# Non-Wing Chun



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

Questions for some of you non chunners out there. Why are you on this forum? Not meaning this is a rude way. Just a sincere question. While some of you seem to actually want to help the threads by giving a new insight from a different prospective. Some of you seem to just want to disrupt the discussion.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Questions for some of you non chunners out there. Why are you on this forum? Not meaning this is a rude way. Just a sincere question. While some of you seem to actually want to help the threads by giving a new insight from a different prospective. Some of you seem to just want to disrupt the discussion.


but there doesnt apear to be any discusion, just you waffling on

if all the non chunners l3ft youd be talking to yourself


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> if all the non chunners l3ft youd be talking to yourself


And I'd be happier for it


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

@jobo that doesn't answer my question. A thread actually directed at you and you still manage to divert the subject. Why are you here on this forum.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> @jobo that doesn't answer my question. A thread actually directed at you and you still manage to divert the subject. Why are you here on this forum.


well the simple answer is coz i want to

that generaly all the justification i need to to do anything i want to, as long as that stays with in the bounds  of the law. obs

why are you here? does it have any deeper reason other than to provided me with mild amusment?


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2020)

Speaking just for myself, but that's just not how I read this forum.  I always click on Active Topics, and then just read and respond to whatever strikes my fancy.  I would say it is pretty common that I will have no idea what particular subforum a thread is in, unless it's salient to that thread or to my post.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> well the simple answer is coz i want to
> 
> that generaly all the justification i need to to do anything i want to, as long as that stays with in the bounds  of the law. obs
> 
> why are you here? does it have any deeper reason other than to provided me with mild amusment?


I'm here to talk with other WC people about WC.
I just don't understand being so bored in life that you best form of amusement comes from getting on a forum just to troll people with typos


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Speaking just for myself, but that's just not how I read this forum.  I always click on Active Topics, and then just read and respond to whatever strikes my fancy.  I would say it is pretty common that I will have no idea what particular subforum a thread is in, unless it's salient to that thread or to my post.


I'm not saying that only WC should comment on the threads. What I'm annoyed with are the ones coming into threads with the general purpose to shut down the conversation. I love hearing opinions from other styles and thats part of what this forum is for!


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> I'm here to talk with other WC people about WC.
> I just don't understand being so bored in life that you best form of amusement comes from getting on a forum just to troll people with typos


but there arnt any, at least not many not very often, so your unlikely to meet your goal, fortunately its still of some use

far be it from me to point out the logical contradiction in that im currently here because youve launch a thread aim specifically at me where you requesting replies.

hell its almost a discusion


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> but there arnt any, at least not many not very often, so your unlikely to meet your goal, fortunately its still of some use
> 
> far be it from me to point out the logical contradiction in that im currently here because youve launch a thread aim specifically at me where you requesting replies.
> 
> hell its almost a discusion



Because they got ran off. They got annoyed trying to have a conversation just for someone to butt in about how bad WC is and how were all wasting our time.
And i called you here to call you out. If you want to comment on this threads by all means do it. But actually put fourth an opinion or add something to the conversation. No one is interested in anyone's personal opinion


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Because they got ran off. They got annoyed trying to have a conversation just for someone to butt in about how bad WC is and how were all wasting our time.
> And i called you hear to call you out. If you want to comment on this threads by all means do it. But actually put fourth an opinion or add something to the conversation. No one is interested in anyone's personal opinion


well they didnt get run off, theres lots of heated debate on the use or otherwise of all the arts, no one singled chunners out for special treatment,  karate gets a hard time as well.

its just chunners seem very very prickly, and react badly to even very fair observations, its like they know the criticism is right and just dont want to here it


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> well they didnt get run off, theres lots of heated debate on the use or otherwise of all the arts, no one singled chunners out for special treatment,  karate gets a hard time as well.
> 
> its just chunners seem very very prickly, and react badly to even very fair observations, its like they know the criticism is right and just dont want to here it


Go through the thread about maxiums and tell me how that was 'fair observation'.
You don't make observation or ask questions. You give your opinion that wc sucks. Okay got it. Heard you. Now ether contributed to the threads with legitimate insights or move on


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Go through the thread about maxiums and tell me how that was 'fair observation'.
> You don't make observation or ask questions. You give your opinion that wc sucks. Okay got it. Heard you. Now ether contributed to the threads with legitimate insights or move on


i never said wc sucks, and my insight is indeed legitimate,  just as much as your is, as every bodies is, im not sure you can tell me where i can or cant post,  so you carry on amusing me with your tiz and and il carry on commenting where and when i see fit


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> i never said wc sucks, and my insight is indeed legitimate,  just as much as your is, as every bodies is, im not sure you can tell me where i can or cant post,  so you carry on amusing me with your tiz and and il carry on commenting where and when i see fit


Ah you're right. It blows. And I'm sure you do have some very great insight on a lot of things. And no I can't keep you from posting. But the rules on the thread do clearly state not to troll or disrupt the thread. Which you do. All I'm asking is to post *ONLY* when you have something of meaning to say.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Go through the thread about maxiums and tell me how that was 'fair observation'.
> You don't make observation or ask questions. You give your opinion that wc sucks. Okay got it. Heard you. Now ether contributed to the threads with legitimate insights or move on


I’ll make a suggestion, since the Ignore feature has come up in another thread or two recently.

Some people just want to get a rise out of others.  If everybody were to stop interacting with them altogether, stop even acknowledging that they exist, and they can’t get a rise out of anyone, can’t even get anyone to respond to them in any way, they might eventually just go away.

