losing - as in someone dominating in spite of their resistance (since actual beatings are rare in BJJ and Judo). And yeah, I'd agree that's part of it. Again, it's less a factor of the forms, though, than the overall approach to training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Also if for example someone is out walking or hiking and has say a hiking pole or a shepherds crook as an aid with them them the same basic techs can be applied as that of the jo (ok maybe one or to transfers won't work) and the responses are the same be it a jo or a person coming at you with a stick ...I guess the hanbo the same both ways


That's more a question of whether training traditional weapons is useful, rather than whether forms are useful.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That's more a question of whether training traditional weapons is useful, rather than whether forms are useful.



Ok 

I just view the weapons as part of my art not an add on


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think they're all disconnected .  Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset.


That's what I was getting at. There's a correlation, and we have to be careful about attributing the cause to what might seem most obvious.



> You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill.  The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model.   Results are virtually gauranteed.
> 
> So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains?  Maybe .


Agreed. Those might help, and at worst probably won't interfere with the effectiveness of the training model.



> But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid .  in a competitive environment, that is easy to see .  In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question.   Can the average aikidoka fight?  Can the average ninja fight?   Can the average boxer fight?   Can the average mmaist fight?   I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes.   At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes .  and that's being very generous to  aikido and ninjutsu.


I agree. For those of us who aren't using competition as a training tool, we need to learn from competition training approach. We need to steal from you guys. It would help if we occasionally get some of you guys as training partners, too.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Assume by getting "beat up", you mean losing - as in someone dominating in spite of their resistance (since actual beatings are rare in BJJ and Judo). And yeah, I'd agree that's part of it. Again, it's less a factor of the forms, though, than the overall approach to training.



When I say "beaten up" I'm talking about how you feel after a night of hard rolling or randori. Yeah, you're probably not going to the hospital, and you can go to work the next morning without wearing makeup, but you're definitely going to feel like you've been through the tenderizer. Nothing's worse than a big sweaty fat man having you in side control.

Which also partially explains why some people avoid such martial arts. The sheer amount of physical contact can be extremely awkward for some people, despite such training being highly beneficial.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> On another note, it's not as simple as saying adults learn best when context is provided.  As people become more expert in an area, they will overcome issues and through experience have context .  Providing too much context for these people in training can actually delay skill development because the learner will need to reconcile the context you provide then with their own .  Slows things down.  This is another advantage of experiential learning and why arts that do not apply skills in a context are unreliable at building expertise.  Said simply, everything remains academic, which we see in some of the self defense "experts" here who acknowledge having no practical experience.


When I speak to providing context, it can be as simple as demonstrating the technique. It drives me nuts when people - including otherwise very good instructors - start a step-by-step walkthrough of a technique without first showing it at some moderate speed. This leaves the average learner trying to figure out what's coming next and why, rather than being able to pay attention to what's actually happening. Knowing that context (what the technique looks like in application) lets most learners do a better job of seeing what's important.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> [
> ]
> 
> Remove the martial and you are left with only an 'art'. Much like ballet.
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a Nerf hammer that will only work on wimps or an aluminum bat that works on everyone?


But it doesn't work on every one, unless your an elite level fighter, otherwise you run much the same risk of just being out gunned by some big guy,

We had a dojo invasion, were two mma guys all ripped and shredded, decided to pay is a visit and challenge and or humiliate d us.

They made the mistake of doing this on the night Floyd attended,Floyd is built like a cruiser weight boxer and covered in gangsta tats, and has had not a few actual street fights.

You could see the apprehension in the mma  guys face as they circled each other, he had come to scare girls and middle aged accountants and he had got a guy, 4inches taller and thirty pounds of muscle heavier. It didn't last long, Floyd but him with a clubbing right and he fell over. The other guy didn't want to fight now and they left.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> There is more to self defense than fighting


That depends where you draw the borders of self-defense - there are different working definitions people use for that term. Some include just the physical defense. Some include after-defense psychology and legal issues. Some include prevention. Some go so far as to include basic safety measures (seat belts, locking the door, etc.).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> When I say "beaten up" I'm talking about how you feel after a night of hard rolling or randori. Yeah, you're probably not going to the hospital, and you can go to work the next morning without wearing makeup, but you're definitely going to feel like you've been through the tenderizer. Nothing's worse than a big sweaty fat man having you in side control.


You can get that worn out without competition/resistance sparring. Heck, I've worked myself to exhaustion just doing drills. I think the key difference is that the sweaty fat man who has you in side control won't let you out unless you make him - and he'll use everything he knows (within reason) to stop you.



> Which also partially explains why some people avoid such martial arts. The sheer amount of physical contact can be extremely awkward for some people, despite such training being highly beneficial.


I'm not sure the level of contact in Judo is much different from the level of contact, say, in NGA. And NGA can be taught in a much more "traditional" manner than I've seen Judo use, with all the accompanying issues.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> But it doesn't work on every one, unless your an elite level fighter, otherwise you run much the same risk of just being out gunned by some big guy,
> 
> We had a dojo invasion, were two mma guys all ripped and shredded, decided to pay is a visit and challenge and or humiliate d us.
> 
> They made the mistake of doing this on the night Floyd attended,Floyd is built like a cruiser weight boxer and covered in gangsta tats, and has had not a few actual street fights.
> 
> You could see the apprehension in the mma  guys face as they circled each other, he had come to scare girls and middle aged accountants and he had got a guy, 4inches taller and thirty pounds of muscle heavier. It didn't last long, Floyd but him with a clubbing right and he fell over. The other guy didn't want to fight now and they left.


Can I borrow Floyd if those guys show up over here?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> You can get that worn out without competition/resistance sparring. Heck, I've worked myself to exhaustion just doing drills. I think the key difference is that the sweaty fat man who has you in side control won't let you out unless you make him - and he'll use everything he knows (within reason) to stop you.



Yes that is the key difference, as well as the physical contact. While that fat guy is laying on you trying to suffocate you, you have to find a way to escape while using the least amount of energy possible. On the flip side, if you achieve a dominant position on your larger partner, you need to learn how to maintain that position without them using their larger size to throw you off of them.

Which is why I strongly favor women learning Bjj, since it teaches them how to counter or escape bigger and larger people attempting to force their will upon them. Some of the women I rolled with were quite adept at slipping away from my set ups despite my superior strength and weight.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> The problem is when their instructor starts feeding them nonsense about their ability to take down trained fighters utilizing hidden techniques within their kata or other antiquated training method. Or that if they just train more they can easily stop that MMA guy or wrestler trying to take their head off.



Who? Who is saying these things, now in 2018?
I'll be very very surprised if you can name more than one person. I doubt you can name anyone. 



> Further, a random boxer saying that he gained something from taking dance lessons is an irrelevant point that doesn't really change the general argument that martial arts that perform extensive amounts of kata have performed rather poorly against martial arts that don't perform extensive amounts of kata.



No, it demolished the position you took and until now actively defended that only directly martial training was worthwhile. 

But fine, let's stick to kata based arts can't fight because they do kata.

So you're not a fan of Kyokushin karate?
Or is the fact that they have a kata syllabus another irrelevant point? 



> Again, I dismissed that fact because it was irrelevant. I'm sure no one told that boxer that he could find hidden techniques, or learn to grapple like a Bjj practitioner from his dancing. However, that is exactly what is being told to martial arts students around the world about their version of dancing within their martial arts.



Again told by who? When?
You know "exactly" what is being said so you should know who said it.



> Again, Youtube is simply evidence to support an argument. You're free to use other types of evidence if you wish. For example, I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Uchi-Uke is being used in fights "everywhere" like you claimed. If it is, evidence of your claim should be easy to find. Don't worry, unlike you, I'm perfectly fine if you use a few videos to support that claim.



Have you never.seen a vertical forearm used to stop a Hook?
You've never seen a wing chun guy use a tan sau during chi sau practice? (you posted one earlier). 
Neither example even gets into the broader applications of that movement (like the uppercut or shoulder lock), or even combative usage of the simple version. 

But now you cry "that's not uchi uke" and the next 20 pages are spent trying to make you understand the principle of layered application or just defining what a principle is. 
You are not the original thinker you imagine. 

No, if you want to find it you do your own research. I did mine and I know that I can see the technique in action whenever I feel like it by just getting in the ring and sparring. If you can't that is your problem. 

I asked to know what you thought was unrealistic in bassai dai to get a feel for your viewpoint and everything you've said since confirms what you're answer told me: those arts are not for you.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> There is more to self defense than fighting


Maybe.   But i would consider fighting a salient characteristic of self defense.   Others have recently insisted that self defense and fighting are synonymous .  I think fighting skills are salient but maybe #5 on the list.   Still on the list though.


----------



## Buka

A cool thing about being in a later time zone than everyone else is getting up in the morning and finding five pages of comments to read over my first cup of coffee.

The fact that it's all crazy people is neither here nor there. 

And I salute all of you, especially those who do not rise to take bait.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Personally, I think many ancillary activities can contribute to being better at something .   for example, a lot of guys feel yoga is very synergistic with BJJ.
> 
> But I also think the proof is in tje pudding.   Dancing helped your boxer be a better boxer.  We can't say it didn't because he was an excellent boxer.   There is evidence.
> 
> The converse is when a person declares that something (kata) helps them to fight better, when the assertion that they fight well is still in question.
> 
> Said another way, we can see from lyoto machida that kata wasn't the thing that helped him apply his considerable karate skills against other, well trained opponents.  In order to bring his karate skill to bear, he added a competitive training model to his karate and also crosstrained in other, complementary styles.
> 
> Did kata help or hinder?  Who knows . If he says it helps, who am I to say?   But I think there is evidence that kata wasn't the difference because the things that did clearly help machida are the same things that produce predictable, reliable, repeatable, and demonstrable results in literally any person who trains in the same way, who do not do kata.
> 
> Edit to add an analogy, just because.     If I weigh 400 lbs when you see me and then 2 years later I weight 185 lbs, you might say, "hey man.  Congrats!  How'd you do it?"  I could say, "dude, I owe it all to meditation.  100%.  Oh, I also started eating clean and training BJJ."  Was it really the meditation?  Maybe that helped me stay committed to training and eating healthy but the diet and exercise probably had a more direct influence on the weight loss.



And herein lies the problem with this tired old argument:

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Everything you said is perfectly reasonable and correct.

The part that is dumb (of the argument not of Steve's post) is saying that karate isn't good because they kata too much.

People lose fights because they are less well trained or less gifted than their opponents. If you do too much kata and not enough sparring before a fight that's on.you, not on.karate .

If you do.too much running and not enough sparring you are equally likely to lose but it doesn't make running bad.

This is not rocket science. It's not even high school science. But the urge to generalise into simple stereotypes is so strong that simple logic seems beyond some people.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> And herein lies the problem with this tired old argument:
> 
> Nobody is saying otherwise.
> 
> Everything you said is perfectly reasonable and correct.
> 
> The part that is dumb (of the argument not of Steve's post) is saying that karate isn't good because they kata too much.
> 
> People lose fights because they are less well trained or less gifted than their opponents. If you do too much kata and not enough sparring before a fight that's on.you, not on.karate .
> 
> If you do.too much running and not enough sparring you are equally likely to lose but it doesn't make running bad.
> 
> This is not rocket science. It's not even high school science. But the urge to generalise into simple stereotypes is so strong that simple logic seems beyond some people.


You can, however, say with confidence that you will lose fights if you don't fight enough.  It's not too much kata that is the problem.  It's not enough fighting.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> You can, however, say with confidence that you will lose fights if you don't fight enough.  It's not too much kata that is the problem.  It's not enough fighting.



And therein lies the rub.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> A cool thing about being in a later time zone than everyone else is getting up in the morning and finding five pages of comments to read over my first cup of coffee.
> 
> The fact that it's all crazy people is neither here nor there.
> 
> And I salute all of you, especially those who do not rise to take bait.


And a hearty good morning to you, my friend.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> removed all kata from the system, and it remains a highly effective style.


If you are a wrestling coach and you teach 200 different throws to your students. How do you help your students to remember it? I mean just "remember" it and nothing more. It's just like a text book and has nothing to do with training.

You can use approach such as:

1. 1 dictionary - label as throw 1, throw 2, ... throw 199, throw 200 (this is do nothing approach).
2. 6 dictionaries - divide throws into 4 sides and 2 doors and create 6 different categories.
3. 1 book - link 200 throws into 1 form.
4. 6 books - link 200 throws into 6 forms (4 sides and 2 doors).

Which method do you prefer (1, 2, 3, or 4)? Why?


----------



## pdg

oftheherd1 said:


> This thing is devolving faster than expected.  I am not on the judges selection committee, but from incontestable opinions I have gathered a sliding scale of possible facts; the first being that @Hanzou and @Martial D were the first to volunteer with the selection committee and have in fact been selected.  There is now a fierce fight for the third judges slot.  The third incontestable opinion is that @JowGaWolf was disqualified by unanimous vote of the first two judges and that being thought underhanded by the committee, @JowGaWolf may be selected to referee.  That has been contested by a faction of @gpseymour supporters who may win out that position for him after all.  It gets worse.
> 
> @elder999 hung back until he could quietly sneak himself into the rules committee, even without formal consent of the Rules Committee selection board.  I'm told they didn't have enough opinions one way or the other to stop him, and that's a fact.  He then demanded @now disabled be on the Rules Committee as well, along with @Steve.  @pgsmith and @Kung Fu Wang will be backups if they agree to give up all facts in their possession first.
> 
> If that wasn't enough, some guy with the crazy name of @oftheherd1 will be the fact checker with two as yet unnamed scribes and a pharisee to assist him.
> 
> What a mess.



I'm entirely unsure whether to be offended at being left off the list, or grateful that I'm under the radar...


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> I never studied Kyokushin, so I don't know. However, I have practiced its parent system, and observed their sparring and the end results of their training. Despite their use of kata, the style produces some excellent fighters.



Can you provide evidence that the production of excellent fighters is despite their use of kata?

Or maybe something like a kyokoshin school that has shed it's kata and since produced more and better fighters?

Or maybe them using kata has helped their fighters with developing balance and other control over their bodies...


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Can you provide evidence that the production of excellent fighters is despite their use of kata?
> 
> Or maybe something like a kyokoshin school that has shed it's kata and since produced more and better fighters?
> 
> Or maybe them using kata has helped their fighters with developing balance and other control over their bodies...


I may be missing your point, but there are literally thousands of excellent fighters who do not use kata training in combat sports throughout the world.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> You make a good point there about learning ...
> 
> Just a thought ...the arts that do have forms or Kata (as in grouped together and named) could it be possible that when they were first grouped or taught or "invented" (can't think of a better word) the people that were students then would have known what they were for as in application of same ...ie a strike or a cut they more than likely would have seen so the response to same would be easier to put into context ..or the response to a thrusting stab with a sword or the response to a fast drawn sword etc et al they more than likely would have seen that and could place it easier than possibly folks today?
> 
> Maybe just maybe if say for example in my art someone says Shomenuchi strike yes it based on the sword strike (overhand to the head) so folks think ok never seen that or can't picture it etc ...how about if it were said ok replace sword with bottle in an overhead strike that folks might be able to equate more to ...the response is the same (ok there are more than one) just the weapon is different



Nah. The timing is out. If I tried to hit a guy with a sword it would look nothing like the kata. 

You see that in the knife vs reality videos.

Which means that you are developing skill in a situation that is never going to happen.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> And your point is?



That we can pick consistent methods that lead to good fighting.

Sparring is pretty consistent. Kata isn't.

This is how we would build a system based on evidence rather than anecdotes. 

That way if effective fighting is the goal we can separate must include from might include.

So even lomenchenko and dance. Would be might include. It worked for him but it hasn't worked consistently for a range of fighters.

Therefore that would be might include.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Ok so how are the basics of fighting in that style taught and how are the techniques that are used in fighting taught
> 
> You are basing everything you say on fight fight fight ......ok that may be some peoples goal but not everybody does MA to fight etc
> 
> @jobo made a good point in the real world all you need to be is better than the guy who attacks you ............now is every attacker going to be this highly trained BJJ or MMA etc fighter ?



Fight is shorthand for successful application. It could be applied to any activity. If we were discussing kata and swimming.

Swimming would be the ultimate goal.

Martial arts isnt some magical activity that doesn't follow the rules of any other activity.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I may be missing your point, but there are literally thousands of excellent fighters who do not use kata training in combat sports throughout the world.



And there are a great many who do use kata.

That was my point.

Now, I have to be a bit balanced here...

If an art exclusively practices kata and never does anything remotely like sparring I can see that it wouldn't be much use in a live situation. Say me doing tkd - if I only did patterns with no work on conditioning or sparring it simply wouldn't work.

Likewise, an art could ignore kata completely, say just do mitts and pads and running about. Like taebo. Is that any better? 

From previous comments, it must be because there's no kata - but I have to disagree and say it's equal.


Now go to an art that ignores kata and only does live work - I can see that's probably quicker to fight than another art that balances kata and live work.

But, it'd be very unlikely to grab my interest. I'm not in it to fight, so it wouldn't fit me.

I contend it's much faster for me to reach any effectiveness with my doing patterns (kata) mixed with other conditioning and live work, because I do it.

100% live work? I probably wouldn't turn up, so guess what?

It'll never work


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That depends where you draw the borders of self-defense - there are different working definitions people use for that term. Some include just the physical defense. Some include after-defense psychology and legal issues. Some include prevention. Some go so far as to include basic safety measures (seat belts, locking the door, etc.).



I don't think it is a distinction to be made from kata though.

I haven't seen a lock your doors or deescalation kata. So unless it helps in some mysterious way it is designed to assist with fighting.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> And there are a great many who do use kata.
> 
> That was my point.
> 
> Now, I have to be a bit balanced here...
> 
> If an art exclusively practices kata and never does anything remotely like sparring I can see that it wouldn't be much use in a live situation. Say me doing tkd - if I only did patterns with no work on conditioning or sparring it simply wouldn't work.
> 
> Likewise, an art could ignore kata completely, say just do mitts and pads and running about. Like taebo. Is that any better?
> 
> From previous comments, it must be because there's no kata - but I have to disagree and say it's equal.
> 
> 
> Now go to an art that ignores kata and only does live work - I can see that's probably quicker to fight than another art that balances kata and live work.
> 
> But, it'd be very unlikely to grab my interest. I'm not in it to fight, so it wouldn't fit me.
> 
> I contend it's much faster for me to reach any effectiveness with my doing patterns (kata) mixed with other conditioning and live work, because I do it.
> 
> 100% live work? I probably wouldn't turn up, so guess what?
> 
> It'll never work


For sure, there is a human element.  I alluded to this in the analogy of the guy who lost over 200 lbs. 