It does take a group commitment, though.  In the meantime, on an individual level, it still makes life better.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Ah you're right. It blows. And I'm sure you do have some very great insight on a lot of things. And no I can't keep you from posting. But the rules on the thread do clearly state not to troll or disrupt the thread. Which you do. All I'm asking is to post *ONLY* when you have something of meaning to say.


but yet you keep engaging me is conversation,  that really odd for someone who doesnt want to hear what i have to say.

and now your asking, a few minetes ago your were telling me. 

and the answer is the same, il post what and where i want, if you think im breaking the forum rules, report me,  its of no concern to me either way,

ironicaly id left the thread , but you called me back, its like your festered over night, you need to grow a thicker skin or keep of forums


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ll make a suggestion, since the Ignore feature has come up in another thread or two recently.
> 
> Some people just want to get a rise out of others.  If everybody were to stop interacting with them altogether, stop even acknowledging that they exist, and they can’t get a rise out of anyone, can’t even get anyone to respond to them in any way, they might eventually just go away.
> 
> It does take a group commitment, though.  In the meantime, on an individual level, it still makes life better.


And thats what I was hoping would happen. But then someone else gets on there and comments and it all blows up haha.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ll make a suggestion, since the Ignore feature has come up in another thread or two recently.
> 
> Some people just want to get a rise out of others.  If everybody were to stop interacting with them altogether, stop even acknowledging that they exist, and they can’t get a rise out of anyone, can’t even get anyone to respond to them in any way, they might eventually just go away.
> 
> It does take a group commitment, though.  In the meantime, on an individual level, it still makes life better.


your right i was thinking of putting him on ignore, but then who would i laugh at


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> but yet you keep engaging me is conversation,  that really odd for someone who doesnt want to hear what i have to say.
> 
> and now your asking, a few minetes ago your were telling me.
> 
> ...



I do want to hear from you. A lot of times a different opinion makes the thread better and steers it in a good direction. But more often then not youve just kill the discussion. And i have reported your replies on the last few threads.
No I'm not mad at all, just disappointed. It sucks that we have a platform here for people of different thoughts and training to come together and discuss and a few people can ruin it all. Im just disappointed in where this forum went. Use to be full of great things to read.
I'm not mad at you @jobo just trying to breathe some new life into a forum that's more of less dead. And to do that the problems need to be addressed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> And thats what I was hoping would happen. But then someone else gets on there and comments and it all blows up haha.


Coordinating the effort is the issue.  And not everyone agrees that ignoring X is the best way to handle it.  So therein lies the trouble.

I know that my experiences here have vastly improved once I put certain people on ignore.  When it becomes clear that you just cannot have meaningful and positive interactions with certain people, then it’s time to stop all interaction with them.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Coordinating the effort is the issue.  And not everyone agrees that ignoring X is the best way to handle it.  So therein lies the trouble.
> 
> I know that my experiences here have vastly improved once I put certain people on ignore.  When it becomes clear that you just cannot have meaningful and positive interactions with certain people, then it’s time to stop all interaction with them.


What does the ingore thing do? I want to see the post because they are good sometimes. Sometimes lol


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 21, 2020)

The problem with the ignore function is that people respond and sometimes quote the person you are ignoring and so you either end up with responses, but not what they were responding to or seeing the post you're trying to ignore anyway.

As for Wing Chunners (and probably other TMAist) being "run off" by people like our friend here who trolls every Wing Chun thread, it is a real thing. I'm not super happy with the term or the idea of being "run off", because we're all martial artists and should be able to hold our own. But engaging with internet trolls is a waste of time at best and is actually just a bad thing to have in your life at worst.

I would love to have an internet forum in which I could discuss and debate the systems that I train in with other people who train or are interested in them. I am interested in systems that I don't train in and people who don't train like me, so I don't need for it to be exclusive, but I don't troll other systems' fora. In other words, I don't go into a TKD discussion and bash on TKD. I either read it or I don't, but I leave the discussion to practitioners of that art.

There is a group of people here who look for new threads on Wing Chun and then come in and bash Wing Chun or start propping up whatever style or system they train in. There are even people (usually on the younger side) who don't have experience in ANY system, but they read about martial arts and then come in and say things like "the vertical punch doesn't make any sense, if it worked it would be used in MMA."

So, maybe "disengage" would be more accurate than "run off". TMAs are passed on from teachers to students and generations to generation in person, not on-line. I don't need this forum, but I do get some value from it. The noise created by these trolls puts a price on that value and frequently, it makes me feel like the cost is too high for the value, so I disengage and focus instead on my training and my student's training. For this to be a really great resource for people like me, it would need to be moderated differently. No criticism intended, it's a tough job and mods are usually volunteers. They have jobs and lives too and dealing with trolls is not fun for them either, but in the end, the trolls are the loudest voices in the room and whatever validation their fragile egos get from tearing down things that they don't understand is more important to them than participation in a web forum is for people like me.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> What does the ingore thing do? I want to see the post because they are good sometimes. Sometimes lol


once someone is on ignore, you cannot see their posts, but you can see that they did make a post.  You can temporarily lift the Ignore to see a selective post, but I don’t do it.  That would be defeating the purpose.  If you decide to ignore someone, then ignore them.  You are deciding that they have nothing to say that you are interested in.  At least that’s how I see it.  For me, it is absolute and final.  Maybe they have something good to say once in a while.  But to me, the aggravation of their typical behavior isn’t worth putting up with, and I seriously doubt this one person, in having the occasional nugget of quality, is the only source of such information.  I’m not missing out on anything.  They aren’t worth it.  I will not take someone off Ignore, once I put them on.  So I don’t do it lightly.  I give them plenty of chances first.  Then I just do it.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> The problem with the ignore function is that people respond and sometimes quote the person you are ignoring and so you either end up with responses, but not what they were responding to or seeing the post you're trying to ignore anyway.
> 
> As for Wing Chunners (and probably other TMAist) being "run off" by people like our friend here who trolls every Wing Chun thread, it is a real thing. I'm not super happy with the term or the idea of being "run off", because we're all martial artists and should be able to hold our own. But engaging with internet trolls is a waste of time at best and is actually just a bad thing to have in your life at worst.
> 
> ...


Can i get an amen ? Perfect response


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> The problem with the ignore function is that people respond and sometimes quote the person you are ignoring and so you either end up with responses, but not what they were responding to or seeing the post you're trying to ignore anyway.


Very true, and it does result in some oddly disjointed threads, where I see only one side of the discussion.  Like this thread.  

I’m ok with it.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> once someone is on ignore, you cannot see their posts, but you can see that they did make a post.  You can temporarily lift the Ignore to see a selective post, but I don’t do it.  That would be defeating the purpose.  If you decide to ignore someone, then ignore them.  You are deciding that they have nothing to say that you are interested in.  At least that’s how I see it.  For me, it is absolute and final.  Maybe they have something good to say once in a while.  But to me, the aggravation of their typical behavior isn’t worth putting up with, and I seriously doubt this one person, in having the occasional nugget of quality, is the only source of such information.  I’m not missing out on anything.  They aren’t worth it.  I will not take someone off Ignore, once I put them on.  So I don’t do it lightly.  I give them plenty of chances first.  Then I just do it.


I'll bear this is mind. But the problem would still remain of them derailing conversation. Unless we all has a group block them. Which I don't hate that idea


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> I'll bear this is mind. But the problem would still remain of them derailing conversation. Unless we all has a group block them. Which I don't hate that idea


Yes, individuals ignoring them won’t stop them, when other people continue to engage.  A group effort would be more effective.

But in the meantime, you don’t need to put up with the aggravation that they represent, even when you can tell from the rest of the tread they are still trying to do their trolling.  On a personal level for yourself, you decide who is worth engaging with.  Shrug it off, move on.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, individuals ignoring them won’t stop them, when other people continue to engage.  A group effort would be more effective.
> 
> But in the meantime, you don’t need to put up with the aggravation that they represent, even when you can tell from the rest of the tread they are still trying to do their trolling.  On a personal level for yourself, you decide who is worth engaging with.  Shrug it off, move on.


Very solid advice. Thank you. I'm more hoping to stir up the community with this thread. It's time to make this forum active again. And to do that we might have to do some ignoring as a group .


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Very solid advice. Thank you. I'm more hoping to stir up the community with this thread. It's time to make this forum active again. And to do that we might have to do some ignoring as a group .


By all means.  It’s been my opinion that the forums would be better if a few certain folks went away.  I can only make decisions for myself, but I support your position.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 21, 2020)

Group Ignore is an interesting idea. It would take some coordination.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 21, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Group Ignore is an interesting idea. It would take some coordination.


We can start a thread about it


----------



## Buka (Sep 22, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Questions for some of you non chunners out there. Why are you on this forum? Not meaning this is a rude way. Just a sincere question. While some of you seem to actually want to help the threads by giving a new insight from a different prospective. Some of you seem to just want to disrupt the discussion.



I like to read threads, hear other people's thoughts. Although I've trained with some chunners and Jeet guys over the years, neither is my primary Art. Heck, I can get all I want of my primary Art quite easily.

I like to read all the threads, they're usually interesting. Sometimes even enjoyable.

What I do find odd sometimes, is the amount of heated arguments that take place. Not in any particular thread or about any particular Art, but just in general. I feel people take bait far too easily. Would people be so easily goaded into physical confrontation outside of a forum just because they didn't like what was said to them? Or if they were insulted by someone they didn't even know? Hopefully, Martial Arts teaches people better than that. 

I have about a hundred hours of Wing Chun under my belt. But that's over a span of almost fifty years. That's about two hours a year. Certainly not enough for me to comment on it, but enough for me to read other people's thoughts about it. 

Anyway, that's why I'll read any thread, why I'm on the forum in the first place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 22, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Questions for some of you non chunners out there. Why are you on this forum? Not meaning this is a rude way. Just a sincere question. While some of you seem to actually want to help the threads by giving a new insight from a different prospective. Some of you seem to just want to disrupt the discussion.


I enjoy seeing how style affects view. Someone with a different primary style tends asto have a different thought process, especially if it is their only style exposure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> well the simple answer is coz i want to
> 
> that generaly all the justification i need to to do anything i want to, as long as that stays with in the bounds  of the law. obs
> 
> why are you here? does it have any deeper reason other than to provided me with mild amusment?


It was a reasonable question for intellectual curiosity. Why do you have to respond to it as an attack?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 22, 2020)

Highlander said:


> I'm here to talk with other WC people about WC.
> I just don't understand being so bored in life that you best form of amusement comes from getting on a forum just to troll people with typos


That's a different thing. Jobo's interference has nothing to do with whether he's WC or not. He just likes to stir things up, often when he could actually contribute, but prefers to disrupt. Senseless, but irrespective of style. We've had chunners here in the past who were no better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> hell its almost a discusion


Could be, except you don't often choose to actually discuss.