Look at it like this.  from an efficiency or practical standpoint, the metric is about gains.  I can build a chair with hand tools or with power tools. At the end, the chair is identical, but created in a fraction of the time using power tools.  So, the argument in favor of hand tools is that there is value in the process.  And this might be true.  But in the end, you can't argue in favor of either process if, at the end, you don't have a chair.  You can't say, "it's about the art of using hand tools...,"  and never produce a usable piece of furniture.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> You can, however, say with confidence that you will lose fights if you don't fight enough.  It's not too much kata that is the problem.  It's not enough fighting.



And the system is what defines what you train. Not training enough striking in BJJ isn't my fault.

It is silly to assume otherwise.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> Now go to an art that ignores kata and only does live work - I can see that's probably quicker to fight than another art that balances kata and live work.
> 
> But, it'd be very unlikely to grab my interest. I'm not in it to fight, so it wouldn't fit me.


I have not seen even one person who is 100% serious in fighting and that person is serious in form training.

You made this very clear. If you are

- not 100% in fighting, you don't mind to spend time to train form.
- 100% in fighting, you may not have time to train form.

I may have learned more forms (> 50) than everybody here in this forum. If I just do each and every of my forms once a day, I won't have any time left to train anything else.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> .
> 
> Likewise, an art could ignore kata completely, say just do mitts and pads and running about. Like taebo Boxing kickboxing, Mui Thai, BJJ or MMA, . Is that any better?



Fixed.


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Who? Who is saying these things, now in 2018?
> I'll be very very surprised if you can name more than one person. I doubt you can name anyone.



All the people who said that the Wing Chun fighter, or the Tai Chi fighter wasn't doing "real Kung Fu" after they got flattened by that mediocre MMA fighter in China.




> No, it demolished the position you took and until now actively defended that only directly martial training was worthwhile.
> 
> But fine, let's stick to kata based arts can't fight because they do kata.
> 
> So you're not a fan of Kyokushin karate?
> Or is the fact that they have a kata syllabus another irrelevant point?



Kyokushin doesn't focus on kata though. Kyokushin has a very heavy focus on full contact sparring and fighting, and like I said, some branches of Kyokushin have done away with kata entirely.



> Again told by who? When?
> You know "exactly" what is being said so you should know who said it.
















And of course an old favorite:








> I asked to know what you thought was unrealistic in bassai dai to get a feel for your viewpoint and everything you've said since confirms what you're answer told me: those arts are not for you.



In other words you weren't able to find any evidence that Uchi-Uke (a technique used extensively in Bassai Dai and Karate in general) was being used "everywhere" in a fight.....

That's all you really had to say.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> All the people who said that the Wing Chun fighter, or the Tai Chi fighter wasn't doing "real Kung Fu" after they got flattened by that mediocre MMA fighter in China.



I could make that argument, and use the second video in the series you posted to do it with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> 100% live work? I probably wouldn't turn up, so guess what?
> 
> It'll never work


This discussion is getting clear and clear after these many posts.

If you love form training -> you don't like live work
If you love live work -> you don't like form training.

Is there a such person who train form 20 times daily and also spar 15 rounds daily? I have never seen such person exists.

So this discussion is very clear. Our time is limited. Most of the time, we just don't have the luxury to do both


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This discussion is getting clear and clear after these many posts.
> 
> If you love form training -> you don't like live work
> If you love live work -> you don't like form training.
> 
> Is there a such person who train form 20 times daily and also spar 15 rounds daily?


I don't take it that far, but i do my Sui Lim Tau every morning, and do hard rounds at least a few times a week.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> Fixed.



No, you didn't fix it in any way whatsoever in the slightest.

What you did there was to utterly misunderstand and misinterpret my entire point.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This discussion is getting clear and clear after these many posts.
> 
> If you love form training -> you don't like live work
> If you love live work -> you don't like form training.
> 
> Is there a such person who train form 20 times daily and also spar 15 rounds daily? I have never seen such person exists.
> 
> So this discussion is very clear. Our time is limited. Most of the time, we just don't have the luxury to do both



I love pattern training, I like the precision and the interpretation.

I love live work, sparring is great fun.

I wouldn't be interested if I was told I had to choose one or the other.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Can you provide evidence that the production of excellent fighters is despite their use of kata?
> 
> Or maybe something like a kyokoshin school that has shed it's kata and since produced more and better fighters?
> 
> Or maybe them using kata has helped their fighters with developing balance and other control over their bodies...



The vast majority of MMA arts either don't have kata as traditionally found in classical MA, or have kata practice in the back burner.


----------



## JowGaWolf

pdg said:


> I love pattern training, I like the precision and the interpretation.
> 
> I love live work, sparring is great fun.
> 
> I wouldn't be interested if I was told I had to choose one or the other.


I'm with you on this one.  My sparring doesn't have to be Professional Fighter quality.  My Forms do not have to be  Gold Medal performances.  I can afford to be "good enough" and enjoy both.  I'm not seeking to be a "Master" or a professional martial artist.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> The vast majority of MMA arts either don't have kata as traditionally found in classical MA, or have kata practice in the back burner.



That's completely skirting the questions I directly asked and in no way answers them.

I'll try again...

Do you know of a kyokoshin school that doesn't practice kata and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?


----------



## Buka

now disabled said:


> What ranks do you hold that gives you the right to be the expert and be careful what you pick to say as well jsut be careful as to date you haven't shown that you really understand things at all so pray do tell what ranks do you hold



We can't really do the "what ranks do you hold" thing. We all come from different ranking systems, organizations and peoples.

Besides, if we did, us really old F's would get all harumph, harumph.....before we started laughing and spilled our Bosco.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> That's completely skirting the questions I directly asked and in no way answers them.



You asked for evidence. The fact that MMA is composed almost entirely of martial arts where kata isn't emphasized or even practiced IS the evidence you seek. The fact that we have yet to see any MMA fighter emerge from a traditional MA base loaded with forms practice further supports that evidence. The only one that comes close would be Machida, but even he wasn't breaking out Uchi-Ukes when he fought.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> No, you didn't fix it in any way whatsoever in the slightest.
> 
> What you did there was to utterly misunderstand and misinterpret my entire point.



Well it seems at least one other person read it the way I did. What is the hidden point then?


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> Well it seems at least one other person read it the way I did. What is the hidden point then?



It's not hidden.

There are 'arts' that focus entirely on 'kata' and don't demonstrably produce good fighters.

There are 'arts' that have no traditional kata at all, look a bit 'martial' to an outsider and don't demonstrably produce good fighters.

Kata or lack thereof isn't a deciding factor.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> You asked for evidence. The fact that MMA is composed almost entirely of martial arts where kata isn't emphasized or even practiced IS the evidence you seek. The fact that we have yet to see any MMA fighter emerge from a traditional MA base loaded with forms practice further supports that evidence. The only one that comes close would be Machida, but even he wasn't breaking out Uchi-Ukes when he fought.



A lot of the arts that traditionally fed into "mixed martial arts" were those that practiced kata/forms/patterns.

Nowadays, it's become it's own thing.

I contacted a couple of local MMA places a few months back - I'm not allowed to play until I sign up and pay due to insurance and stuff.

So, I can't exactly take my TKD into MMA without 'doing' MMA.

Kind of no evidence at all if you ask me.

Add to that, a quick Google for "MMA taekwondo fighters" and "MMA karate fighters" and that sort of thing brings up a fair few results. Again, evidence destroyed.

Also, MMA isn't the gold standard of everything.


So, again, Do you know of a kyokoshin school that doesn't practice kata and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?

I'll even open it up to give you more of a chance.

Do you know of any tma school that has ditched kata and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> That's completely skirting the questions I directly asked and in no way answers them.
> 
> I'll try again...
> 
> Do you know of a kyokoshin school that doesn't practice kata and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?


I appreciate your point but I think you're being overly specific and the result is specious.  Kyokushin karate incorporates kata.  If it didn't, it could be suggested that it is no longer kyokushin . 

but the same could be said about the white gi.  What if I said, "do you know of a kyokushin school that doesn't wear white gi and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?"

My answer would be the same, which is to acknowledge that the white gi is part of the style and also kind of irrelevant to the skill of the fighters.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I appreciate your point but I think you're being overly specific and the result is specious.  Kyokushin karate incorporates kata.  If it didn't, it could be suggested that it is no longer kyokushin .
> 
> but the same could be said about the white gi.  What if I said, "do you know of a kyokushin school that doesn't wear white gi and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?"
> 
> My answer would be the same, which is to acknowledge that the white gi is part of the style and also kind of irrelevant to the skill of the fighters.



But it's a relevant question in the context of the discussion.

It was said that kata detracts from fighting skill.

Then it was said that kyokoshin produces good fighters despite it using kata.

So, if kata detracts from fighting skill there surely must be at least one instance where people who practice everything about kyokoshin minus the kata are on a yet higher level.

Or does that not require any evidence to be true?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I may have learned more forms (> 50) than everybody here in this forum. If I just do each and every of my forms once a day, I won't have any time left to train anything else.


I wouldn't train every form everyday.  There's just no reason to do it, because techniques repeat.  I'm pretty sure that your 50+ forms doesn't have techniques that are 100% unique that don't show up in other forms.    Because of this you can do a set of 10 forms on one day and another set on the other day.  After you do 10 forms you'll still have time for the other training.   I know far less than that and I'm not even trying to do every form every day.  Like you stated before in today's society, there's just not enough time. 

I want to other stuff as well.  There has to be some balance.  Unless you are trying to get a Professional Martial Arts Form Performance Certification (yes I know it doesn't exist) then there's just no need to give that much into something while ignore other things in life.  There's more to life than just Martial Arts.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> But it's a relevant question in the context of the discussion.
> 
> It was said that kata detracts from fighting skill.
> 
> Then it was said that kyokoshin produces good fighters despite it using kata.
> 
> So, if kata detracts from fighting skill there surely must be at least one instance where people who practice everything about kyokoshin minus the kata are on a yet higher level.
> 
> Or does that not require any evidence to be true?


I'm sorry.  I havebt seen anyone suggest that kata makes someone a worse fighter.   Only that there's no evidence it makes one a better fighter.   

The only way I can think of to demonstrate that kata detracts from training is to show competent fighters become incompetent, which would be hard to do.

What is relatively easy to see are thousands of fighters who can demonstrate practical fighting skill who don't do kata.  In other words, it is relatively easy (imo) to see several common traits between  kyokushin karate and, say, muay Thai.  You can also see that ither styles, like ninjutsu, do not share these traits.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> A lot of the arts that traditionally fed into "mixed martial arts" were those that practiced kata/forms/patterns.



It isn't close to being "a lot".



> Nowadays, it's become it's own thing.
> 
> I contacted a couple of local MMA places a few months back - I'm not allowed to play until I sign up and pay due to insurance and stuff.
> 
> So, I can't exactly take my TKD into MMA without 'doing' MMA.
> 
> Kind of no evidence at all if you ask me.
> 
> Add to that, a quick Google for "MMA taekwondo fighters" and "MMA karate fighters" and that sort of thing brings up a fair few results. Again, evidence destroyed.



I do believe that I said that they come from arts that either don't emphasize kata, or don't practice kata.



> Also, MMA isn't the gold standard of everything.



Considering that MMA fighters are currently flattening traditional martial artists, I would say that it is the gold standard until something changes.




> So, again, Do you know of a kyokoshin school that doesn't practice kata and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?
> 
> I'll even open it up to give you more of a chance.
> 
> Do you know of any tma school that has ditched kata and as a result produces a higher number of better fighters?



Not quite, but there are examples of descendant styles producing better fighters than their parent styles. One such example would be Japanese Jiujitsu vs Brazilian Jiujitsu.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I'm sorry. I havebt seen anyone suggest that kata makes someone a worse fighter. Only that there's no evidence it makes one a better fighter



Well



Hanzou said:


> there's little evidence to show that kata/forms training makes you a better fighter, and *in fact the evidence appears to show that the opposite is the case*



I've made the relevant bit bold for you.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> What is relatively easy to see are thousands of fighters who can demonstrate practical fighting skill who don't do kata. In other words, it is relatively easy (imo) to see several common traits between kyokushin karate and, say, muay Thai.



But kyokoshin do kata.

So, those common traits simply reinforce my statement that kata or lack thereof does not define any outcome.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Considering that MMA fighters are currently flattening traditional martial artists, I would say that it is the gold standard until something changes.



But to expand on this, and where you said not many TMA people have come through MMA competition to do well...

I haven't seen or heard of a single instance where an MMA fighter has done well in a tkd competition, or a push hands challenge.

So from that, and using your specifications for good - we can conclude that MMA is not as effective as those TMA, because no MMA person has won in those circumstances.

Oh but wait, they don't train for those rules...


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> It is good to see schools like this begin to advertise what they teach on the web. I think it is also good to see what they teach so that I can avoid these schools like the plague.
> 
> Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?
> 
> I see women in the video, and I just shudder to think of a woman attempting this stuff against a larger person trying to take advantage of them.
> 
> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.



Like all long threads.....things get lost and new ideas morph into arguments. Let's look at hanzou's OP and what he said...
_
because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?
_
I have also experienced that to be true.

He also said, 
_
This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.
_
I so applaud this. We have communicated with, and sparred against and alongside_, _so many arts. It's fantastic and helped formed what we are today. And formed so many martial friends I can't even count them.

Somehow this got turned into a threatening and anger filled debate. Threads can be funny that way sometime.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> But kyokoshin do kata.



Which is offset by this:


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Which is offset by this:



Offset by or augmented by?

Or even - is that augmented by the kata practice?

That's what I'm getting at, and you are nowhere near answering.

Probably because the answer doesn't exist.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> But to expand on this, and where you said not many TMA people have come through MMA competition to do well...
> 
> I haven't seen or heard of a single instance where an MMA fighter has done well in a tkd competition, or a push hands challenge.
> 
> So from that, and using your specifications for good - we can conclude that MMA is not as effective as those TMA, because no MMA person has won in those circumstances.
> 
> Oh but wait, they don't train for those rules...



It isn't just MMA competitions where MMA guys are coming out on top, it's also in the challenge matches as well where the rules are agreed upon by both parties.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Which is offset by this:



I hope the guy that was testing was the guy still standing.


----------



## pdg

Buka said:


> Somehow this got turned into a threatening and anger filled debate. Threads can be funny that way sometime.



I have no idea who might be angry 

Certainly not me, I'm quite enjoying myself.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Offset by or augmented by?
> 
> Or even - is that augmented by the kata practice?
> 
> That's what I'm getting at, and you are nowhere near answering.
> 
> Probably because the answer doesn't exist.



Offset. Kyokushin's full-contact sparring system is different than other types of karate. They get their reputation from that sparring system, not from their kata practice. Shotokan contains pretty much the exact same forms as Kyokushin, and it certainly doesn't have the reputation that Kyokushin has.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> I hope the guy that was testing was the guy still standing.



Nope.  However, at the end you can hear his peers demanding that he get up and not give up. This guy just fought through 40 guys full contact and they're demanding that he get off his *** and stand up. That's how those crazy SOBs develop their fighting spirit.

Yeah, that's a crew I'm not messing with....


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Offset. Kyokushin's full-contact sparring system is different than other types of karate. They get their reputation from that sparring system, not from their kata practice. Shotokan contains pretty much the exact same forms as Kyokushin, and it certainly doesn't have the reputation that Kyokushin has.



But that doesn't show in any way that kata practice detracts from fighting skill, which is the overriding implication of this statement:



Hanzou said:


> there's little evidence to show that kata/forms training makes you a better fighter, and in fact the evidence appears to show that the opposite is the case.



What it shows is that a system can be improved from a fighting ability standpoint by putting some extra emphasis on the actual fighting part, not by subtracting a different part - which I'm not even attempting to challenge because that much I agree with.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> But that doesn't show in any way that kata practice detracts from fighting skill, which is the overriding implication of this statement:
> 
> What it shows is that a system can be improved from a fighting ability standpoint by putting some extra emphasis on the actual fighting part, not by subtracting a different part - which I'm not even attempting to challenge because that much I agree with.



Except we've already agreed that an overemphasis on kata practice IS detrimental to fighting ability. So if a martial arts school focuses on kata/forms more than learning practical fighting skills, their fighting skill will be diminished.

Meanwhile, styles that have removed kata completely have no adverse effects.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Except we've already agreed that an overemphasis on kata practice IS detrimental to fighting ability. So if a martial arts school focuses on kata/forms more than learning practical fighting skills, their fighting skill will be diminished.
> 
> Meanwhile, styles that have removed kata completely have no adverse effects.



But overemphasis wasn't your initial argument.

You said "emphasis" and even went so far as to say they're entirely useless.

Useless and detracting by being present is what I disagree with.

I have a personal example for you - based on me.

I do TKD, and I practice patterns.

I also do (but much less) kickboxing where there are no patterns (just practiced combinations, which could be considered mini patterns but I'll disregard that).

Now, I spar with both sets of people. Generally speaking I think I look like a tkd person when sparring (I'm talking ITF btw, which is different to KKW stuff like you see on the Olympics).

I can beat some of the people from both disciplines, and others from both disciplines can beat me.

I can make bits of patterns work 'live'.

To my mind, it's more down to the artist than than the art.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> But overemphasis wasn't your initial argument.



You were asking how kata can detract from fighting ability. Overemphasizing it is one way it can do that.



> You said "emphasis" and even went so far as to say they're entirely useless.
> 
> Useless and detracting by being present is what I disagree with.