----------



## jobo (Sep 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It was a reasonable question for intellectual curiosity. Why do you have to respond to it as an attack?


its not an attack, he is a pompous buffoon, im mere drawing amusement from his pompous buffoonary, i am insome ways greatful to him for the mild amusment he provides  and thought id point this out

and before you call this an attack, youve said far worse to me with impunity


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> its not an attack, he is a pompous buffoon, im mere drawing amusement from his pompous buffoonary, i am insome ways greatful to him for the mild amusment he provides  and thought id point this out
> 
> and before you call this an attack, youve said far worse to me with impunity


You are ridiculous.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> its not an attack, he is a pompous buffoon, im mere drawing amusement from his pompous buffoonary, i am insome ways greatful to him for the mild amusment he provides  and thought id point this out
> 
> and before you call this an attack, youve said far worse to me with impunity


Jobo.... does this mean we're not friends anymore?


----------



## yak sao (Sep 22, 2020)

Jobo, I've actually defended you a bit to others saying that if we knew you in person we might actually get along or at leaat disagree with each other in a civil way.
I'm here to say....boy was I WRONG!!!


----------



## yak sao (Sep 22, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Jobo.... does this mean we're not friends anymore?



He more or less said you make him happy.
Sounds like you and he are best buds.


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2020)

Non-WC guy in a WC forum (though I did train WC for about 1 1/2 years in 1985-1986, if that counts for anything).  My opinions, for what they're worth:


I already mentioned how easy it is to find oneself in a WC subforum by using the "Active Topics" button.  I generally try to stay out of any technical discussion.  It seems like when you guys get into technical discussions, they go well for a while.  Sometimes, they devolve into different branches arguing, but it's usually WC guys arguing... so that's something.
I like big picture discussions. I can get into the weeds on some things, but that's not what I usually enjoy.  Other people like discussions about the details. So, where one person cares deeply about where to point your toes in a technique, I'm more interested in why you think that's more important.  Just what makes me tick, and I don't see anything wrong with either approach.
Regarding the ignore feature, I really like @Buka 's recommendation and that's generally how I've always done it.  I put people on ignore for a while, until I can regain a little perspective, and then I take them off. I think it's a shame when folks talk about putting people on ignore forever.  I have a **** list, for sure, but I can't imagine holding a grudge forever. That's pretty severe, and makes me wonder if that person shuts people out like that in real life, too.  And then I feel sorry for that person.
I think coordinated "ignore" parties is a terrible idea, akin to ostracizing someone.  I could never be a part of something as intentionally mean and petty as that.  It just feels really wrong to me, and very juvenile. There's already a function for people who cannot participate on the forum, and that's the ban function that moderators already employ.
I don't think anyone who has posted here regularly for more than a year, much less over 3 1/2 years, is a simple troll.  At some point, folks have some skin in the game, and there's something about the community here that they enjoy.  Dismissing them as a troll says more about you than them.


----------



## jobo (Sep 22, 2020)

yak sao said:


> Jobo, I've actually defended you a bit to others saying that if we knew you in person we might actually get along or at leaat disagree with each other in a civil way.
> I'm here to say....boy was I WRONG!!!


it wasnt me that decided to make it personal, that was your friend, its a reoccuring theme on here

but i dont understand why youd think id want to associate with you in the real world ?


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 22, 2020)

I don't think anyone objects to martial artists or even people thinking about training participating in style specific fora that they don't have expertise in. This is about trolling. Which we have a clear definition of it here. It makes some people happy. 

In real life things get settled differently. We live in the world, being part of a on-line martial arts community is optional. Maybe the better martial artists are the ones who check out and stop posting, rather than taking the bait.


----------



## Highlander (Sep 22, 2020)

Which in lays the problem. If you have people getting so frustrated that they just leave the community then we need to address the issues. I agree that's its an extreme measure. But the people trolling aren't going to be bothered by being ignored. And I don't want them to be banned because I'm sure they love the forum as much as me. But when someone refuses to act as an adult. Sometimes you must treat them like a child. I have no interest in shutting out people who are actively trying to discuss or add insight. But trolling is detrimental to the health of the overall community and needs to be stopped


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 22, 2020)

Highlander said:


> But when someone refuses to act as an adult. Sometimes you must treat them like a child.



Yup. Exactly.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> but i dont understand why youd think id want to associate with you in the real world ?



Oh c'mon Jobo...please be my friend


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 3, 2020)

@Highlander I've participated in WC discussions in the past because the WC community is a rather unique one within Chinese martial arts. They have a genuine desire to be viewed as an effective MA by the MA community at large, but are seemingly held back by the dogma of their system. It's almost exactly what happened to Bruce Lee, which led him to found his own system of Martial Arts.

That paradigm leads to some rather interesting conversations and observations, which consistently piques my curiosity as a practitioner of a MMA.


----------



## jobo (Oct 3, 2020)

yak sao said:


> Oh c'mon Jobo...please be my friend


if your that desperate ring the Samaritans, they will be your ''friend''


----------



## Poppity (Oct 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> @Highlander I've participated in WC discussions in the past because the WC community is a rather unique one within Chinese martial arts. They have a genuine desire to be viewed as an effective MA by the MA community at large, but are seemingly held back by the dogma of their system. It's almost exactly what happened to Bruce Lee, which led him to found his own system of Martial Arts.
> 
> That paradigm leads to some rather interesting conversations and observations, which consistently piques my curiosity as a practitioner of a MMA.



I genuinely find this an interesting view. Looking at it from the wing chun side, the wing chun community doesn't really give two hoots what the MMA community think. The wing chun practitioners are not on the MMA forums rubbishing MMA and declaring wing chun superior, it is nearly always the other way round...and...