If we agree that focusing too much on kata detracts from fighting skill, and Martial Arts that don't practice kata at all suffer no adverse effects, that pretty much shows that kata practice has a potential negative impact on fighting ability.



> To my mind, it's more down to the artist than than the art.



True, but how that artist is trained matters as well. If you train in bullshido for decades you'll never be as good as you could have been if you spent that time training in something legit.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> But kyokoshin do kata.
> 
> So, those common traits simply reinforce my statement that kata or lack thereof does not define any outcome.


I’m sorry.   I’m confused.  Are you conceding that kata is a benign trait?  Not harmful but not demonstrably helpful?


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> But that doesn't show in any way that kata practice detracts from fighting skill, which is the overriding implication of this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> What it shows is that a system can be improved from a fighting ability standpoint by putting some extra emphasis on the actual fighting part, not by subtracting a different part - which I'm not even attempting to challenge because that much I agree with.


Once again, I’m confused by the way you’re using “detracts.”  Are you suggesting that hanzou thinks kata will make you worse at fighting?


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> You were asking how kata can detract from fighting ability. Overemphasizing it is one way it can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> If we agree that focusing too much on kata detracts from fighting skill, and Martial Arts that don't practice kata at all suffer no adverse effects, that pretty much shows that kata practice has a potential negative impact on fighting ability.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but how that artist is trained matters as well. If you train in bullshido for decades you'll never be as good as you could have been if you spent that time training in something legit.


I’m genuinely trying to track this thing.   Are you saying doing kata will make a competent fighter incompetent?   It seems not.   I take your argument to be that overemphasis on kata can lead to neglecting things that actually build skill.  So, it’s not the doing of kata that’s leading to incompetence.   It’s the doing kata to the exclusion of doing other things, like fitness, sparring, and fighting.   Do I have it right?


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Once again, I’m confused by the way you’re using “detracts.”  Are you suggesting that hanzou thinks kata will make you worse at fighting?



Considering he said there is evidence to suggest it makes you worse, yes.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> So, it’s not the doing of kata that’s leading to incompetence. It’s the doing kata to the exclusion of doing other things, like fitness, sparring, and fighting. Do I have it right?



If that was what he said from the beginning then I wouldn't be in this part of the discussion...


----------



## JowGaWolf

You guys are still going rounds with Hanzou?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> You guys are still going rounds with Hanzou?


I’m just trying to understand what’s going on.   I think I’m about halfway there.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> Considering he said there is evidence to suggest it makes you worse, yes.


I think what was actually said is that putting a heavy focus on kata is basically a waste of time you could be using for something else.

I see no reason why there can't be time for both.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Like all long threads.....things get lost and new ideas morph into arguments. Let's look at hanzou's OP and what he said...
> _
> because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?
> _
> I have also experienced that to be true.
> 
> He also said,
> _
> This is why sparring and communicating with other styles is important. It would be great if places like this allowed a wrestler or boxer into their ranks to pressure test what they are doing. Such pressure testing would shed away the nonsense, and improve the style overall.
> _
> I so applaud this. We have communicated with, and sparred against and alongside_, _so many arts. It's fantastic and helped formed what we are today. And formed so many martial friends I can't even count them.
> 
> Somehow this got turned into a threatening and anger filled debate. Threads can be funny that way sometime.


Someone’s angry?


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I’m genuinely trying to track this thing.   Are you saying doing kata will make a competent fighter incompetent?



LoL! No, of course not.



> It seems not.   I take your argument to be that overemphasis on kata can lead to neglecting things that actually build skill.  So, it’s not the doing of kata that’s leading to incompetence.   It’s the doing kata to the exclusion of doing other things, like fitness, sparring, and fighting.   Do I have it right?



Correct. Think of it like alcohol, a little sip now and then won't hurt you. Heck, it might even help a bit. However if you drink too much, it could kill you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> I haven't seen or heard of a single instance where an MMA fighter has done well in a tkd competition, or a push hands challenge....


One day a stranger knocked on my front door. He wanted to challenge me in Taiji push hand in my living room. I told him that I don't do Taiji push hand (even if I have trained Taiji since I was 7), but I don't mind to spar or wrestle with him. He said that he had bad knee and could not spar or wrestle any more.

Who was wrong in this picture? For me to refuse to play Taiji push hand with him, or for him to refuse to spar/wrestle with me?

The reason that I don't play Taiji push hand with him because I had bad experience before. One day I was training myself in the park. A Taiji instructor walked toward me and wanted to play push hand with me. When I used my

- hand to grab on his arm, he said, "No grabbing".
- leg to hook his leg, he said, "No leg".
- head lock on him (my bread and butter move), he said, "No brute force".

When he pushed me, I used wheeling step to spin my body out of his pushing path, he said "You have moved your leg and you lose."

What make you think that a MMA guy will be interest in Taiji push hand?


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I’m sorry.   I’m confused.  Are you conceding that kata is a benign trait?  Not harmful but not demonstrably helpful?



I'm saying it depends on your viewpoint.

From my perspective, it's far from benign - it's pretty much essential.

Today, what with it not being ad1206, people have choice in what they do. There's a reason I choose to do 3-6 tkd classes per week, but only 1-3 kickboxing ones - and to take it further, zero lessons per week in boxing/MMA/BJJ/km/other, which are all within striking distance...

If it was all about "dem fite skillz innit bruv" then I'd probably be doing something else. I refuse to believe that of the millions of MAists around the world that I'm entirely unique, so others must be the same.

How many of those good kyokoshin fighters would have stuck with the training if there was no kata involved? I mean, it's highly likely they could have just done MMA instead for no greater inconvenience or cost...

I'm at best a mediocre fighter, but I'm far better than if I'd done no training.

Therefore, kata (or whatever term you use) makes some people better fighters.



(Caveat that kata to the exclusion of all else is no better from a fight perspective than tennis. But also the adverts of "secret moves to end any fight in 3-5 seconds" are probably even worse, even though they concentrate on fight and exclude kata.)


----------



## O'Malley

I've read the koryu part of the discussion and would like to raise a point about sparring in traditional martial arts.

While some koryu had a heavy emphasis on kata, they also sparred a lot in some form or another. Some koryu had a really heavy emphasis on sparring while doing very little kata.

Successful traditional martial artists have always tested their skills, be it by brawling in the streets, sparring under various rulesets (e.g. guys in Daito ryu and early aikido that did sumo for fun) or exchanging with other martial traditions in various ways, from friendly exchanges to gruesome duels.

Fighting experience is needed in order to be effective and traditional masters knew it. I'd be curious to hear opinions from Takeda, M. Ueshiba, Kano, Funakoshi, Oyama or Mifune on sparring. And I'm pretty sure the situation was the same in Chinese martial arts as well (maybe someone that's more informed than me can confirm this).

Kata have their own rationales as training methods but I am convinced that sparring is necessary.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What make you think that a MMA guy will be interest in Taiji push hand?



Well apparently everyone else has an interest in beating someone else at MMA, so surely the interest must be reciprocal...


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I've read the koryu part of the discussion and would like to raise a point about sparring in traditional martial arts.
> 
> While some koryu had a heavy emphasis on kata, they also sparred a lot in some form or another. Some koryu had a really heavy emphasis on sparring while doing very little kata.
> 
> Successful traditional martial artists have always tested their skills, be it by brawling in the streets, sparring under various rulesets (e.g. guys in Daito ryu and early aikido that did sumo for fun) or exchanging with other martial traditions in various ways, from friendly exchanges to gruesome duels.
> 
> Fighting experience is needed in order to be effective and traditional masters knew it. I'd be curious to hear opinions from Takeda, M. Ueshiba, Kano, Funakoshi, Oyama or Mifune on sparring. And I'm pretty sure the situation was the same in Chinese martial arts as well (maybe someone that's more informed than me can confirm this).
> 
> Kata have their own rationales as training methods but I am convinced that sparring is necessary.



I don't put much stock in stories of old masters defeating hordes of Ninjas and Manchu armies. Funakoshi for example opposed sparring, so I seriously doubt he was much of a fighter. In fact his staunch opposition to sparring is what led many like Mas Oyama to leave Shotokan and form other karate styles. Everything I've seen out of Ueshiba brings his supposed combat prowess into question. Most of it borders on the fantastical, and it sounds more like folk tales instead of hard history. Kano also wasn't much of a fighter. He typically had his "Guardians of the Kodokan" take care of his heavy lifting.

The few videos of seen of old Chinese martial art masters leaves much to be desired. Frankly, I think @JowGaWolf could wipe the floor with most of them. He has displayed better functional fighting skill than they do, and he's not even a professional fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a wrestling coach and you teach 200 different throws to your students. How do you help your students to remember it? I mean just "remember" it and nothing more. It's just like a text book and has nothing to do with training.
> 
> You can use approach such as:
> 
> 1. 1 dictionary - label as throw 1, throw 2, ... throw 199, throw 200 (this is do nothing approach).
> 2. 6 dictionaries - divide throws into 4 sides and 2 doors and create 6 different categories.
> 3. 1 book - link 200 throws into 1 form.
> 4. 6 books - link 200 throws into 6 forms (4 sides and 2 doors).
> 
> Which method do you prefer (1, 2, 3, or 4)? Why?


Personally, I don't think there are 200 different throws in a situation like that. There are probably 25 groups of throws, and that's a lot easier to remember. If they're learning by principles, they need a primary throw in each group to learn/remember the principles, then the others in that group become variations on the same idea. I could teach a narrow-stance hip throw (pretty common) and a wide-stance hip throw as the same throw. Some mechanics change, as do some vulnerabilities and such, but it's easier to learn the second as a variation of the first than as a separate technique. Eventually, some of the 200 just show up as blends of two they already know - mechanics from one applied to the position of another.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I may be missing your point, but there are literally thousands of excellent fighters who do not use kata training in combat sports throughout the world.


I think his point was the use of "despite", which implies that the kata are a negative factor. If that were true, the removal of the kata (with no other substantive changes) should lead to improvement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't think it is a distinction to be made from kata though.
> 
> I haven't seen a lock your doors or deescalation kata. So unless it helps in some mysterious way it is designed to assist with fighting.


Agreed. Though maybe I'll start telling students one movement in kata is slamming the door and locking it. But you have to come to bunkai training to learn that application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> For sure, there is a human element.  I alluded to this in the analogy of the guy who lost over 200 lbs.
> 
> Look at it like this.  from an efficiency or practical standpoint, the metric is about gains.  I can build a chair with hand tools or with power tools. At the end, the chair is identical, but created in a fraction of the time using power tools.  So, the argument in favor of hand tools is that there is value in the process.  And this might be true.  But in the end, you can't argue in favor of either process if, at the end, you don't have a chair.  You can't say, "it's about the art of using hand tools...,"  and never produce a usable piece of furniture.


Agreed, for training where people are working to develop fighting skills. There are folks who simply want to learn new physical skills, with no real concern about being able to apply them. That'd be analogous to someone wanting to learn to use hand tools, with no desire to build that chair. There have been times when I just wanted to learn a cool new technique because it felt good, so I guess that'd be like me wanting to learn to buy and restore an antique plane, knowing I won't ever really want to use it where power tools give me a better result. And sometimes I grab my granddad's hand auger, though it's never a better answer for me. I have to admit, I can't really see doing all that without some practical thought in mind, though, at least part of the time.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I don't put much stock in stories of old masters defeating hordes of Ninjas and Manchu armies. Funakoshi for example opposed sparring, so I seriously doubt he was much of a fighter. In fact his staunch opposition to sparring is what led many like Mas Oyama to leave Shotokan and form other karate styles. Everything I've seen out of Ueshiba brings his supposed combat prowess into question. Most of it borders on the fantastical, and it sounds more like folk tales instead of hard history. Kano also wasn't much of a fighter. He typically had his "Guardians of the Kodokan" take care of his heavy lifting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The few videos of seen of old Chinese martial art masters leaves much to be desired. Frankly, I think @JowGaWolf could wipe the floor with most of them. He has displayed better functional fighting skill than they do, and he's not even a professional fighter.




Everything you have seen of Ueshiba Morihei, you are aware of his background ? 

So what are you basing that on?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This discussion is getting clear and clear after these many posts.
> 
> If you love form training -> you don't like live work
> If you love live work -> you don't like form training.
> 
> Is there a such person who train form 20 times daily and also spar 15 rounds daily? I have never seen such person exists.
> 
> So this discussion is very clear. Our time is limited. Most of the time, we just don't have the luxury to do both


That's a gross overstatement. I actually really enjoy both forms and live work. I've always liked live work, but discovered a love of forms in the last couple of years. Number of repetitions doesn't define love. I'll never balance the two in equal amounts in my training - that has nothing to do with how much I like them. Some days, I just want to run forms and enjoy the movement and challenge of them. Other days, I want to beat the snot out of a heavy bag. Other days, I just want to get some strength exercise. And some days, I just want to have some fun trying stuff out against someone else, to see what we can manage against each other. It's all fun.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> I'm saying it depends on your viewpoint.
> 
> From my perspective, it's far from benign - it's pretty much essential.
> 
> Today, what with it not being ad1206, people have choice in what they do. There's a reason I choose to do 3-6 tkd classes per week, but only 1-3 kickboxing ones - and to take it further, zero lessons per week in boxing/MMA/BJJ/km/other, which are all within striking distance...
> 
> If it was all about "dem fite skillz innit bruv" then I'd probably be doing something else. I refuse to believe that of the millions of MAists around the world that I'm entirely unique, so others must be the same.
> 
> How many of those good kyokoshin fighters would have stuck with the training if there was no kata involved? I mean, it's highly likely they could have just done MMA instead for no greater inconvenience or cost...
> 
> I'm at best a mediocre fighter, but I'm far better than if I'd done no training.
> 
> Therefore, kata (or whatever term you use) makes some people better fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> (Caveat that kata to the exclusion of all else is no better from a fight perspective than tennis. But also the adverts of "secret moves to end any fight in 3-5 seconds" are probably even worse, even though they concentrate on fight and exclude kata.)


I think we are into some very questionable territory.   It's entirely speculative.  For example, I could just as easily suggest that many folks are drawn to kyokushin because it fills the gaps better than other styles of karate precisely because it has much in common with styles like muay Thai.

Its also likely that some don't like or hate kata but just view it as intrinsic.   It's also possible that people learn to enjoy kata even if they privately acknowledge it's not all that helpful . 

These are all very speculative and not based on anything substantial.  However, we can see that kyokushin has a significant overlap with styles like muay thai that create some visible, concrete differences (which relate to demonstrable fighting skill)  between it and other styles of karate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> You asked for evidence. The fact that MMA is composed almost entirely of martial arts where kata isn't emphasized or even practiced IS the evidence you seek. The fact that we have yet to see any MMA fighter emerge from a traditional MA base loaded with forms practice further supports that evidence. The only one that comes close would be Machida, but even he wasn't breaking out Uchi-Ukes when he fought.


What he's suggesting is a search for specific kinds of evidence, that go beyond that correlation. When we are properly skeptical, we have to look at obvious evidence and ask what other evidence would be less prone to confirmation bias. We also have to look for conflicting evidence - purpose look to see what opposes our current position. If we do that with kata, it becomes reasonably clear that kata is not inherently negative (because we have good examples like kyokushin where it seems they produce similar results whether they use kata or not), but it's likely that focusing too much on it has a negative effect. 

I have thoughts as to why that focus has the apparent negative effect, and I think a lot of it is non-causal correlation: people who like kata and are drawn to programs that teach using it are probably less interested in competition and strong-contact sparring. That's my theory, and it would be self-compounding, but it's hard to get any real evidence to support or counter that theory, so I'd classify it as a reasonable explanation at best.


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> I hope the guy that was testing was the guy still standing.



Yep, but somehow I don't get the idea that was so.  I must admit I wonder about a black belt test that apparently only grades a testee's ability to take punishment.  I've never seen or even heard of that before.  Still, I would expect it would be like other areas being repeatedly subjected to being hit to improve pain resistance.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think his point was the use of "despite", which implies that the kata are a negative factor. If that were true, the removal of the kata (with no other substantive changes) should lead to improvement.


this might be true if kata is considered as an activity similar to yoga . If you yoga in addition to training, great.   If you yoga in place of training it might negatively impact skill development .  this is the logic.  

The problem I have with this is that its difficult to quantify, and could just as easily go the other direction.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, for training where people are working to develop fighting skills. There are folks who simply want to learn new physical skills, with no real concern about being able to apply them. That'd be analogous to someone wanting to learn to use hand tools, with no desire to build that chair. There have been times when I just wanted to learn a cool new technique because it felt good, so I guess that'd be like me wanting to learn to buy and restore an antique plane, knowing I won't ever really want to use it where power tools give me a better result. And sometimes I grab my granddad's hand auger, though it's never a better answer for me. I have to admit, I can't really see doing all that without some practical thought in mind, though, at least part of the time.


Can we all agree that we acknowledge and respect people who train for reasons outside of learning to fight and are not talking about them in this conversation?  It's combersome to re-acknowledge this point in every thread about developing fighting skills .


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Can we all agree that we acknowledge and respect people who train for reasons outside of learning to fight and are not talking about them in this conversation?  It's combersome to re-acknowledge this point in every thread about developing fighting skills .




I would agree with you there 

I'd add I don't think Kata were ever meant to develop fighting skills they were and are there for a wholly different reason in the arts that use them


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Everything you have seen of Ueshiba Morihei, you are aware of his background ?
> 
> So what are you basing that on?



I'm aware of his background, and the legends surrounding him. I simply don't buy them. The no-touch stuff he was doing doesn't help matters much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Offset. Kyokushin's full-contact sparring system is different than other types of karate. They get their reputation from that sparring system, not from their kata practice. Shotokan contains pretty much the exact same forms as Kyokushin, and it certainly doesn't have the reputation that Kyokushin has.


But does that mean that kata are a negative, or simply that they are not a defining characteristic? If two gyms use the same boxing footwork drills, and one of them generally sucks in the ring while the other does well, does that make the footwork drill a negative that the better school is overcoming? Or is it something that only produces good results when combined with other effective drills?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Except we've already agreed that an overemphasis on kata practice IS detrimental to fighting ability. So if a martial arts school focuses on kata/forms more than learning practical fighting skills, their fighting skill will be diminished.
> 
> Meanwhile, styles that have removed kata completely have no adverse effects.