It's not the big wing chun names producing MMA fighters or seeking accolades, Alan Orr for example is Robert Chu's student, but Robert Chu is not pushing for his lineage to be plastered over the style.
The MMA Vs Wing chun fights repeatedly Appear to be smalltime MMA fighters arranging fights with small time wing chun practitioners and then doing a big song and dance over it. I think this is more about the general poor quality of wing chun (the most widespread unregulated tcma) and the fact that a lot of MMA practitioners seem to feel they have some how beaten a Bruce Lee equivalent in a Wing chun  hobbyist.


There seems to be a real desire in the MMA community to attack wing chun with a passion not present for other tcma.

Also.bruce Lee did not learn all of the wing chun curriculum, he got a bit into second form and then Ip Man stopped teaching him. Bruce Lee looked to fill his missing curriculum from other arts, but interestingly applied his wing chun principles to it.


----------



## jobo (Oct 4, 2020)

Snark said:


> I genuinely find this an interesting view. Looking at it from the wing chun side, the wing chun community doesn't really give two hoots what the MMA community think. The wing chun practitioners are not on the MMA forums rubbishing MMA and declaring wing chun superior, it is nearly always the other way round...and...
> 
> It's not the big wing chun names producing MMA fighters or seeking accolades, Alan Orr for example is Robert Chu's student, but Robert Chu is not pushing for his lineage to be plastered over the style.
> The MMA Vs Wing chun fights repeatedly Appear to be smalltime MMA fighters arranging fights with small time wing chun practitioners and then doing a big song and dance over it. I think this is more about the general poor quality of wing chun (the most widespread unregulated tcma) and the fact that a lot of MMA practitioners seem to feel they have some how beaten a Bruce Lee equivalent in a Wing chun  hobbyist.
> ...


well you clearly give at least one hoot, that youve bother to make a post on what the mma guys think of wc


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

Snark said:


> I genuinely find this an interesting view. Looking at it from the wing chun side, the wing chun community doesn't really give two hoots what the MMA community think. The wing chun practitioners are not on the MMA forums rubbishing MMA and declaring wing chun superior, it is nearly always the other way round...and...



WC practitioners aren't in MMA forums rubbishing MMA because WC practitioners have no leg to stand on in terms of "rubbishing" MMA given their multiple attempts to make it a viable MA style in the MMA format.

Further, someone like myself observing WC from outside and commenting on their MMA pushes isn't "rubbishing" the style.



> It's not the big wing chun names producing MMA fighters or seeking accolades, Alan Orr for example is Robert Chu's student, but Robert Chu is not pushing for his lineage to be plastered over the style.
> The MMA Vs Wing chun fights repeatedly Appear to be smalltime MMA fighters arranging fights with small time wing chun practitioners and then doing a big song and dance over it. I think this is more about the general poor quality of wing chun (the most widespread unregulated tcma) and the fact that a lot of MMA practitioners seem to feel they have some how beaten a Bruce Lee equivalent in a Wing chun  hobbyist.



Just FYI, Alan Orr isn't a big name in MMA. He has some notoriety because he's attempted to bring WC into MMA, but a big name person? Nah.



> There seems to be a real desire in the MMA community to attack wing chun with a passion not present for other tcma.
> 
> Also.bruce Lee did not learn all of the wing chun curriculum, he got a bit into second form and then Ip Man stopped teaching him. Bruce Lee looked to fill his missing curriculum from other arts, but interestingly applied his wing chun principles to it.



Yeah, again, the MMA community only "attacks" WC when WC enters the MMA sphere, such as when lunatics like Shawn Obasi enter the MMA sphere pushing WC and face plant hard. Even then, I wouldn't call it attacking, it's more like pointing and laughing.

Also Bruce Lee became a mixed martial artist because he found Wing Chun and traditional Kung Fu in general lacking when he went up against boxers and wrestlers. He wrote about this himself, specifically saying that the traditional aspects of WC dragged it down.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> WC practitioners aren't in MMA forums rubbishing MMA because WC practitioners have no leg to stand on in terms of "rubbishing" MMA given their multiple attempts to make it a viable MA style in the MMA format.
> 
> Further, someone like myself observing WC from outside and commenting on their MMA pushes isn't "rubbishing" the style.
> 
> ...




Chill out, your not doing your blood pressure any favours. 

Thanks for coming to a wing chun forum and providing case and point.

Saying wc practitioners don't have a leg to stand on.. the MMA community points and laughs and then claiming your not rubbishing the style just makes you sound inconsistent and salty.

I didn't say Alan Orr was a big name.. I said the big names in wing chun aren't producing MMA fighters. Your either angry and not reading what I wrote or "you dont read so good"

Can you point to an actual quote from Bruce lee where he says this, because it sounds like a lot of the sales pitch of some of the people around him after he died. Direct me to a quote from Bruce lee, pretty sure you can't.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 4, 2020)

jobo said:


> well you clearly give at least one hoot, that youve bother to make a post on what the mma guys think of wc



Thanks for providing a perfect example of one twit does not a hoot make.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

Snark said:


> Chill out, your not doing your blood pressure any favours.
> 
> Thanks for coming to a wing chun forum and providing case and point.
> 
> Saying wc practitioners don't have a leg to stand on.. the MMA community points and laughs and then claiming your not rubbishing the style just makes you sound inconsistent and salty.



Yeah, read what I said again; I said that WC practitioners attacking MMA would make zero sense because there are numerous WC exponents trying to enter MMA. Hence, they wouldn't have a "leg to stand on".



> I didn't say Alan Orr was a big name.. I said the big names in wing chun aren't producing MMA fighters. Your either angry and not reading what I wrote or "you dont read so good"



Yet you mentioned Alan Orr, but okay...

Big names in WC aren't producing MMA fighters because they know what would happen if they tried. WC has had multiple opportunities to enter MMA and it has fallen flat each time.



> Can you point to an actual quote from Bruce lee where he says this, because it sounds like a lot of the sales pitch of some of the people around him after he died. Direct me to a quote from Bruce lee, pretty sure you can't.



It's in the Tao of Jeet kun Do. You do know that there are no forms in JKD right? There's a reason for that.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, read what I said again; I said that WC practitioners attacking MMA would make zero sense because there are numerous WC exponents trying to enter MMA. Hence, they wouldn't have a "leg to stand on".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ooooh right... So when you wrote..
"Wing Chun and traditional Kung Fu in general lacking when he went up against boxers and wrestlers. He wrote about this himself, specifically saying that the traditional aspects of WC dragged it down"

....your saying this is in the Tao of jeet kun do, i have the book right here. Can you tell me the page on which this very specific quote is in it... Because it just doesn't seem to be here.   Yes he has a moan about the formalities of martial artistry and the problems with not doing contact sparring. But where did he write what you said.

I mean I can direct you to a quote where he criticises boxing and combat sports but not what you said... Where is it?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

Snark said:


> Ooooh right... So when you wrote..
> "Wing Chun and traditional Kung Fu in general lacking when he went up against boxers and wrestlers. He wrote about this himself, specifically saying that the traditional aspects of WC dragged it down"
> 
> ....your saying this is in the Tao of jeet kun do, i have the book right here. Can you tell me the page on which this very specific quote is in it... Because it just doesn't seem to be here.   Yes he has a moan about the formalities of martial artistry and the problems with not doing contact sparring. But where did he write what you said.
> ...



So you're saying that Bruce Lee never stated the following;

"Anyone with a year of boxing and wrestling experience could beat a 20-year martial artist."

It's a famous quote attributed to him, and it's part of the reason he created JKD. When I said it's in the Tao of JKD, I'm saying that that quote is the underlying purpose of why the art was created in the first place, and why the art has no forms/kata.

I hope that helps.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 4, 2020)

Bruce Lee created JKD because he moved to the US as a teenager and had no opportunity to continue formal training. He tried to return to it, but was denied. As a WC I can't tell you how exhausting it is to have to keep saying that. 

I can also tell you that I don't give a **** about the UFC. I did 3 or 4 years of boxing and about the same amount of Muay Thai before I took my first Wing Chun class.

I chose Wing Chun because I like it and it works for me. It was an informed decision. Aside from a few crackpots or highly commercial lineages, none of us are trying to convince people who prefer something else that we are superior, but we get torn down by MMA people and people with opinions about Bruce Lee rentlessly.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 4, 2020)

Bruce Lee had maybe 2 or 3 years wing chun max under his belt.
He didn't have any footwork to speak of from wing chun because he never saw it...but rather than say he never saw it he said wing chun didn't have it.

It's like quitting school in 3rd grade and saying it didn't adequately prepare you for life.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Bruce Lee never stated the following;
> 
> "Anyone with a year of boxing and wrestling experience could beat a 20-year martial artist."
> 
> ...




It helps plenty. It's clarified your full of contradictions and hot air. You claim he WROTE wing chun and Kung Fu was lacking and limiting... You even gave a name of a book and then you claim bruce Lee must have meant this in some passing comment he allegedly made, Not even directly from him when he's vaguely referring to martial arts And what you rely on to justify this is a
quote which first came from 
Eddie Bravo a bjj guy who never even met him.

I had never even read a Bruce Lee book until this evening, and everything in the Tao of jeet kuen do is in wing chun. Brucey should have stayed in school.

The rest of your claims about wing chun are all nebulous with no facts and thinly veiled opinion pieces.

Man your just living up to a stereotype. Honestly I've wasted too much time already on this. Have a great evening and whatever.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Bruce Lee created JKD because he moved to the US as a teenager and had no opportunity to continue formal training. He tried to return to it, but was denied. As a WC I can't tell you how exhausting it is to have to keep saying that.



Hey, I'm only going by what Lee said himself about his training. I know some in the WC community had an issue with Lee for whatever reason, but that's your thing.



> I can also tell you that I don't give a **** about the UFC. I did 3 or 4 years of boxing and about the same amount of Muay Thai before I took my first Wing Chun class.



Good to know. Nobody was talking about you specifically.



> I chose Wing Chun because I like it and it works for me. It was an informed decision. Aside from a few crackpots or highly commercial lineages, none of us are trying to convince people who prefer something else that we are superior, but we get torn down by MMA people and people with opinions about Bruce Lee rentlessly.



None of you as in your circle of friends perhaps, but there are Chunners out there trying to establish WC in MMA for a variety of reasons.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> ...
> 
> None of you as in your circle of friends perhaps, but there are Chunners out there trying to establish WC in MMA for a variety of reasons.



Good for them. When they show up and start posting on Martial Talk troll them with my blessing. They don't appear to represent anyone who is active in the Wing Chun form here, though


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> "Anyone with a year of boxing and wrestling experience could beat a 20-year martial artist."


Old Chinese saying said:

三年拳不如当年跤。十年跤不如十年拳

- 3 years of striking art training cannot match against 1 year of wrestling art training.
- 10 years of wrestling art training cannot match against 10 year of striking art training.

The reason is simple.