I think an overemphasis (even ignoring the implication of the word, itself) on anything would do that. Spend too much time on the heavy bag - so much that it detracts from footwork drills, defensive work, and sparring - and a boxer doesn't get good results.

I don't see anyone arguing that there's no such thing as too much kata practice.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I'm aware of his background, and the legends surrounding him. I simply don't buy them. The no-touch stuff he was doing doesn't help matters much.




You don't buy the legends ............oh ok I suggest that you do a bit a research and you might find that it not legend at all.

And the Ki stuff well I won't even bother going into that and the why's of it as you really do not have any idea of that man at all. You are aware to that the footage you are referring to was taken when he was in his 70's and later even the earliest I know of was in his 50's and that was very different to what you are alluding to ................oh and as you referred a while back about Daito-ryu ... go look at their soden (from the Hisa lineage)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Someone’s angry?


Frankly, I'm pissed. No idea why - I think it's something @Buka said.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> It's not hidden.
> 
> There are 'arts' that focus entirely on 'kata' and don't demonstrably produce good fighters.
> 
> There are 'arts' that have no traditional kata at all, look a bit 'martial' to an outsider and don't demonstrably produce good fighters.
> 
> Kata or lack thereof isn't a deciding factor.



Yes. I get that, and I agree to a point. My point was that most of the styles known for producing competent fighters tend to not contain any katas.

Plus I don't know if taebo really counts as a style. Blanks is a karate guy that made his own karate workout to sell videos to soccer mom's, and it panned out pretty well for him.

Edit - also, taebo is pretty much all katas isnt it?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> And the system is what defines what you train. Not training enough striking in BJJ isn't my fault.
> 
> It is silly to assume otherwise.


No. That is the most fallacious nonsense I've ever heard.

The teacher determines what a class trains and as I described earlier, like any choice it is based on numerous factors. 

Yes a given style will have traditions in training but they are not set in stone. 

The idea that style X trains one way in every case is so laughably absurdly far from observable reality it can only be believed because of some benefit to the believer.
Perhaps the warm glow of smug superiority? 

Just to illustrate the point, I have never trained at two shotokan clubs with identical training methods.

I have never been to a thai/kick boxing club that did anything I hadn't done in Shotokan.

I've never encountered a kungfu club that did not spar regularly.

The club I've seen the least free sparring in was a boxing club.

None of the above should be true if style is solely what determines training.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Can I borrow Floyd if those guys show up over here?


 you need to find your own


gpseymour said:


> What he's suggesting is a search for specific kinds of evidence, that go beyond that correlation. When we are properly skeptical, we have to look at obvious evidence and ask what other evidence would be less prone to confirmation bias. We also have to look for conflicting evidence - purpose look to see what opposes our current position. If we do that with kata, it becomes reasonably clear that kata is not inherently negative (because we have good examples like kyokushin where it seems they produce similar results whether they use kata or not), but it's likely that focusing too much on it has a negative effect.
> 
> I have thoughts as to why that focus has the apparent negative effect, and I think a lot of it is non-causal correlation: people who like kata and are drawn to programs that teach using it are probably less interested in competition and strong-contact sparring. That's my theory, and it would be self-compounding, but it's hard to get any real evidence to support or counter that theory, so I'd classify it as a reasonable explanation at best.


Well I have my anecdotal evidence, I was eye rolling ly sceptical about kata, but was presented with over welming first hand experiance, that it's extremely effective at changing, reinforcing movement patterns. The only way it can actually have a negative eliment, is if the movement patterns it's teaching are fundamentally flawed,


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> But does that mean that kata are a negative, or simply that they are not a defining characteristic? If two gyms use the same boxing footwork drills, and one of them generally sucks in the ring while the other does well, does that make the footwork drill a negative that the better school is overcoming? Or is it something that only produces good results when combined with other effective drills?



Comparing a footwork drill to kata is simply a bad comparison though. Drills are not held in the same level of esteem in TMA schools as kata is. It's not the "doing" that is the problem, its the emphasis placed upon them. When I sparred against a boxer and got my butt handed to me, my karate instructor told me I was outclassed because I didn't understand the nature of karate via kata. In reality, I was outclassed because that boxer was doing drills and sparring that actually reinforced his fighting methodology. Meanwhile, I was doing antiquated stances and techniques that will never be used in a fight.

You can get by with some sloppy footwork. You can't get by if you're spending a lot of time learning useless techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> No. That is the most fallacious nonsense I've ever heard.
> 
> The teacher determines what a class trains and as I described earlier, like any choice it is based on numerous factors.
> 
> Yes a given style will have traditions in training but they are not set in stone.
> 
> The idea that style X trains one way in every case is so laughably absurdly far from observable reality it can only be believed because of some benefit to the believer.
> Perhaps the warm glow of smug superiority?
> 
> Just to illustrate the point, I have never trained at two shotokan clubs with identical training methods.
> 
> I have never been to a thai/kick boxing club that did anything I hadn't done in Shotokan.
> 
> I've never encountered a kungfu club that did not spar regularly.
> 
> The club I've seen the least free sparring in was a boxing club.
> 
> None of the above should be true if style is solely what determines training.


By the comment DB made, each teacher has his own system, to an extent. It'd be entirely possible for someone to add some strikes into BJJ, without messing much with the core of the art. But in a standard BJJ program, strikes aren't much present, so it's not the students' fault they aren't really training strikes in that system. So, "the system" doesn't have to be the same as "the art". At least, I think that's what he was getting at.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you need to find your own


Unhelpful bastard.



> Well I have my anecdotal evidence, I was eye rolling ly sceptical about kata, but was presented with over welming first hand experiance, that it's extremely effective at changing, reinforcing movement patterns. The only way it can actually have a negative eliment, is if the movement patterns it's teaching are fundamentally flawed,


Interesting. Can you give me some more detail on how the kata helped change your movement? I've been wondering if forms might be useful for helping students work to change ingrained movement patterns (like Shotokan folks starting in my program).


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You don't buy the legends ............oh ok I suggest that you do a bit a research and you might find that it not legend at all.



Do you have any evidence to support any of those stories? There's one story where his devoted students talk about O Sensei having telepathic powers, or hitting a golf ball through a wall. Then there's another story where he waved his hand and the guy was instantly thrown to the mat.

I would appreciate some accounts that don't come from such biased sources as his students or family members.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Comparing a footwork drill to kata is simply a bad comparison though. Drills are not held in the same level of esteem in TMA schools as kata is. It's not the "doing" that is the problem, its the emphasis placed upon them. When I sparred against a boxer and got my butt handed to me, my karate instructor told me I was outclassed because I didn't understand the nature of karate via kata. In reality, I was outclassed because that boxer was doing drills and sparring that actually reinforced his fighting methodology. Meanwhile, I was doing antiquated stances and techniques that will never be used in a fight.
> 
> You can get by with some sloppy footwork. You can't get by if you're spending a lot of time learning useless techniques.


The level of esteem forms are held in doesn't really change whether they are having an inherent negative impact. But you've clarified your position since I posted that, so I don't think we need to beat on this any more.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> But does that mean that kata are a negative, or simply that they are not a defining characteristic? If two gyms use the same boxing footwork drills, and one of them generally sucks in the ring while the other does well, does that make the footwork drill a negative that the better school is overcoming? Or is it something that only produces good results when combined with other effective drills?


If you're troubleshoot an issue (any issue) you are looking to isolate problems .  in this scenario, you have two gyms that both do the same thing.  The problem isnt yhe footwork drills but it could be the application of the drills or something else.  

In the case of kata, we see schools that use kata and don't that both reliably produce excellent fighters.  We can also see styles that dont reliably prodice excellebt fighters who do kata .  And finally we see that sport schools,  mma schools reliably produce excellent fighters.   The structure is there .  

Said another way, if a kyokushin school routinely produces poor fighters, that's abberant.   You could elominate the style abd start troubleshooting other things like the quality or competence of the instructor.  If a ninjutsu school produces a poor fighter, no one would be surprised at all.   Kyokushin and ninjutsu both have forms.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> No. That is the most fallacious nonsense I've ever heard.
> 
> The teacher determines what a class trains and as I described earlier, like any choice it is based on numerous factors.
> 
> Yes a given style will have traditions in training but they are not set in stone.
> 
> The idea that style X trains one way in every case is so laughably absurdly far from observable reality it can only be believed because of some benefit to the believer.
> Perhaps the warm glow of smug superiority?
> 
> Just to illustrate the point, I have never trained at two shotokan clubs with identical training methods.
> 
> I have never been to a thai/kick boxing club that did anything I hadn't done in Shotokan.
> 
> I've never encountered a kungfu club that did not spar regularly.
> 
> The club I've seen the least free sparring in was a boxing club.
> 
> None of the above should be true if style is solely what determines training.


Fwiw, when you mention that the boxing gym spars the least, that brings to mind other points ive made about the difference between training and application.   Regardless of how ofteb boxers in a boxing gym spar, if you want to be a competent boxer, you will box .


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Do you have any evidence to support any of those stories? There's one story where his devoted students talk about O Sensei having telepathic powers, or hitting a golf ball through a wall. Then there's another story where he waved his hand and the guy was instantly thrown to the mat.
> 
> I would appreciate some accounts that don't come from such biased sources as his students or family members.



I am not talking about what his students are saying lol.....jeez you really do need to do more research lol ... you are picking out things that you want to it your ideas and editing out the bits that do not fit 

I'll give you a clue to one thing I mentioned in the last post to you Asahi newspaper ok start from there and go back


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Comparing a footwork drill to kata is simply a bad comparison though. Drills are not held in the same level of esteem in TMA schools as kata is. It's not the "doing" that is the problem, its the emphasis placed upon them. When I sparred against a boxer and got my butt handed to me, my karate instructor told me I was outclassed because I didn't understand the nature of karate via kata. In reality, I was outclassed because that boxer was doing drills and sparring that actually reinforced his fighting methodology. Meanwhile, I was doing antiquated stances and techniques that will never be used in a fight.
> 
> You can get by with some sloppy footwork. You can't get by if you're spending a lot of time learning useless techniques.




Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........lol 

Footwork drills can be part of more advanced Kata or they can be considered Kihon Waza (yes I am gonna use the terms I know as in another tread and this one you filp them in and out as you please lol) 

And if the footwork is part of the Kata then yes it is kinda important as if ya get it wrong you could end up on ya *** looking very silly 

Jeez you really really really do not understand what Kata are what they meant for and what they transition into etc etc etc


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> I am not talking about what his students are saying lol.....jeez you really do need to do more research lol ... you are picking out things that you want to it your ideas and editing out the bits that do not fit
> 
> I'll give you a clue to one thing I mentioned in the last post to you Asahi newspaper ok start from there and go back



Howabout you save us both some time and simply link me to the article in question?



now disabled said:


> Jeez you really really really do not understand what Kata are what they meant for and what they transition into etc etc etc



Yes, I've been told that before. I didn't believe it then, and I believe it even less now that I've studied a martial art that doesn't do kata at all. There's nothing magical or special about kata.


----------



## now disabled

I actually have just given my grandaughter my stick ....and to her if a dude comes to the door with a pic of Kano .......please show him what you can do lol.........and then say SEE i did the kata then the Kihon then went from there so now will ya believe that Kata are of use lol .......lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Howabout you save us both some time and simply link me to the article in question?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've been told that before. I didn't believe it then, and I believe it even less now that I've studied a martial art that doesn't do kata at all. There's nothing magical or special about kata.




Eh go to your favourite You tube and guess what you might find it there ....as for the Soden    ..... lol you are joking it is 12 volumes (six contain Ueshiba (1-6) .......... As for his History there is much written .....try Stan Pranin as a start and then go from there ....I would suggest his sons Auto biography but unless you can read japanese ......and ummm I'm sure even then you'd have issues as it not been translated


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Howabout you save us both some time and simply link me to the article in question?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've been told that before. I didn't believe it then, and I believe it even less now that I've studied a martial art that doesn't do kata at all. There's nothing magical or special about kata.




Oh and where pray tell did anyone say that Kata were magical etc .................??????????????????????


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Unhelpful bastard.
> 
> 
> Interesting. Can you give me some more detail on how the kata helped change your movement? I've been wondering if forms might be useful for helping students work to change ingrained movement patterns (like Shotokan folks starting in my program).


At it's most fundamental it started to address my right left bias, I would always push of my right foot and lead with my left, always turn to my left if I was pulling, so my dominant hand was the puller,, always turn to my right if I was going 180' and lots of others, I've stood there trying to make my body move right foot first, whilst it just moved my left or even refused to move at all, as it was so counter intuitive


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> I don't put much stock in stories of old masters defeating hordes of Ninjas and Manchu armies. Funakoshi for example opposed sparring, so I seriously doubt he was much of a fighter. In fact his staunch opposition to sparring is what led many like Mas Oyama to leave Shotokan and form other karate styles.



And yet Oyama credits Funakoshi as his biggest influence. 

The not believing in sparring thing was a political position based on the time. 
It also was not universal across his contemporaries or those students who came after him.

This in its self is more proof that style is not what determines training.


----------



## now disabled

DaveB said:


> And yet Oyama credits Funakoshi as his biggest influence.
> 
> The not believing in sparring thing was a political position based on the time.
> It also was not universal across his contemporaries or those students who came after him.
> 
> This in its self is more proof that style is not what determines training.




Your point about time is pertinent .....least I think it is ..... The occupation did have a hell of a lot to do with what was (after the ban was lifted on the Arts) actually taught and subsequently exported to the world (I am talking only Japanese here) there was an very very big shift to ummmm give Japan a face lift so to speak .... One great example is Kendo (imo) as look at what was pre war then post war it kinda different .....even what Ueshiba taught pre and during the war was and is not what was exported ....so time period yup it kinda does have an influence


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> And yet Oyama credits Funakoshi as his biggest influence.



That really doesn't contradict anything I said above.



> The not believing in sparring thing was a political position based on the time.
> It also was not universal across his contemporaries or those students who came after him.



Where did I say they did?


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> By the comment DB made, each teacher has his own system, to an extent. It'd be entirely possible for someone to add some strikes into BJJ, without messing much with the core of the art. But in a standard BJJ program, strikes aren't much present, so it's not the students' fault they aren't really training strikes in that system. So, "the system" doesn't have to be the same as "the art". At least, I think that's what he was getting at.




That again is a good point ....every teacher has his/her own style .....hence when learning if possible it worth taking classes in the same art from different teachers and absorbing into yourself the different takes on things as they can and do vary


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> By the comment DB made, each teacher has his own system, to an extent. It'd be entirely possible for someone to add some strikes into BJJ, without messing much with the core of the art. But in a standard BJJ program, strikes aren't much present, so it's not the students' fault they aren't really training strikes in that system. So, "the system" doesn't have to be the same as "the art". At least, I think that's what he was getting at.



Yes, but It's even more simple than that. 

Training is training. It's not the martial art it's training to be able to do the martial art.

Training is variable, every instructor decides for himself which and how much of each exercise to do.

Shotokan isn't a guy with a gun to an instructors family. It's not a list of training methods that you must follow exactly to.get your black belt. It's a bunch of principles that should help you beat up an assailant. You make your body and mind able to embrace and exploit those principles the best you can as an individual and as an instructor you help others do the same the best way you know how.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> That really doesn't contradict anything I said above.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say they did?



Drop bear said it.

You implied it by trying to group by style when discussing fighting ability.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> There's one story where his devoted students talk about O Sensei ---, or hitting a golf ball through a wall.



I hit a golf ball through a wall once.


Ok, it was a greenhouse wall, but it still counts...


----------



## now disabled

@Hanzou 

I have a question for you lol

Shikko  now that is a very very important part of Aikido and to an extent Daito-ryu to ...it is rooted in the past (Daito-ryu is Koryu) and as you have alluded to you do not see that any of those two arts evolve or adapt and are very very critical of them so I'll ask you if you know why that is done and for what purpose ? .......straight question and ummmmm there may be a hidden meaning lol......


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Yes, I've been told that before. I didn't believe it then, and I believe it even less now that I've studied a martial art that doesn't do kata at all. There's nothing magical or special about kata.



Magical? No.

Special? Well sometimes.

But another "depends" - what do you call special?


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I hit a golf ball through a wall once.
> 
> 
> Ok, it was a greenhouse wall, but it still counts...



LMAO ..........................................was that kata you used or was it you adapted it from the kata you were first taught lol? or ya just ummm well made a miscalculation lol


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Magical? No.
> 
> Special? Well sometimes.
> 
> But another "depends" - what do you call special?




Oh you just made me almost make a uote that would offend regarding Special lol.............being a brit you might get what I and meaning lol


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Drop bear said it.
> 
> You implied it by trying to group by style when discussing fighting ability.



If the founder of the style opposes sparring, that will filter down to his students. Clearly some students may deviate from that, but some won't. And yes, lack of sparring or contact retards fighting ability.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> If the founder of the style opposes sparring, that will filter down to his students. Clearly some students may deviate from that, but some won't. And yes, lack of sparring or contact retards fighting ability.




You as the the poster said might want to look into why he opposed it as such before jumping fully on that wagon .......and has anyone ever said that is you wanna be a fighter you must restrict sparring ??? ..............ummmmm your twisting what was said to suit your needs again me thinks


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> Frankly, I'm pissed. No idea why - I think it's something @Buka said.



I'm glad to hear that.  I was afraid it might have been something that made enough sense that everyone could relate to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> At it's most fundamental it started to address my right left bias, I would always push of my right foot and lead with my left, always turn to my left if I was pulling, so my dominant hand was the puller,, always turn to my right if I was going 180' and lots of others, I've stood there trying to make my body move right foot first, whilst it just moved my left or even refused to move at all, as it was so counter intuitive


Great, now I need to pay attention to that and see if I have a bias. You’re nothin’ but trouble.  