- After you have trained the striking art for 3 years, you still don't have the ability to stop your wrestling opponent from entering.
- After you have trained the wrestling art for 10 years, you still don't have the ability to enter your striking art opponent's punch and kick.

A striker has to prevent a wrestler from obtaining a clinch. A wrestler has to deal with a striker's kicking and punching. 

This is why a pure striker, or a pure wrestler is not a good idea. We should encourage cross training. We should not say whether wrestling art is better, or striking art is better.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Good for them. When they show up and start posting on Martial Talk troll them with my blessing. They don't appear to represent anyone who is active in the Wing Chun form here, though



Why would I troll them? I'd rather help them reach their goal by pushing them to practice something else entirely.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 4, 2020)

Oh, I see. You're not being a jerk by posting things in the Wing Chun forum that are completely dismissive of the training we do. You're trying to help us because you're a nice guy and you care about us.  

Okay, that's very different, thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Oh, I see. You're not being a jerk by posting things in the Wing Chun forum that are completely dismissive of the training we do. You're trying to help us because you're a nice guy and you care about us.
> 
> Okay, that's very different, thank you for clearing that up.



Um where was I dismissive of your training? All I've said is that WC isn't a good fit for MMA, and if a WC practitioner is looking to be successful in that sphere, it's probably best to advise them to train in something else.

This is nothing different than what Chunners say themselves.


----------



## Jens (Oct 4, 2020)

yak sao said:


> Bruce Lee had maybe 2 or 3 years wing chun max under his belt.
> He didn't have any footwork to speak of from wing chun because he never saw it...but rather than say he never saw it he said wing chun didn't have it.






I agree 100%! if you look at his basic wing chun footwork in this clip, you can clearly observed that he had a superficial understanding of the limited wing chun footwork that he did know. He seems to be more preoccupied with the flashy arm dominance stuff here over solid footwork. Due to his lack of wing chun footwork understanding he was not able to fully apply his wing chun, so therefore he was forced to adapted a different longer range method which worked for him known as JKD. However with that being said, the way he later revamped his personal understanding of combat by implementing fencing and boxing footwork and concepts to create JKD was quite brilliant in my opinion.


----------



## Jens (Oct 4, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old Chinese saying said:
> 
> 三年拳不如当年跤。十年跤不如十年拳
> 
> ...



Yes! and in wing chun we train both grappling and striking simultaneously, so even our training methods are designed to be more efficient than in many other martial arts systems.


----------



## Callen (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> They have a genuine desire to be viewed as an effective MA by the MA community at large, but are seemingly held back by the dogma of their system. It's almost exactly what happened to Bruce Lee, which led him to found his own system of Martial Arts.


Your statement gives the feels of stereotype based assumptions.

You know what they say, once you have found _any_ exception, you can no longer generalize. No one that I know within the Wing Chun community has a "genuine desire to be viewed as an effective MA". Most dedicated WC practitioners are invovled for different reasons all together, and really don't care. Usually these conversations are unfortunately centered around MMA rhetoric, which is an absolutely old and exhausting topic. There is far too much judgment from people with no experience attempting to educate the WC community about our own system.

Likewise, dogmatism is the arrogant assertion of opinions as truths... so, it's quite presumptuous and egotistical of you to visit a WC forum, use the word "dogma" to describe your encounters with WC practitioners online and expect to be taken seriously. That's not the most productive way to get in and start up, but hey, maybe you're doing your best. Either way, there's zero humility in your post. Unless you have years of time invested in the WC system, your opinions on what you think is actual truth, have no real value.

Bruce Lee's creation of JKD is often brought up as some sort of argument for a justification to leave WC, because some people believe that meant Bruce Lee thought WC didn't have what it took. However if you understand the foundation of JKD, it's not hard to discover that he never actually abandoned WC. In fact, most of the JKD authorities will agree that WC is still the base. Certain things worked for him and certain things didn't. Bruce Lee found his own system because, well... Bruce Lee. He set his own goal posts, he was on his own path of self-discovery, he was bitter at the WC community and wanted to make his own way. Simple stuff really.

That said, we can have productive discussions about the WC system though if you like; but you won't gain any knowledge unless you come at it with a different attitude first, yeah.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2020)

Callen said:


> Your statement gives the feels of stereotype based assumptions.
> 
> You know what they say, once you have found _any_ exception, you can no longer generalize. No one that I know within the Wing Chun community has a "genuine desire to be viewed as an effective MA". Most dedicated WC practitioners are invovled for different reasons all together, and really don't care. Usually these conversations are unfortunately centered around MMA rhetoric, which is an absolutely old and exhausting topic. There is far too much judgment from people with no experience attempting to educate the WC community about our own system.



That statement comes from the fact that of all traditional martial arts, it is always the Wing Chun exponents who step up to the plate and test their art against sport styles. In the recent MMA vs TMA exhibition phase that swept China last year, the majority of TMA practitioners who took on the challenge were Wing Chun stylists. In addition, when it comes to MMA, the main TMA stylists still emerging to try to be successful in MMA are Wing Chun stylists. I'm rather surprised at the response from my statement. What I said wasn't meant to offend, I think its commendable that WC practitioners retain the gusto to step up to the plate when traditional Chinese martial arts are challenged.

I mean, their performance in these exhibition matches aren't very commendable, but like I said, them having the guts to take those challenges is honorable, and should be respected (even if they do get knocked out rather quickly).