Seriously, I can see where drills like kata would do that, especially if you repeat movements at roughly equal measures on both sides.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Yes, but It's even more simple than that.
> 
> Training is training. It's not the martial art it's training to be able to do the martial art.
> 
> Training is variable, every instructor decides for himself which and how much of each exercise to do.
> 
> Shotokan isn't a guy with a gun to an instructors family. It's not a list of training methods that you must follow exactly to.get your black belt. It's a bunch of principles that should help you beat up an assailant. You make your body and mind able to embrace and exploit those principles the best you can as an individual and as an instructor you help others do the same the best way you know how.


That’s what I was getting at. The same art can be trained quite differently between two instructors. There is a point where we have to ask, “If nearly everyone trains art X the same way, has that training approach become a _de facto_ part of the art?”


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I hit a golf ball through a wall once.
> 
> 
> Ok, it was a greenhouse wall, but it still counts...


Does a hedge count? I’ve done that a few times.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You as the the poster said might want to look into why he opposed it as such before jumping fully on that wagon .......and has anyone ever said that is you wanna be a fighter you must restrict sparring ??? ..............ummmmm your twisting what was said to suit your needs again me thinks



I'm still waiting for you to provide an objective source that verifies O Sensei's abilities.

I guess the wait will continue....


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I'm still waiting for you to provide an objective source that verifies O Sensei's abilities.
> 
> I guess the wait will continue....




I did lol.................the clue was Asahi .....


----------



## now disabled

and per form I ask a question which does pertain to your original post/thread theme and you edit that out lol ....was it to compicated for you lol?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I'm still waiting for you to provide an objective source that verifies O Sensei's abilities.
> 
> I guess the wait will continue....



Would you prefer more clues to aid you in finding things .....it is actually time you sir. started to do some proper research instead of making claims about people based on vids made (apart from one) than werre in his latter years ...in fact one that is available was filmed in the year he passed when he was suffering from the illness that eventually killed him (and yes as you seem to like pics etc there is a death portrait of him) ....if you require other clues I will give them to you and I am not in any way misleading in the clues I am giving you ....merely making you go look so YOU sir can do the research instead of saying it all legend and myth


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Does a hedge count? I’ve done that a few times.




yup lol ......what form did ya use to get it out the hedge lol........and how much of the hedge remained lol


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That’s what I was getting at. The same art can be trained quite differently between two instructors. There is a point where we have to ask, “If nearly everyone trains art X the same way, has that training approach become a _de facto_ part of the art?”




excellent point ....really excellent as again I will say studying under different Instructors of the same art is always beneficial as then you get different takes on the same basic "idea"


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Does a hedge count? I’ve done that a few times.




I really should have clicked informative lol ......................and noted that down as if anyone plays you at golf ....to make very sure that no hedges are around as they will be no obstacle or hazard  ......you having mastered the form for getting out of same  lol.................


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Nope.  However, at the end you can hear his peers demanding that he get up and not give up. This guy just fought through 40 guys full contact and they're demanding that he get off his *** and stand up. That's how those crazy SOBs develop their fighting spirit.
> 
> Yeah, that's a crew I'm not messing with....



That's proper Karate training in my opinion.


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> That's proper Karate training in my opinion.



Back when TKD training was TKD training )), there was nothing for free.  But we weren't quite that brutal with each other, just that there were no accidents, only poor TKD which we were expected to improve.

Of course there weren't as many out of work lawyers back then either.


----------



## now disabled

oftheherd1 said:


> Back when TKD training was TKD training )), there was nothing for free.  But we weren't quite that brutal with each other, just that there were no accidents, only poor TKD which we were expected to improve.
> 
> Of course there weren't as many out of work lawyers back then either.



Or folks with vid cams or cell phones ready to post it on you tube ...


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> Does a hedge count? I’ve done that a few times.



Let's get this thread back on track.  Are you asserting that as an opinion or fact?

I only played one game in my whole life so I never attained the expertise you and PDG have.  I tried both bowling and golf.  When I bowled I got golfing scores and when I golfed I got bowling scores.  I reluctantly gave up both.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oftheherd1 said:


> Let's get this thread back on track.  Are you asserting that as an opinion or fact?
> 
> I only played one game in my whole life so I never attained the expertise you and PDG have.  I tried both bowling and golf.  When I bowled I got golfing scores and when I golfed I got bowling scores.  I reluctantly gave up both.



I always tell people I tried both once. I got a 300 bowling and a 50 golfing. But it's possible I may have mixed up which was which...


----------



## now disabled

@Hanzou 

Again This pertains to the original post you made :-

You keep saying Kata used extensively etc is basically bad and doesn't produce fighters (think that all been covered) .... You say that in some Kata there are hidden things and you don't believe that as such .... and that Kata should be stripped from TMA  (I am using your definition of TMA  not mine and even then mine is only JTMA as I know very little about others - not to my credit I may add- ) so I am going to ask you this again 

Shikko is contained in many JTMA  (again your def of TMA) and is a form and a drill and can be made into a longer kata if desired and there is a way to properly get into and out of said ....so do you thin it nonsense that Shikko is still used or practiced and do you or can you see what one it was originally? and two why it is still used and lastly what the hidden bit is about said ?


Please guys who actually know don't jump in lol.......I am trying to see if @Hanzou can actually justify what he has alluded to all thru and as it pertains to one of my arts (and I can only answer for that art) I would be interested to get his take as it is specific not wide ranging ....


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Would you prefer more clues to aid you in finding things .....it is actually time you sir. started to do some proper research instead of making claims about people based on vids made (apart from one) than werre in his latter years ...in fact one that is available was filmed in the year he passed when he was suffering from the illness that eventually killed him (and yes as you seem to like pics etc there is a death portrait of him) ....if you require other clues I will give them to you and I am not in any way misleading in the clues I am giving you ....merely making you go look so YOU sir can do the research instead of saying it all legend and myth


this isn't a research forum.  It's a discussion forum.   If you have information to share, dont be coy about it.  Just share it.  Or at least post a link to it.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That’s what I was getting at. The same art can be trained quite differently between two instructors. There is a point where we have to ask, “If nearly everyone trains art X the same way, has that training approach become a _de facto_ part of the art?”





now disabled said:


> excellent point ....really excellent as again I will say studying under different Instructors of the same art is always beneficial as then you get different takes on the same basic "idea"


I think you guys might be missing the forest for the trees.  While different instructors do make a big difference, that doesn't get to training structue, application and whether kata makes fighters better at fighting.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> @Hanzou
> 
> Again This pertains to the original post you made :-
> 
> You keep saying Kata used extensively etc is basically bad and doesn't produce fighters (think that all been covered) .... You say that in some Kata there are hidden things and you don't believe that as such .... and that Kata should be stripped from TMA  (I am using your definition of TMA  not mine and even then mine is only JTMA as I know very little about others - not to my credit I may add- ) so I am going to ask you this again
> 
> Shikko is contained in many JTMA  (again your def of TMA) and is a form and a drill and can be made into a longer kata if desired and there is a way to properly get into and out of said ....so do you thin it nonsense that Shikko is still used or practiced and do you or can you see what one it was originally? and two why it is still used and lastly what the hidden bit is about said ?



What? I'm not understanding what you're asking here.

Are you talking about this;







What about it?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Drop bear said it.
> 
> You implied it by trying to group by style when discussing fighting ability.



Tell that to Jow Gar


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Personally, I don't think there are 200 different throws in a situation like that. There are probably 25 groups of throws,


I can write down at least 230 different throws from 62 different categories. Just the "foot sweep", there are over 35 different ways to do it.

It's the different contact points. For example, the "hip throw" can be executed by using your arm to:

- wrap around the waist.
- wrap around the head.
- under hook the shoulder.
- over hook the shoulder.
- palm smash behind the head.
- ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Some days, I just want to...


The way that I look at this is if I try to do everything, I may end with nothing.

I can make my

- 1 wife very happy.
- 2 wifes 1/2 happy.
- 3 wifes 1/3 happy.

I like the freedom that you train. I have trained the past 10 years just like I train in 1 day. Every week I go through the same training and I'm afraid to change it. For example, every day I always start from 80 sit ups.

PRO: I can always keep my body in good shape.
CON: I may live a very boring life.


----------



## Buka

Martial D said:


> Yes. I get that, and I agree to a point. My point was that most of the styles known for producing competent fighters tend to not contain any katas.
> 
> Plus I don't know if taebo really counts as a style. Blanks is a karate guy that made his own karate workout to sell videos to soccer mom's, and it panned out pretty well for him.
> 
> Edit - also, taebo is pretty much all katas isnt it?



I was Billy's sparring partner when he started the whole Tae-bo thing. He originally called it "Karobics". It was never meant as any kind of style, he was trying to find a way to get people to exercise.....people who didn't want to do the Martial Arts.

No katas in it, just movements taken from Martial Arts and other things.

Somebody went behind his back and copyrighted the Karobics name, trying to hustle him. He called me and said he needed another name for it and for me to give it some thought.

He calls me the very next day and says "I got it. I'm going to call it Tae-bo. For Taekwondo and boxing, two things I love."

I said, "Billy, that's the stupidest name I've ever heard. And it's unmarketable."  

We all know how successful it was. He eventually sold the Tae-bo name and rights for over a hundred million dollars.

Unmarketable, man, can I call em' or what? Duh.


----------



## Martial D

Buka said:


> I was Billy's sparring partner when he started the whole Tae-bo thing. He originally called it "Karobics". It was never meant as any kind of style, he was trying to find a way to get people to exercise.....people who didn't want to do the Martial Arts.
> 
> No katas in it, just movements taken from Martial Arts and other things.
> 
> Somebody went behind his back and copyrighted the Karobics name, trying to hustle him. He called me and said he needed another name for it and for me to give it some thought.
> 
> He calls me the very next day and says "I got it. I'm going to call it Tae-bo. For Taekwondo and boxing, two things I love."
> 
> I said, "Billy, that's the stupidest name I've ever heard. And it's unmarketable."
> 
> We all know how successful it was. He eventually sold the Tae-bo name and rights for over a hundred million dollars.
> 
> Unmarketable, man, can I call em' or what? Duh.


Were you an industry stunts guy or something? I'm pretty sure I remember you mentioning training with celebrities before at some point.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> What? I'm not understanding what you're asking here.
> 
> Are you talking about this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer what I asked
> 
> What about it?


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> If the founder of the style opposes sparring, that will filter down to his students. Clearly some students may deviate from that, but some won't. And yes, lack of sparring or contact retards fighting ability.


Except the exact opposite is what actually happened.

Yet another time example of your position crumbling beneath reality.


----------



## Steve

this may sounds really lazy, but could someone sum up @Hanzou ’s position and @DaveB ’s position?  I am trying to keep up....

I’m counting on you @gpseymour !  Don’t let me down.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> this may sounds really lazy, but could someone sum up @Hanzou ’s position and @DaveB ’s position?  I am trying to keep up....
> 
> I’m counting on you @gpseymour !  Don’t let me down.



Nutshell -

Hanzou - "tradition, bad"

DaveB - "nuh uh"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Hanzou - "tradition, bad"


I don't think Hanzou said that "tradition is bad". I believe he said "non-sport is bad."

It doesn't matter whether you train tradition or modern, as long as you test your MA skill in the ring, or on the mat, you are good. Black cat, or white cat, as long as it can catch rat, it's good cat. So "catch rat" is the key. Whether it black cat, or white cat, it's not important.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't think Hanzou said that "tradition is bad". I believe he said "non-sport is bad."
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you train tradition or modern, as long as you test your MA skill in the ring, or on the mat, you are good. Black cat, or white cat, as long as it can catch rat, it's good cat. So "catch rat" is the key. Whether it black cat, or white cat, it's not important.


It’s funny how people read different things.   If I had to sum it up, I’d say hanzou said, “kata is meh.”


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> It’s funny how people read different things.   If I had to sum it up, I’d say hanzou said, “kata is meh.”


If Mike Tyson wants to train form, I don't think Hanzou will have any issue with him.

When my teacher taught me Taiji form, he said that I won't appreciate it until I am much older. My teacher never said that learning Taiji form will make me a better fighter.

When I was 11, my brother in law taught me an open hand form and a staff form. One day I got into a fight. I didn't know how to use the information from that form. I complained to him. He said that he didn't know I was that interested in fighting. He stopped teaching me any more form. He forced me to train "1 step 3 punches" for the next 3 years.

Both of my teacher and my brother in law didn't believe that form training can improve fighting ability. Today, I don't believe it myself either. If I can step in, throw 3 powerful punches in lighting speed, I may be able to solve most of my street problems right there. Everything else are not really that important after all.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> It’s funny how people read different things.   If I had to sum it up, I’d say hanzou said, “kata is meh.”



Pretty much.

I have no issue with tradition. I rather enjoy the traditions of several martial arts. I'm especially fond of the old Japanese sword arts and their etiquette and discipline.

However, you start running into problems when tradition begins to compromise your style's effectiveness.


----------



## Buka

Martial D said:


> Were you an industry stunts guy or something? I'm pretty sure I remember you mentioning training with celebrities before at some point.



Not really, no, I did work as a stuntman here in Hawaii for a short lived tv series being shot here, but that was back in 95.

I used to fly to L. A. every month from here, stay with Billy and teach and train at his school in Sherman Oaks. Busiest gym I’ve ever seen, really something. Half of Hollywood trained there at one point or another, and all kinds of professional athletes. It was a whole lot of fun. Great learning experience as well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> old Japanese sword arts and their etiquette and discipline.


I don't know anything about Japanese sword arts. But if a student wants to learn Chinese sword arts, the teacher will ask him to go to the woods and chops off 1,000 tree branches.

I have always believed that kind of training. Unfortunately, we just don't see many people still train that way.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> this may sounds really lazy, but could someone sum up @Hanzou ’s position and @DaveB ’s position?  I am trying to keep up....
> 
> I’m counting on you @gpseymour !  Don’t let me down.


I don't know what may have happened recently, but Hanzou tried to argue that doing kata caused traditional martial arts to produce few if any competent fighters.

He justified this by suggesting that only movement that is identical to the movements employed in a fight are beneficial. 

As the absurdity of his position was revealed he softened to the bland to the point of pointlessness position that too much kata is the problem.

So when it was pointed out that too much of anything is a problem, since if it isn't a problem then it's not too much, he tried to insist that it was the style that dictates how much kata a person trains.

My position is that training determines fighting skill. 

Style influences how you train but does not control it. 

Fighting skills are generic, in order to fight they must be developed and no fighting style excludes them.

A fighter losing a fight does not invalidate an art, nor does a lack of fighters.

Most tMa practitioners don't do tma to fight in the ufc and know where to go if they hunger for combat. 

The individual chooses their goals and must train accordingly. 

Hanzou's view seems to be based on the idea that thousands of tma students across the globe are being told that they can fight in the ufc by just doing kata.

I challenged him to support this view and as with each point that explodes his arguments he has thus far ignored said challenge. 

I reiterate: had his position been from the start,
 "there are more effective ways to learn fighting than kata and too much kata will.produce bad fighters," 
Then the response would have been:
No doodoo sherlock? Figure that out on your own? Have a cookie!

As it stands he went down the, "Tai chi master got beat up because Tai chi has Kata" route, and here we are.


----------



## LastGasp

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know anything about Japanese sword arts. But if a student wants to learn Chinese sword arts, the teacher will ask him to go to the woods and chops off 1,000 tree branches.
> 
> I have always believed that kind of training. Unfortunately, we just don't see many people still train that way.



Thank God for that! The world's forests are under threat enough as it is, lol

Don't kata/sets/forms teach you something about balance? About correct technique? Aren't they a way of learning the techniques that you then learn to apply separately in competition or on the street, if it comes to it? A kind of 'first steps' thing?
Not to mention the fact that when performed well by an experienced martial artist, they are beautiful (I especially love to watch double sword forms). You can see the poise, power and balance of one who has been training for years. And once you get to that kind of standard, I feel certain that many of the moves incorporated would be very effective in a more dynamic situation. But you have to have the base first. That, to me, is a large part of what these sequences are about.
Also, it teaches the discipline of perfection, which translates to other areas in more than just straight fighting application. But even in fighting, if you get sloppy, you get beaten.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> I don't put much stock in stories of old masters defeating hordes of Ninjas and Manchu armies. Funakoshi for example opposed sparring, so I seriously doubt he was much of a fighter. In fact his staunch opposition to sparring is what led many like Mas Oyama to leave Shotokan and form other karate styles. Everything I've seen out of Ueshiba brings his supposed combat prowess into question. Most of it borders on the fantastical, and it sounds more like folk tales instead of hard history. Kano also wasn't much of a fighter. He typically had his "Guardians of the Kodokan" take care of his heavy lifting.
> 
> The few videos of seen of old Chinese martial art masters leaves much to be desired. Frankly, I think @JowGaWolf could wipe the floor with most of them. He has displayed better functional fighting skill than they do, and he's not even a professional fighter.



In his book, Karate-do Kyôhan, G. Funakoshi lists sparring as a valuable form of understanding the application of kata. He considered that one had to train kata (which includes the basic movements and mechanics) then apply it in sparring. What he was opposed to was people getting too "enthusiastic" about sparring to the point that they neglected proper movement. He was not opposed to sparring.

Ueshiba has many recorded victories against skilled martial artists including judo champion Kenshiro Abbe, boxer Tsuneo Horiguchi (who recorded more bouts and KOs than any other Japanese boxer in history and held national and international champion titles), sumo champion Tenryû among others. Moreover, J. Kano, upon seeing Ueshiba do a demonstration, saw his skills as so valuable that he sent some of his best students (among which M. Mochizuki) to study under Ueshiba. This is similar to the way he included the ground techniques of Tanabe Mataemon of Fusen-ryū when the latter defeated his students (which gave birth to the newaza of judo). And Kano has also had to fight in order to prove the effectiveness of his art, the "Guardians of the Kodokan" was a nickname, not a function.

Your dismissal of those masters and arts are based on misconceptions (like the way you assert that BJJ is eating away at other wrestling disciplines or the way that you lump in BJJ in all your positive statements about MMA as if those disciplines were identical and shared the same advantages...). Doing a little research would help you see the bigger picture.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Ueshiba has many recorded victories against skilled martial artists including judo champion Kenshiro Abbe, boxer Tsuneo Horiguchi (who recorded more bouts and KOs than any other Japanese boxer in history and held national and international champion titles), sumo champion Tenryû among others.



I looked over the fight record of Tsuneo Horiguchi, and Ueshiba is never recorded as one of his opponents. Additionally, the Kenshiro Abbe "victory" was a supposed meeting on a train where Ueshiba supposedly threw him on the ground by holding his finger.

Can you provide some objective sources for these claims?


----------



## jobo

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know anything about Japanese sword arts. But if a student wants to learn Chinese sword arts, the teacher will ask him to go to the woods and chops off 1,000 tree branches.
> 
> I have always believed that kind of training. Unfortunately, we just don't see many people still train that way.


Possibly run out of branches to chop ?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I looked over the fight record of Tsuneo Horiguchi, and Ueshiba is never recorded as one of his opponents. Additionally, the Kenshiro Abbe "victory" was a supposed meeting on a train where Ueshiba supposedly threw him on the ground by holding his finger.
> 
> Can you provide some objective sources for these claims?





Oh the tenryu statement is true and well documented ..................He also taught at the security personnel at the Aoyamma Imperial palace .....The incident between Kiyoshi Nakakura and  Junichi Haga is well documented to have taken place all you need do is look ....and you might want to take a look at the Noma dojo pictures (there are over a thousand of them) (taken by a very very famous Kendoka Noma Hisashi) and he taught at several at the Japanese Military schools, just go look at the pics he was not the frail old man that you seem to think he was.

And the statements made about Kano are 100% true 

And still you  have not answered my question I asked you about Shikko !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Oh the tenryu statement is true and well documented ..................He also taught at the security personnel at the Aoyamma Imperial palace .....The incident between Kiyoshi Nakakura and  Junichi Haga is well documented to have taken place all you need do is look ....and you might want to take a look at the Noma dojo pictures (there are over a thousand of them) (taken by a very very famous Kendoka Noma Hisashi) and he taught at several at the Japanese Military schools, just go look at the pics he was not the frail old man that you seem to think he was.
> 
> And the statements made about Kano are 100% true
> 
> And still you  have not answered my question I asked you about Shikko !!!!!!!!!



Sorry, I don't believe that you can throw someone to ground who is holding your finger. I need more evidence beyond an anecdotal account by a devoted student.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Sorry, I don't believe that you can throw someone to ground who is holding your finger. I need more evidence beyond an anecdotal account by a devoted student.




Haga was not a devoted student ....

and still you avoid answering about Shikko , are you scared that you actually don't know lol and are doing the usual and editing ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Haga was not a devoted student ....
> 
> and still you avoid answering about Shikko , are you scared that you actually don't know lol and are doing the usual and editing ?



I was talking about Kenshiro Abbe.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I was talking about Kenshiro Abbe.




Nice try but I didn't say anything abut abbe The names I mentioned were no his so try again 


and still no answer on Skikko lol this thread was about Kata etc so I asked you about a Kata and you being the Kata bash boy I thought I'd give you a chance to bash again as after all it is Samurai knee walking is it not ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Nice try but I didn't say anything abut abbe The names I mentioned were no his so try again



Correct. I was talking about Abbe in response to O'Malley. You decided to jump into that conversation to add more  myths and legends to the pile without verifying the initial line of questioning.



> and still no answer on Skikko lol this thread was about Kata etc so I asked you about a Kata and you being the Kata bash boy I thought I'd give you a chance to bash again as after all it is Samurai knee walking is it not ?



I don't give a rat's behind about "shikko" or whatever you call it.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Correct. I was talking about Abbe in response to O'Malley. You decided to jump into that conversation to add more  myths and legends to the pile without verifying the initial line of questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat's behind about "shikko" or whatever you call it.



I jumped in ok 


And you don't give a rats *** ok ...yet you are the one that says kata are useless etc etc etc or have I actually found a thin that you just may get seriously wrong ? like the comment in another place about people pouncing around in Kimono etc ....pray do tell which arts that say they are self defense actually use Kimono??? or is that just another thing you will edit out ?

You are the one that started this all about Kata yet you now don't give a rats ***!!!


----------



## DaveB

Just to put it out.there, here's my understanding of kata.

Kata have 3 main functions:
1. Technique practice - Kata let's you practice moving, stance and power generation under ideal conditions. A natural extention of this is the exercise and attribute development one gains through repetition.c 

2. Technique and Combination libraries - Kata hold the techniques of the system and give sample combinations to explain their use.

3. Strategy and Tactics - the combinations embody the strategic principles as well as tricks and traps the creator found useful.
Strategy is how you fight. How you go from introduction to conflict to victory party.

In early training volume repetition of kata or kata segments is how you build coordination in newbs.

As coordination builds you push beyond the constraints of kata sequences with more difficult combinations, footwork drills, evasion drills, blocking drills, grappling drills and introduce impact through pads, bags, makiwara and Fred the indestructible heavy weight in the corner. 

You explore the principles by applying the kata in partner exercises that start dead with template techniques and become more natural with live opposition.

You take these principles and techniques into sparring and hone them along with the attributes you've been developing.

The transition from solo kata to fighting is vital because thats the part where you start applying reality to the ideal form of the kata.

Kata in these later stages functions as technical support and study guide. 

Now the above process is just one way. I like the idea of throwing newbs into sparring with big 24 ounce gloves alongside the kata process so the reality is right up front and their technique is refined in response to the weaknesses identified in sparring.

That being said much of the karate world has struggled to get to this model because the applications of their kata were lost. The "karate style " of fighting is an independently evolved system based on the shape of karate movement.

I can't speak for CMA like wing chunky.or Tai chi, but they generally just look like they focus on system specific skills while stuck in self affirming bubbles.

Ultimately adjust the training, adjust the outcome.


----------



## now disabled

DaveB said:


> Just to put it out.there, here's my understanding of kata.
> 
> Kata have 3 main functions:
> 1. Technique practice - Kata let's you practice moving, stance and power generation under ideal conditions. A natural extention of this is the exercise and attribute development one gains through repetition.c
> 
> 2. Technique and Combination libraries - Kata hold the techniques of the system and give sample combinations to explain their use.
> 
> 3. Strategy and Tactics - the combinations embody the strategic principles as well as tricks and traps the creator found useful.
> Strategy is how you fight. How you go from introduction to conflict to victory party.
> 
> In early training volume repetition of kata or kata segments is how you build coordination in newbs.
> 
> As coordination builds you push beyond the constraints of kata sequences with more difficult combinations, footwork drills, evasion drills, blocking drills, grappling drills and introduce impact through pads, bags, makiwara and Fred the indestructible heavy weight in the corner.
> 
> You explore the principles by applying the kata in partner exercises that start dead with template techniques and become more natural with live opposition.
> 
> You take these principles and techniques into sparring and hone them along with the attributes you've been developing.
> 
> The transition from solo kata to fighting is vital because thats the part where you start applying reality to the ideal form of the kata.
> 
> Kata in these later stages functions as technical support and study guide.
> 
> Now the above process is just one way. I like the idea of throwing newbs into sparring with big 24 ounce gloves alongside the kata process so the reality is right up front and their technique is refined in response to the weaknesses identified in sparring.
> 
> That being said much of the karate world has struggled to get to this model because the applications of their kata were lost. The "karate style " of fighting is an independently evolved system based on the shape of karate movement.
> 
> I can't speak for CMA like wing chunky.or Tai chi, but they generally just look like they focus on system specific skills while stuck in self affirming bubbles.
> 
> Ultimately adjust the training, adjust the outcome.




There ya go @Hanzou 

read digest and think it basically all there


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LastGasp said:


> Don't kata/sets/forms teach you something about balance?


You

1. first develop technique through "partner drill".
2. then polish your technique through "solo drill" when partner is not available.

The order of develop first and polish it afterward is important. The nice thing about this approach is if your solo drill is the same as your partner drill, when you are doing your partner drill, you are already doing your solo drill.

If we use the following clip as example, do you want to teach your students the

1. application first and form later, or
2. form first and application later?


----------



## LastGasp

But surely if you don't know the form, you have nothing to apply?

OTOH, I remember from Lau Gar that our teacher would show us the individual techniques, and with them, demonstrate with a student how they were applied. So yes, I get what you mean.

But what this means is that you don't take the sets in isolation. They are part of the whole, and each training technique complements the others.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Frankly, I think @JowGaWolf could wipe the floor with most of them. He has displayed better functional fighting skill than they do, and he's not even a professional fighter.


Thanks for the kind words.


----------



## paitingman

I love kata. Have never had a problem sparring/fighting.

I just think a lot of people miss the point and leave out lots of other valuable training i.e. sparring and other helpful exercise.

It's great for its simplicity. You need nothing but space. You can explore so many different variations and mechanical timings. What am I flexing? Where is my weight in this moment? What about this way? What about THIS way? What am I thinking about? What am I NOT thinking about?
It's great exercise. THEN you need to go do all the other stuff.

It's great for the whole zen thing as well. Then again, you could go full zen mode hitting pads as well.

I believe it is helpful exercise when done right, but of course it can be left out.
Some people become great fighters without ever using a speedbag or skipping rope or even stretching haha, but many do it every day and see the value in it. I only compare them to these exercises because they are helpful, but can be left out.

It's not the end all be all, but I think if you train correctly you can see value in it and begin to enjoy for just what it is. You just have to understand what it isn't.


----------



## paitingman

Actually, I still like the speedbag comparison. 

You can train kata over and over and become very skillful in this exercise. 

You can also really up your game and speedbag and take it very far and have some sliiick moves. 

Why? Why not? It's easy to fall in love with certain exercise or just training in general. 
Will these skills you've built in kata or your very technical speedbag moves help you in fighting? Up to you. But there's no harm in it. Have fun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

What do you need in fighting?

1. timing - Have good timing.
2. opportunity - Recognize opportunity,
3. angle - Catch right angle.
4. force - Use force.
5. balance - Have good balance.

Unfortunately, 1, 2, 3 cannot be trained through form. Without the reference of "opponent", timing, opportunity, and angle will have no meaning.


----------



## paitingman

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you need in fighting?
> 
> 1. timing - Have good timing.
> 2. opportunity - Recognize opportunity,
> 3. angle - Catch right angle.
> 4. force - Use force.
> 5. balance - Have good balance.
> 
> Unfortunately, 1, 2, 3 cannot be trained through form. Without the reference of "opponent", timing, opportunity, and angle will have no meaning.


I agree. Some people swear they train all 5 when training forms


----------



## DaveB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you need in fighting?
> 
> 1. timing - Have good timing.
> 2. opportunity - Recognize opportunity,
> 3. angle - Catch right angle.
> 4. force - Use force.
> 5. balance - Have good balance.
> 
> Unfortunately, 1, 2, 3 cannot be trained through form. Without the reference of "opponent", timing, opportunity, and angle will have no meaning.



Absolutely right, but notice that nothing in there is specific to one art, nor is anything excluded by any art.

Thus we can conclude that fighting is its own skill, separate to: 
power generation, 
coordination, 
tactics or attribute building,

All of which are also universal elements of martial arts, but which *are* trained through solo forms.


----------



## DaveB

paitingman said:


> I agree. Some people swear they train all 5 when training forms



A large part of forms training is visualisation and through visualisation.you could possibly gain some benefits towards those elements of combat. Sports science certainly recommends visualisation and has proven it beneficial. 

Obviously you need to have experience of fighting to visualise something realistic, but we've established that the forms without fighting crowd are a minority that get talked about a lot but who are very hard to find in reality. 

On that note I'd like to suggest another possibility/probably true concern.
People like that tai chi master who got beat up are assumed to never spar.

I wonder if the issue isn't more often just sparring in a limited pool in a very particular style. For example wing chun chi sau is not sparring, but it sure feels like it!

You deal and deal with force, find openings, use footwork and timing and can come out of a session battered and bruised.

It's pretty easy to do a few one step drills where you simultaneously block and strike against a ranged attack, find yourself in chi sau range where the actual struggle begins, and think you know about fighting, if that is all you've experienced.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> I looked over the fight record of Tsuneo Horiguchi, and Ueshiba is never recorded as one of his opponents. Additionally, the Kenshiro Abbe "victory" was a supposed meeting on a train where Ueshiba supposedly threw him on the ground by holding his finger.
> 
> Can you provide some objective sources for these claims?



Oops didn't see that answer.

I think it is quite natural that Ueshiba would not appear on Horiguchi's boxing fight record since Ueshiba was not a boxer. However, Horiguchi liked to cross-train and used to go to dojos of famous masters to fight/spar with them, he has reportedly done so with Choki Motobu (karate) and Kyuzo Mifune (judo) so that encounter is not unlikely to have happened, though I'll admit that the only source for it are students of Ueshiba.

For the encounter between Kenshiro Abbe and Morihei Ueshiba, it is recounted by Henry Ellis who heard it from his teacher (Abbe) himself. Abbe met Ueshiba in a train and the old man said "now please break my finger since you are so strong". Abbe grabbed the finger, couldn't break it and got slammed into the ground and immobilized by Ueshiba. Abbe then asked to become Ueshiba's student. Kenshiro Abbe, a judo champion famous for defeating Masahiko Kimura and a man used to live fighting and competition against the best judoka, used to tell people that he was incapable of breaking Osensei's finger. 

One could also cite Yasuhiro Konishi, famous karate teacher that said that Ueshiba was the best martial artist he ever met, or Shoji Nishio, a martial arts genius that held high ranks in both judo and karate and yet decided to study and teach aikido after he saw and felt how great Osensei was. He came to see him with his own eyes after his karate teacher said Ueshiba was a "phantom". "_I was amazed that there was someone that even Sodeyama Sensei couldn’t strike. It was O-Sensei [Morihei Ueshiba]… Anyway, I went to see aikido and immediately joined the dojo. I was told to go and take a look at aikido, but I never went back to karate!_"

And there are countless examples of famous, recognized martial arts experts from all kinds of backgrounds that, upon seeing or fighting with Ueshiba, said "ok this guy's the best martial artist I've ever met". My point is that it is very difficult to believe that all of them were gullible people who could not distinguish a fake master. 

All clues point to Ueshiba being the real deal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can write down at least 230 different throws from 62 different categories. Just the "foot sweep", there are over 35 different ways to do it.
> 
> It's the different contact points. For example, the "hip throw" can be executed by using your arm to:
> 
> - wrap around the waist.
> - wrap around the head.
> - under hook the shoulder.
> - over hook the shoulder.
> - palm smash behind the head.
> - ...


Yes. That's what I was saying. I wouldn't count that as 35 different throws, but 35 ways to use the foot sweep. It's semantics, is all.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Oops didn't see that answer.
> 
> I think it is quite natural that Ueshiba would not appear on Horiguchi's boxing fight record since Ueshiba was not a boxer. However, Horiguchi liked to cross-train and used to go to dojos of famous masters to fight/spar with them, he has reportedly done so with Choki Motobu (karate) and Kyuzo Mifune (judo) so that encounter is not unlikely to have happened, though I'll admit that the only source for it are students of Ueshiba.
> 
> For the encounter between Kenshiro Abbe and Morihei Ueshiba, it is recounted by Henry Ellis who heard it from his teacher (Abbe) himself. Abbe met Ueshiba in a train and the old man said "now please break my finger since you are so strong". Abbe grabbed the finger, couldn't break it and got slammed into the ground and immobilized by Ueshiba. Abbe then asked to become Ueshiba's student. Kenshiro Abbe, a judo champion famous for defeating Masahiko Kimura and a man used to live fighting and competition against the best judoka, used to tell people that he was incapable of breaking Osensei's finger.
> 
> One could also cite Yasuhiro Konishi, famous karate teacher that said that Ueshiba was the best martial artist he ever met, or Shoji Nishio, a martial arts genius that held high ranks in both judo and karate and yet decided to study and teach aikido after he saw and felt how great Osensei was. He came to see him with his own eyes after his karate teacher said Ueshiba was a "phantom". "_I was amazed that there was someone that even Sodeyama Sensei couldn’t strike. It was O-Sensei [Morihei Ueshiba]… Anyway, I went to see aikido and immediately joined the dojo. I was told to go and take a look at aikido, but I never went back to karate!_"
> 
> And there are countless examples of famous, recognized martial arts experts from all kinds of backgrounds that, upon seeing or fighting with Ueshiba, said "ok this guy's the best martial artist I've ever met". My point is that it is very difficult to believe that all of them were gullible people who could not distinguish a fake master.
> 
> All clues point to Ueshiba being the real deal.



None of those sources are objective though, that's the problem. Just because your friends and students hold you in high regard doesn't mean that you were an amazing fighter. For example, why is Rickson Gracie and Kazushi Sakuraba considered great fighters? Because we have their fight record and we have objective evidence of them fighting people. If we didn't have that, their disciples would gush over how amazing they were but there would be no corroborating evidence to support that belief. I could say that I rolled with Rickson and it was like he knew my moves before I did them, and his top pressure felt like being underneath 30 men. All of that is just exaggerated nonsense that amounts to nothing.  

We should also remember that Ueshiba's disciples aren't exactly lighting the world afire with their fighting ability either. That casts further doubt on his actual fighting ability.


----------



## Hanzou

BTW, this article intrigued me:

Are you an unwitting participant in the demise of Aikido? by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal

Basically it discusses that Aikido is declining globally, and it lists a variety of reasons why. In the process, it disparages popular fighting arts as "flashy" and laughingly paints exponents of those arts as simplistic brutes who just want to destroy people. All the while, the author gushes over O' Sensei as if he was some sort of almighty deity and is seemingly confused as to why his disciples are somehow unable to transfer his "magic" to other people. There are even commentators in that article saying that O'Sensei was the pinnacle of the art and no one can match it.

I find this sort of thing disturbing on multiple levels. IMO, the reasons for Aikido's decline is very obvious and quite clear. People want results, not promises. You can say all the crap you want about O'Sensei's feats of magic, but if Aikido isn't teaching you how to stop a takedown or a punch in the face, none of that matters.

 Amazingly people like the author are purposely avoiding those reasons because he has a cult mentality.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> BTW, this article intrigued me:
> 
> Are you an unwitting participant in the demise of Aikido? by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal
> 
> Basically it discusses that Aikido is declining globally, and it lists a variety of reasons why. In the process, it disparages popular fighting arts as "flashy" and laughingly paints exponents of those arts as simplistic brutes who just want to destroy people. All the while, the author gushes over O' Sensei as if he was some sort of almighty deity and is seemingly confused as to why his disciples are somehow unable to transfer his "magic" to other people. There are even commentators in that article saying that O'Sensei was the pinnacle of the art and no one can match it.
> 
> I find this sort of thing disturbing on multiple levels. IMO, the reasons for Aikido's decline is very obvious and quite clear. People want results, not promises. You can say all the crap you want about O'Sensei's feats of magic, but if Aikido isn't teaching you how to stop a takedown or a punch in the face, none of that matters.
> 
> Amazingly people like the author are purposely avoiding those reasons because he has a cult mentality.




You are aware that The author is now dead ?

I love how you slag of an art but when you are called on something you refuse to answer lol ....but hey ho you keep it up


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> We should also remember that Ueshiba's disciples aren't exactly lighting the world afire with their fighting ability either. That casts further doubt on his actual fighting ability.




That could be because umm the youngest of Ueshiba's disciples (and I am assuming you are meaning Ueshiba Morihei) are well advanced in years and they never trained as fighters ....so your point is?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> That could be because umm the youngest of Ueshiba's disciples (and I am assuming you are meaning Ueshiba Morihei) are well advanced in years and they never trained as fighters ....so your point is?



My point is that the modern crop of Bjj/MMA fighters are superior to the former crop of Bjj/MMA fighters. Why? Because the art is evolving and getting better as the years roll on. When the pinnacle of your style was the founder who died over 50 years ago, then your style has a seriously flawed teaching model.


----------



## O'Malley

Although I get your point on having objective proof, you are comparing Ueshiba to people who were not even born when he died (well, not really since Rickson was 10 in '69).

Also, Ueshiba was not registered in any federation that could have kept track of those matches since they were not even matches: he was not interested in competition and actually disregarded it, the fights he was in came from him standing up to any challenge people threw at him and sparring with other stylists to hone his skills.

So, no competition and informal "dojo busting" matches where no one had a cell phone to register what was going on. The only source left is made of numerous accounts by all the martial arts experts that actually saw and felt him. BTW I'm not aware of any testimony of someone from the same period saying "Ueshiba has no fighting ability".

Concerning modern proponents of the art, again the non competitive nature of aikido makes it difficult to track fight records. One can find testimonies about Shioda, Tohei, Tadashi Abe, Minoru Mochizuki and the like but they refrained from competing by loyalty to the Founder. 

Now in modern times mainstream aikido has been distorted on a technical level to make it more accessible (the Aikikai is open about this) and the Aikikai is bent on absorbing every other organization, promoting its way of doing aikido (which is not the Founder's but is respectable on a philosophical level and certainly brings more peace to the world) and preventing its members from ever competing.

Since dojo busting is not practiced anymore, the only way to get a good fighting record for aikido would be to find someone that had both interest in competing and good aikido fighting skills. I'm sure there are people who are interested but don't have the skills (like the guy from "aikido vs MMA"), as for the people that have the skills but no interest, who knows?


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> My point is that the modern crop of Bjj/MMA fighters are superior to the former crop of Bjj/MMA fighters. Why? Because the art is evolving and getting better as the years roll on. When the pinnacle of your style was the founder who died over 50 years ago, then your style has a seriously flawed teaching model.



I agree. The Aikikai (main aikido organization which was founded by Osensei's son) deliberately promotes a "simplified" version of aikido which is more accessible and does away with a lot of the principles that made the Founder the fighter that he was. Some teachers were taught the older style stuff in case they had to defend their dojos but the goal of the organization has been to move away from fighting since day one. And Osensei himself taught while using religious metaphors that did not really get his technical points across so we cannot even know whether his students understood the art.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Although I get your point on having objective proof, you are comparing Ueshiba to people who were not even born when he died (well, not really since Rickson was 10 in '69).
> 
> Also, Ueshiba was not registered in any federation that could have kept track of those matches since they were not even matches: he was not interested in competition and actually disregarded it, the fights he was in came from him standing up to any challenge people threw at him and sparring with other stylists to hone his skills.



Well then we could compare Ueshiba to the various Judoka who were doing exhibition matches at the turn of the 20th century (Maeda was one such Judoka), or Huo Yuanjia who was challenging European wrestlers and fighters in the 1910s. Those events were widely reported in newspapers. Where was Ueshiba at this time? He didn't need to be part of any federation, he just needed to make an open challenge and have the media record the incident, yet we have nothing but a bunch of stories told by his loyal followers.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> My point is that the modern crop of Bjj/MMA fighters are superior to the former crop of Bjj/MMA fighters. Why? Because the art is evolving and getting better as the years roll on. When the pinnacle of your style was the founder who died over 50 years ago, then your style has a seriously flawed teaching model.




You are again founding this on what ? 

and again you are making statements and when you are called on them avoid answering


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Well then we could compare Ueshiba to the various Judoka who were doing exhibition matches at the turn of the 20th century (Maeda was one such Judoka), or Huo Yuanjia who was challenging European wrestlers and fighters in the 1910s. Those events were widely reported in newspapers. Where was Ueshiba at this time? He didn't need to be part of any federation, he just needed to make an open challenge and have the media record the incident, yet we have nothing but a bunch of stories told by his loyal followers.




Where was Ueshiba lol are you serious lol ...truly are you lol??????????????????


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> You are again founding this on what ?
> 
> and again you are making statements and when you are called on them avoid answering



That judgement call isn't coming from me, Aikidoka are saying that themselves.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Where was Ueshiba lol are you serious lol ...truly are you lol??????????????????



Ueshiba was in his 20s and 30s during the time of various Judoka having exhibition matches with wrestlers and other fighters. Why wasn't such an amazing fighter participating in these highly publicized matches? There were European and American fighters all over Asia looking to test the might of the Asian fighting arts, yet somehow Ueshiba avoided all this but was more than happy to fight in the equivalent of backyards and garages?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> That judgement call isn't coming from me, Aikidoka are saying that themselves.




Who are saying that ?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Who are saying that ?



 Did you read the article I posted?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Ueshiba was in his 20s and 30s during the time of various Judoka having exhibition matches with wrestlers and other fighters. Why wasn't such an amazing fighter participating in these highly publicized matches? There were European and American fighters all over Asia looking to test the might of the Asian fighting arts, yet somehow Ueshiba avoided all this but was more than happy to fight in the equivalent of backyards and garages?




Right ok 

He was in the army around 1903 and studied ju jutsu and judo  (if you want the styles then just ask and I will tell you ) then he went to settle in Hokkaido around 1910 and around 1915 he met Takeda Sokaku and started his study of Daito-ryu 

answer your question or do you require more that you can try and say is either false or myth ???


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> BTW, this article intrigued me:
> 
> Are you an unwitting participant in the demise of Aikido? by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal
> 
> Basically it discusses that Aikido is declining globally, and it lists a variety of reasons why. In the process, it disparages popular fighting arts as "flashy" and laughingly paints exponents of those arts as simplistic brutes who just want to destroy people. All the while, the author gushes over O' Sensei as if he was some sort of almighty deity and is seemingly confused as to why his disciples are somehow unable to transfer his "magic" to other people. There are even commentators in that article saying that O'Sensei was the pinnacle of the art and no one can match it.
> 
> I find this sort of thing disturbing on multiple levels. IMO, the reasons for Aikido's decline is very obvious and quite clear. People want results, not promises. You can say all the crap you want about O'Sensei's feats of magic, but if Aikido isn't teaching you how to stop a takedown or a punch in the face, none of that matters.
> 
> Amazingly people like the author are purposely avoiding those reasons because he has a cult mentality.



Well, I don't read it as that insulting to other styles. He deplorates the fact that, in order to make aikido look "flashy" and effective in front of violent styles, people often resort to choreographed demonstrations where uke is only thrown because he's compliant.



Hanzou said:


> Well then we could compare Ueshiba to the various Judoka who were doing exhibition matches at the turn of the 20th century (Maeda was one such Judoka), or Huo Yuanjia who was challenging European wrestlers and fighters in the 1910s. Those events were widely reported in newspapers. Where was Ueshiba at this time? He didn't need to be part of any federation, he just needed to make an open challenge and have the media record the incident, yet we have nothing but a bunch of stories told by his loyal followers.



He did not make challenges, people came to him and he beat them.

"a buch of stories told by his loyal followers"

Letting aside all the people (and there is a LOT of them) that held high ranks in other martial arts and threw everything out of the window to go study under him, we have documents from Jigoro Kano sending his students to study under Ueshiba after having seen him (and they never went back to judo), or accounts by people from other arts who did not become his students but said he was the greatest, from the top of my head J. Kano, Yasuhiro Konishi, Hideo Sonobe, Haga Junichi.

Edit: since he was already the most famous martial artist in Japan, it was easy to go and chellenge him and he was not the one with something to prove, are we even aware of any person ever saying "hey, I beat Ueshiba"?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Did you read the article I posted?



Matey I have read alot of things written by Stan Pranin and I am well aware of his views but he was very much a man wo promoted Aikido and if you care to dig deeper he was very much involved in documenting Aikido and he also followed Saito sensei and on many of his travels he acted as his translator so you may be jumping of the wrong platform again if you are suggesting that the late Stan Pranin is slagging of Aikido


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Right ok
> 
> He was in the army around 1903 and studied ju jutsu and judo  (if you want the styles then just ask and I will tell you ) then he went to settle in Hokkaido around 1910 and around 1915 he met Takeda Sokaku and started his study of Daito-ryu
> 
> answer your question or do you require more that you can try and say is either false or myth ???



And there were various "Merikan" and other fighting exhibitions in Japan and China in this period and even in the 20s.

Again, where was Ueshiba?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> And there were various "Merikan" and other fighting exhibitions in Japan and China in this period and even in the 20s.
> 
> Again, where was Ueshiba?




Studying Daito ryu ....what part of that are you not getting ...


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Well, I don't read it as that insulting to other styles. He deplorates the fact that, in order to make aikido look "flashy" and effective in front of violent styles, people often resort to choreographed demonstrations where uke is only thrown because he's compliant.



I'm talking about this portion:



> Young people prefer the sensationalized martial arts they see depicted on the movie screen in gory displays of violence. They want something they can learn quickly and turn themselves into superb fighting machines in record time. *They have no moral compass to guide them in the meting out of techniques designed to kill and maim. For them, if the other guy starts a fight, then he is fair game to be taken down a notch.*. If he gets hurts in the scuffle, then was happens to him is well-deserved. *Aggression inspired by arrogance* lead to destruction and humiliation, a lesson learned by Japan in the aftermath of World War II.



Yeah, it's clear that he looks down on such styles.




> He did not make challenges, people came to him and he beat them.
> 
> "a buch of stories told by his loyal followers"
> 
> Letting aside all the people (and there is a LOT of them) that held high ranks in other martial arts and threw everything out of the window to go study under him, we have documents from Jigoro Kano sending his students to study under Ueshiba after having seen him (and they never went back to judo), or accounts by people from other arts who did not become his students but said he was the greatest, from the top of my head J. Kano, Yasuhiro Konishi, Hideo Sonobe, Haga Junichi.
> 
> Edit: since he was already the most famous martial artist in Japan, it was easy to go and chellenge him and he was not the one with something to prove, are we even aware of any person ever saying "hey, I beat Ueshiba"?



Well when there's no one there to corroborate the stories  besides Ueshiba himself or someone who eventually became his disciple, how can we ever determine if he ever lost? We also can't determine if he actually ever won. The evidence surrounding him and the art that he created really doesn't support any of the claims.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> And there were various "Merikan" and other fighting exhibitions in Japan and China in this period and even in the 20s.
> 
> Again, where was Ueshiba?



Minding his own business.

Morihei Ueshiba - Wikipedia


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Studying Daito ryu ....what part of that are you not getting ...



Until 1922. Again, plenty of public exhibition matches happening in this time frame.


----------



## now disabled

O'Malley said:


> are we even aware of any person ever saying "hey, I beat Ueshiba"?




Nope there seems to be a lack of that kind of thing ....and I would think that there just might be lol ............I agree with you and it is well well documented about who he beat and who challenged him and as you say none seem to have got the better of him and most after he dumped him on their rears etc seemed to want him to teach them lol.................but Hanzou doesn't like that sort of thing as he only accepts vids and the rest to back things up or articles he wants to read


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Nope there seems to be a lack of that kind of thing ....and I would think that there just might be lol ............I agree with you and it is well well documented about who he beat and who challenged him and as you say none seem to have got the better of him and most after he dumped him on their rears etc seemed to want him to teach them lol.................but Hanzou doesn't like that sort of thing as he only accepts vids and the rest to back things up or articles he wants to read



You mean I don't like stories and beliefs backed by nothing more than anecdotal evidence?

Absolutely.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Until 1922. Again, plenty of public exhibition matches happening in this time frame.




Jeez why would or did he need to go looking for fights ....they came to him .... actually I'd love to see you on a mat with either an Iwama style or Yoshinkan style Aikidoka and see just how you'd cope as you have zero understanding of Aikido and I truly mean that zero 

and I am still awaiting your answer to the shikko question ...but I guess you only answer things that you want to lol


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You mean I don't like stories and beliefs backed by nothing more than anecdotal evidence?
> 
> Absolutely.




No you are and have zero respect or understanding and it so apparent in what you say and as I said I'd love to see you on a mat with an Aikidoka of the hard styles or Daito-ryu lol


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about this portion:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's clear that he looks down on such styles.



Looks down on such people. In none of those portions he's talking about martial arts styles.




> Well when there's no one there to corroborate the stories  besides Ueshiba himself or someone who eventually became his disciple, how can we ever determine if he ever lost? We also can't determine if he actually ever won. The evidence surrounding him and the art that he created really doesn't support any of the claims.



Morihei Ueshiba was the most famous martial artist in Japan in this period. Numerous martial arts experts flocked to hi, became his students and never went back to their previous styles again. If you dismiss every single testimony of any person that actually saw or met him (and all those testimonies by A LOT of martial arts EXPERTS say that he was the real deal), how do you explain this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> BTW, this article intrigued me:
> 
> Are you an unwitting participant in the demise of Aikido? by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal
> 
> Basically it discusses that Aikido is declining globally, and it lists a variety of reasons why. In the process, it disparages popular fighting arts as "flashy" and laughingly paints exponents of those arts as simplistic brutes who just want to destroy people. All the while, the author gushes over O' Sensei as if he was some sort of almighty deity and is seemingly confused as to why his disciples are somehow unable to transfer his "magic" to other people. There are even commentators in that article saying that O'Sensei was the pinnacle of the art and no one can match it.
> 
> I find this sort of thing disturbing on multiple levels. IMO, the reasons for Aikido's decline is very obvious and quite clear. People want results, not promises. You can say all the crap you want about O'Sensei's feats of magic, but if Aikido isn't teaching you how to stop a takedown or a punch in the face, none of that matters.
> 
> Amazingly people like the author are purposely avoiding those reasons because he has a cult mentality.


It’s an odd thing, because Pranin didn’t consistently show that blindness to those factors. I wish I’d had a chance to have a more in-depth discussion with him.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> You are aware that The author is now dead ?
> 
> I love how you slag of an art but when you are called on something you refuse to answer lol ....but hey ho you keep it up


Dead or not, Pranin does seem to have had a blind spot in this area.


----------



## now disabled

O'Malley said:


> Looks down on such people. In none of those portions he's talking about martial arts styles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morihei Ueshiba was the most famous martial artist in Japan in this period. Numerous martial arts experts flocked to hi, became his students and never went back to their previous styles again. If you dismiss every single testimony of any person that actually saw or met him (and all those testimonies by A LOT of martial arts EXPERTS say that he was the real deal), how do you explain this?




Not all became his disciples but they respected him and did not come back for seconds lol 

Bro he is basing things on what he wants to see and read and on the vids of Ueshiba Morihei in later life which by the time they were made in his 70's or almost months before he died then it gives a false sense ....the only early tapes of him are him when he was at the Asahi newspaper 

As you said earlier he is not grasping that the Aikido seen today is not the Aikido that Ueshiba Morihei taught originally (Iwama and Yoshinkan are probably the closest) but that of his son and there are big reasons for that as you will know


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Dead or not, Pranin does seem to have had a blind spot in this area.




He got very heavy into Saito and also researching the early stuff but just my opinion and there were conflicts between Saito and the Aikikai after Ueshiba Morihei died eventually leading to as you will know Saito jnr setting up on his own


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Looks down on such people. In none of those portions he's talking about martial arts styles.



He looks down on young people seeking martial knowledge? He calls them arrogant and lacking a moral compass? That's just as bad, if not worse.



> Morihei Ueshiba was the most famous martial artist in Japan in this period. Numerous martial arts experts flocked to hi, became his students and never went back to their previous styles again. If you dismiss every single testimony of any person that actually saw or met him (and all those testimonies by A LOT of martial arts EXPERTS say that he was the real deal), how do you explain this?



Unfortunately we have no choice but to. You're dealing with highly biased sources who have a personal stake in making their old master look good.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> No you are and have zero respect or understanding and it so apparent in what you say and as I said I'd love to see you on a mat with an Aikidoka of the hard styles or Daito-ryu lol



What would I have to gain from that pointless exercise?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> What would I have to gain from that pointless exercise?




Understanding possibly and if you tape it then you can show that what you say is all true


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Understanding possibly and if you tape it then you can show that what you say is all true



You don't need a tape of me taking down an Aikidoka using wrestling/grappling to show what I say is true. Taped evidence already exists.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> He looks down on young people seeking martial knowledge? He calls them arrogant and lacking a moral compass? That's just as bad, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately we have no choice but to. You're dealing with highly biased sources who have a personal stake in making their old master look good.




They are not biased sources at all ....it you that is biased and seem to lack the understanding and also you only cherry pick what you want to see


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> They are not biased sources at all ....it you that is biased and seem to lack the understanding and also you only cherry pick what you want to see



A biased source is someone who is prejudicial. You don't get more prejudicial than a devoted disciple of a leader.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> He looks down on young people seeking martial knowledge? He calls them arrogant and lacking a moral compass? That's just as bad, if not worse.



I'm not interested in discussing Pranin's point of view. I just rectified what I saw as a misinterpretation of what was written.



> Unfortunately we have no choice but to. You're dealing with highly biased sources who have a personal stake in making their old master look good.



For the Xth time, not all the people who praised Ueshiba were his disciples:



> or accounts by people from other arts who did not become his students but said he was the greatest, from the top of my head J. Kano, Yasuhiro Konishi, Hideo Sonobe, Haga Junichi.



And, again, how do you explain the fact that high ranked experts from other styles threw everything away just to study his martial art and never went back?

I don't know whether you are doing it on purpose or if you have reading comprehension problems (I don't mean it in a derogatory way, English is not my mother language either) but could you please make some efforts to stop ignoring half of the posts you reply to by throwing generalized statements? That's not an honest way of discussing a topic and, frankly, it's annoying.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> A biased source is someone who is prejudicial. You don't get more prejudicial than a devoted disciple of a leader.




Not necessarily so 

And are you saying you are not biased 


How much Aikido have you actually done that you can form these opinions?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> You don't need a tape of me taking down an Aikidoka using wrestling/grappling to show what I say is true. Taped evidence already exists.




Lol i tell you what then next time I am stateside you arrange mat time and you can perform your amazing skills on me ok lol ....no challenge I would just like to see these super skills lol


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I'm not interested in discussing Pranin's point of view. I just rectified what I saw as a misinterpretation of what was written.



There was no misinterpretation. He clearly views certain arts in a derogatory and dismissive way.



> For the Xth time, not all the people who praised Ueshiba were his disciples:



Fair point, but individuals like Kano had a vested interest in Ueshiba becoming successful, so again, we can't really use such people as an objective source.



> And, again, how do you explain the fact that high ranked experts from other styles threw everything away just to study his martial art and never went back?
> 
> I don't know whether you are doing it on purpose or if you have reading comprehension problems (I don't mean it in a derogatory way, English is not my mother language either) but could you please make some efforts to stop ignoring half of the posts you reply to by throwing generalized statements? That's not an honest way of discussing a topic and, frankly, it's annoying.



Hou Yaunjia was widely revered by his peers and contemporaries in China at the turn of the century. According to those same sources (all high ranking kung fu practicioners) he defeated multiple European, Japanese, and American fighters, and he was eventually poisoned by the Japanese so that he wouldn't embarrass their top fighter. To this day, he is widely regarded as a national hero in China and among the Chinese martial art community. There's even been films made about his exploits (Fearless).

Unfortunately, when we actually do scholarly research utilizing corroborating sources, we discover that he actually didn't fight anyone, and instead of being poisoned by the Japanese, he was more than likely poisoned by traditional Chinese medicine.

I place Ueshiba in a similar category; A whole lot of fantastical folk tales that would make a wonderful martial art film, but not a whole lot backed by actual evidence.



now disabled said:


> Lol i tell you what then next time I am stateside you arrange mat time and you can perform your amazing skills on me ok lol ....no challenge I would just like to see these super skills lol



Aren't you disabled?


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> There was no misinterpretation. He clearly views certain arts in a derogatory and dismissive way.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point, but individuals like Kano had a vested interest in Ueshiba becoming successful, so again, we can't really use such people as an objective source.
> 
> 
> 
> Hou Yaunjia was widely revered by his peers and contemporaries in China at the turn of the century. According to those same sources (all high ranking kung fu practicioners) he defeated multiple European, Japanese, and American fighters, and he was eventually poisoned by the Japanese so that he wouldn't embarrass their top fighter. To this day, he is widely regarded as a national hero in China and among the Chinese martial art community. There's even been films made about his exploits (Fearless).
> 
> Unfortunately, when we actually do scholarly research utilizing corroborating sources, we discover that he actually didn't fight anyone, and instead of being poisoned by the Japanese, he was more than likely poisoned by traditional Chinese medicine.
> 
> I place Ueshiba in a similar category; A whole lot of fantastical folk tales that would make a wonderful martial art film, but not a whole lot backed by actual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you disabled?




Yes I am but I am well sure that I could cope with you lol 


You are amazing lol scholarly research oh please sorry but your research is far far from that ....you pick only points you want to make and ignore things you do not want to 

And saying Ueshiba Morihei is compared to a myth is really just plain .......................well I canot find words that they will not block out here.


Really how much Aikido have you ever done ? or is that another thing you will avoid answering ?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> You don't need a tape of me taking down an Aikidoka using wrestling/grappling to show what I say is true. Taped evidence already exists.



Taped evidence of you doing it?

Because saying someone else can do it is kind of irrelevant.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Yes I am but I am well sure that I could cope with you lol



Okie dokie.



> You are amazing lol scholarly research oh please sorry but your research is far far from that ....you pick only points you want to make and ignore things you do not want to
> 
> And saying Ueshiba Morihei is compared to a myth is really just plain .......................well I canot find words that they will not block out here.



I was merely comparing Ueshiba's exploits to other other Asian urban legends.




> Really how much Aikido have you ever done ? or is that another thing you will avoid answering ?



I've taken a few classes. That's rather irrelevant to the conversation don't you think?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> There was no misinterpretation. He clearly views certain arts in a derogatory and dismissive way.


I admittedly read the piece quickly, but I didn't see that. He seemed to be talking about the approach of those seeking instruction, and talking about movie flash and its effect upon their expectations, not about actual martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

@Hanzou, serious invitation: if you find yourself in my corner of the world, give a shout. One or both of us could learn from some play time.

If you promise not to attack my knees when you take me down, I promise not to scream like a child with a scraped elbow.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I admittedly read the piece quickly, but I didn't see that. He seemed to be talking about the approach of those seeking instruction, and talking about movie flash and its effect upon their expectations, not about actual martial arts.



Very well, perhaps I took it wrong. That entire passage rubbed me the wrong way.



gpseymour said:


> @Hanzou, serious invitation: if you find yourself in my corner of the world, give a shout. One or both of us could learn from some play time.



I'll keep that in mind. I'm currently on the mend, but I'll be very interested in visiting a few TMA schools once I'm back in fighting shape.



> If you promise not to attack my knees when you take me down, I promise not to scream like a child with a scraped elbow.



Now where would the fun be in that?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Putting aside some obviously exaggerated legends, it's entirely plausible that Ueshiba may have been a tough fighter in his younger years. (Before he got old and had ukes taking no-touch dives for him.) Certainly there were some students who had already proven themselves in legitimate competition who saw enough value in what he did to come learn from him. Kenshiro Abbe once beat Kimura in shiai and you don't get much more legit than that.

Whatever the truth of Ueshiba's fighting ability, the teaching methodology he used does not seem to have been adequate for passing down his skills. I'm sure there are aikidoka who can fight, but I wouldn't feel comfortable wandering into a random Aikido dojo and assuming the instructor had solid combative ability. In contrast, there are many BJJ practitioners today who are more skilled that Helio Gracie ever was. Techniques matter, but teaching and training methodology matter much more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Yes. That's what I was saying. I wouldn't count that as 35 different throws, but 35 ways to use the foot sweep. It's semantics, is all.


If we define "single leg" as to obtain your opponents leading leg into your hand, you can use both hands to get that leg (the most common on that wrestlers like to use).

You can also use one hand to push your opponent's shoulder and use:

- one hand to get that leg.
- one knee to strike that leg.
- one leg to scoop that leg.
- one leg to hook that leg.
- one leg to sweep that leg.
- ...

Which semantics do you prefer to use here?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we define "single leg" as to obtain your opponents leading leg into your hand, you can use both hands to get that leg (the most common on that wrestlers like to use).
> 
> You can also use one hand to push your opponent's shoulder and use:
> 
> - one hand to get that leg.
> - one knee to strike that leg.
> - one leg to scoop that leg.
> - one leg to hook that leg.
> - one leg to sweep that leg.
> - ...
> 
> Which semantics do you prefer to use here?


EDIT: CLearly my head is still slow. I misread the entire list and had to amend my reply.

The last 4 would all be "Leg Sweep" to me. The other would be variation of "single leg". Some arts (like Judo) would probably have discrete names for each.

I can't keep track of the Judo techniques that we consider fall under the technique "Leg Sweep" - we don't care if it's one leg or two, forward or backward (for either uke or nage), off to the side or over the hip. If the leg is swept, it's a "Leg Sweep". I'm so used to that approach, I tend to view stuff in related batches, rather than discrete techniques.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> @Hanzou, serious invitation: if you find yourself in my corner of the world, give a shout. One or both of us could learn from some play time.
> 
> If you promise not to attack my knees when you take me down, I promise not to scream like a child with a scraped elbow.


ha ha ha.. let me know when that happens, I'll bring some ice, my gear, and a sympathy card lol.

I'm pretty sure you won't need it.  So I'll just go ahead and put Hanzou's name on it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I can't keep track of the Judo techniques that we consider fall under the technique "Leg Sweep" - we don't care if it's one leg or two, forward or backward (for either uke or nage), off to the side or over the hip. If the leg is swept, it's a "Leg Sweep". I'm so used to that approach, I tend to view stuff in related batches, rather than discrete techniques.


By using your approach, when you  swing your

- arm, you will call it "arm swing". A hook punch and an uppercut are both arm swing.
- leg, you will call it "leg sweep". A cut, hook, spring, lift, scoop, break, sweep, ... are all leg sweep.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> @Hanzou, serious invitation: if you find yourself in my corner of the world, give a shout. One or both of us could learn from some play time.
> 
> If you promise not to attack my knees when you take me down, I promise not to scream like a child with a scraped elbow.



Good to know you've still got the sense of humor writing style working.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using your approach, when you  swing your
> 
> - arm, you will call it "arm swing". A hook punch and an uppercut are both arm swing.
> - leg, you will call it "leg sweep". A cut, hook, spring, lift, scoop, break, sweep, ... are all leg sweep.


A good hook or uppercut moves 6 inches or less. There is no swing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using your approach, when you  swing your
> 
> - arm, you will call it "arm swing". A hook punch and an uppercut are both arm swing.
> - leg, you will call it "leg sweep". A cut, hook, spring, lift, scoop, break, sweep, ... are all leg sweep.


Pretty close. I tend to group uppercut and hook into "round punches".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Good to know you've still got the sense of humor writing style working.


It's my teaching style and speaking/training style, too. I like to see people laughing when they're learning to use MS Excelor learning to handle an angry coworker. It warms my soul.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> Taped evidence of you doing it?
> 
> Because saying someone else can do it is kind of irrelevant.



Are we looking at the evidence that isn't there?

So if for example we can find evidence of hanzo taking someone down bjj wrestling mma whatever then we can get a gauge of his ability and therefore his authenticity.

We can't really put that up against an Aikidoka who we can't gauge. 

Otherwise all the Aikidoka would need to do is just avoid getting in to a situation where his methods could be verified.

Or more simply. Making a claim like Usain bolt can't claim he is faster than me until he beats me in a running race. Is blatantly false.

And why is this logic so common with Aikido anyway?


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Or more simply. Making a claim like Usain bolt can't claim he is faster than me until he beats me in a running race. Is blatantly false.



My post was directed specifically at one person, but this part of your reply is interesting actually.

In Bolt's case, we have verifiable evidence of him being faster than many other people who have trained to be fast. Based on that, he can claim to be faster than you. Most would just accept that claim because it's logical, it makes sense.

But, until it's tested it's just a claim.

You could claim to be faster than him, but it's less logical and most people would ask for more evidence to back it up.

It's not really a direct comparison though, because it's based on one single thing - running over a set distance.

The way you worded your statement introduces something else though...

You didn't specify faster at what ("until he beats you in a running race").

So let's modify...

"Usain bolt can't claim he is faster than me (on a bicycle / in a car / parachuting / carving a replica of the statue of David from canned cheese) until he beats me in a running race"

Now we're getting closer.

To me, that's somewhat akin to saying "aikido can't claim effectiveness in self defence until it's proven in MMA competition".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> My post was directed specifically at one person, but this part of your reply is interesting actually.
> 
> In Bolt's case, we have verifiable evidence of him being faster than many other people who have trained to be fast. Based on that, he can claim to be faster than you. Most would just accept that claim because it's logical, it makes sense.
> 
> But, until it's tested it's just a claim.
> 
> You could claim to be faster than him, but it's less logical and most people would ask for more evidence to back it up.


I'll go a step further. Faster is directly measurable. Bolt could run 100m and have it videoed and verified. We could send people over to do the same for DB. Then we can say clearly that Bolt is faster. Because it's comparing a single measurement between two people. There is room for analogy to MA, but it's not going to be a strong analogy, because we can't really measure a single item, unless it's a single "power" measurement for strikes or something, which doesn't readily translate to "better".


----------



## FriedRice

pdg said:


> To me, that's somewhat akin to saying "aikido can't claim effectiveness in self defence until it's proven in MMA competition".


----------



## pdg

FriedRice said:


>



Erm, that doesn't really prove anything either way...


----------



## FriedRice

pdg said:


> Erm, that doesn't really prove anything either way...



Yea, not to you, b/c your favorite style got Worldstarred.


----------



## FriedRice

pdg said:


> "Usain bolt can't claim he is faster than me (on a bicycle / in a car / parachuting / carving a replica of the statue of David from canned cheese) until he beats me in a running race"



Speaking of Usain Bolt:


----------



## pdg

FriedRice said:


> Yea, not to you, b/c your favorite style got Worldstarred.



Ok...

What is my favourite style?

What does "worldstarred" actually mean?

Are either of those chubby blokes representative of the norm for either system?


I'd actually be somewhat pushed to decide a "winner" in that one round farce - I'd probably go with the one who had his hand held up though - that's based on scoring (or more accurately, penalties) for "aggression or lack thereof". Did the guy in white quit? I skipped though the 5+ minutes and found the relevant 30 seconds, but couldn't be bothered with sound.

The guy in white (I have to assume the aikido "master") seemingly just didn't know what to do with punches.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

pdg said:


> Ok...
> 
> What is my favourite style?
> 
> What does "worldstarred" actually mean?
> 
> Are either of those chubby blokes representative of the norm for either system?
> 
> 
> I'd actually be somewhat pushed to decide a "winner" in that one round farce - I'd probably go with the one who had his hand held up though - that's based on scoring (or more accurately, penalties) for "aggression or lack thereof". Did the guy in white quit? I skipped though the 5+ minutes and found the relevant 30 seconds, but couldn't be bothered with sound.
> 
> The guy in white (I have to assume the aikido "master") seemingly just didn't know what to do with punches.


I don't speak Russian, so I don't know what either of those gentlemen train. However I would award the victory to the guy who landed all the punches and knocked his opponent down. I don't think the other guy landed a single blow. (Just double-checked. I guess he had one kick which sort of made contact although there wasn't any real impact.)


----------



## pdg

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't speak Russian, so I don't know what either of those gentlemen train. However I would award the victory to the guy who landed all the punches and knocked his opponent down. I don't think the other guy landed a single blow. (Just double-checked. I guess he had one kick which sort of made contact although there wasn't any real impact.)



It wasn't really a decisive knock down though, unless I missed it...

And the kick, that was begging to be a distancing push to get followed by a proper kick(s).

Looked all lonely sticking out by itself like that.


----------



## now disabled

FriedRice said:


> Yea, not to you, b/c your favorite style got Worldstarred.




That vid is more like the fights you see over here between the travelling community well sort of as they tend not to use gloves lol


----------



## FriedRice

pdg said:


> Ok...
> 
> What is my favourite style?
> 
> What does "worldstarred" actually mean?
> 
> Are either of those chubby blokes representative of the norm for either system?
> 
> 
> I'd actually be somewhat pushed to decide a "winner" in that one round farce - I'd probably go with the one who had his hand held up though - that's based on scoring (or more accurately, penalties) for "aggression or lack thereof". Did the guy in white quit? I skipped though the 5+ minutes and found the relevant 30 seconds, but couldn't be bothered with sound.
> 
> The guy in white (I have to assume the aikido "master") seemingly just didn't know what to do with punches.



I speak fluent Russian and after the fight, he said:  

"...if only I had my Aikido pants on, the outcome would have been different".


----------



## pdg

FriedRice said:


> I speak fluent Russian and after the fight, he said:
> 
> "...if only I had my Aikido pants on, the outcome would have been different".



If he had a body like that pictured, I'm sure the outcome would've been different too...


----------



## now disabled

FriedRice said:


> I speak fluent Russian and after the fight, he said:
> 
> "...if only I had my Aikido pants on, the outcome would have been different".




The guy certainly lost weight between fight and getting pic taken ..............and he does appear to have also changed sex to ...........no that does show some sort of mastery lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Yea, not to you, b/c your favorite style got Worldstarred.


I didn't see much that looked like Aikido movement in that. No way to tell what his ability was, but he certainly wasn't prepared for tight, violent attacks.


----------



## pdg

I'm wondering if my questions are going to be answered or ignored...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> I speak fluent Russian and after the fight, he said:
> 
> "...if only I had my Aikido pants on, the outcome would have been different".


It's a dress, man. I wear a dress when training. Get it right.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I'm wondering if my questions are going to be answered or ignored...




depends who you ask them off


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> It's a dress, man. I wear a dress when training. Get it right.




Yeah but from memory isn't yours the little black number ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Yeah but from memory isn't yours the little black number ?


Yes, it is. It goes quite well with my black gi. Gives it the whole 70's pant suit look.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Yes, it is. It goes quite well with my black gi. Gives it the whole 70's pant suit look.




Seriously oh ok jeez do the wedge boots not cause you difficulties in moving when teaching ?, now I get it ....that is why your knees a knackered it the wedge soled boots and high heels lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Seriously oh ok jeez do the wedge boots not cause you difficulties in moving when teaching ?, now I get it ....that is why your knees a knackered it the wedge soled boots and high heels lol


Now you see my problem.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Now you see my problem.




Yes I am trying to think on best advice 



No sorry it above my pay grade ....I think professional advice may be required lol


----------