> Likewise, dogmatism is the arrogant assertion of opinions as truths... so, it's quite presumptuous and egotistical of you to visit a WC forum, use the word "dogma" to describe your encounters with WC practitioners online and expect to be taken seriously. That's not the most productive way to get in and start up, but hey, maybe you're doing your best. Either way, there's zero humility in your post. Unless you have years of time invested in the WC system, your opinions on what you think is actual truth, have no real value.



When I say dogma, I'm talking about the strict orthodoxy that WC practitioners adhere to, which appears to be highly grounded in traditional practices. It doesn't appear that many want to go beyond the traditions and mores of traditional WC, and from what I see on this forum, they choose to argue incessantly about the meaning of this or that form.



> Bruce Lee's creation of JKD is often brought up as some sort of argument for a justification to leave WC, because some people believe that meant Bruce Lee thought WC didn't have what it took. However if you understand the foundation of JKD, it's not hard to discover that he never actually abandoned WC. In fact, most of the JKD authorities will agree that WC is still the base. Certain things worked for him and certain things didn't. Bruce Lee found his own system because, well... Bruce Lee. He set his own goal posts, he was on his own path of self-discovery, he was bitter at the WC community and wanted to make his own way. Simple stuff really.
> 
> That said, we can have productive discussions about the WC system though if you like; but you won't gain any knowledge unless you come at it with a different attitude first, yeah.



I only brought up Bruce Lee as an example of a WC exponent who decided to incorporate other forms of MA to fill up the perceived gaps in his base art. If a WC exponent seeks to be successful in MMA, Bruce Lee's path is probably the route they want to take.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Um where was I dismissive of your training? All I've said is that WC isn't a good fit for MMA, and if a WC practitioner is looking to be successful in that sphere, it's probably best to advise them to train in something else.
> 
> ...



Okay, this sub-forum at Martial Talk is dedicated to practitioners of Wing Chun. This thread was specifically started by one such practitioner who asked why non-Wing Chun practitioners post (almost always negative) responses vs just sticking to discussions on what you do. 

No one here is trying to promote Wing Chun as a way of winning the UFC. You said something like "yes, but Alan Orr does." But, Alan Orr is not a member here to my knowledge, so you're not arguing with him, you're arguing with us. Bruce Lee is not a member either and there is a JKD forum where people may state their beliefs about BL and I would say they are fair game for anybody with a perspective to share, but again, in general I don't see our Wing Chun members claiming Bruce Lee as our own. Personally, I would rather keep him out of our discussions, because I know average, intermediate students have have years more knowledge of and experience with Wing Chun than he did. So, whether you recognize that you are doing it or not, you're not arguing with those guys, you and a handful of others are just trolling those of us who train in Wing Chun and have made an effort by joining MartialTalk to connect with other people who do as well. 

Do you see the problem here?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Okay, this sub-forum at Martial Talk is dedicated to practitioners of Wing Chun. This thread was specifically started by one such practitioner who asked why non-Wing Chun practitioners post (almost always negative) responses vs just sticking to discussions on what you do.



And if you look at my original post, that's what I was talking about. I'm a bit surprised that you took such offense to it.



> No one here is trying to promote Wing Chun as a way of winning the UFC. You said something like "yes, but Alan Orr does." But, Alan Orr is not a member here to my knowledge, so you're not arguing with him, you're arguing with us. Bruce Lee is not a member either and there is a JKD forum where people may state their beliefs about BL and I would say they are fair game for anybody with a perspective to share, but again, in general I don't see our Wing Chun members claiming Bruce Lee as our own. Personally, I would rather keep him out of our discussions, because I know average, intermediate students have have years more knowledge of and experience with Wing Chun than he did. So, whether you recognize that you are doing it or not, you're not arguing with those guys, you and a handful of others are just trolling those of us who train in Wing Chun and have made an effort by joining MartialTalk to connect with other people who do as well.



You're a bit confused. I said that I only participate in WC topics if MMA is involved, and that I noticed that the WC community at large (fyi not the community here on the boards), seemed to have a genuine desire to be viewed as an effective MA. I never mentioned anyone on this forum, and I was only responding to Highlander's question. I've explained where that view comes from in an earlier post. You appear to have grossly misunderstood what I was talking about, but I've come to understand that you guys are a very sensitive bunch.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 5, 2020)

We're just worn down from being trolled here. And, to be clear, you are posting here. You're not posting someplace else where these people who you refer to are. So, deny, deny, deny, you are talking to us, not Alan Orr or whoever else you are trying to set on the right path. I'm not sure why our forum moderators don't take a more active role, but they don't so here we are.

The Wing Chun forum gets called out for being slow or dead. It reminds us why we registered here in the first place, so we try to start a conversation, and it becomes a referendum on MMA, every time. So, most of us drift away. <repeat>




Hanzou said:


> ...I'm talking about the strict orthodoxy that WC practitioners adhere to, which appears to be highly grounded in traditional practices. It doesn't appear that many want to go beyond the traditions and mores of traditional WC, and from what I see on this forum, they choose to argue incessantly about the meaning of this or that form...



Let me tell you something about how you train...oh wait, i can't because I have no idea what you do or don't do in your club. What makes you think you know so much about us? Bonus points if you can answer without saying "Alan Orr", "Bruce Lee" or referring to people who aren't active members of TB Wing Chun forum discussions.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> We're just worn down from being trolled here. And, to be clear, you are posting here. You're not posting someplace else where these people who you refer to are. So, deny, deny, deny, you are talking to us, not Alan Orr or whoever else you are trying to set on the right path. I'm not sure why our forum moderators don't take a more active role, but they don't so here we are.
> 
> The Wing Chun forum gets called out for being slow or dead. It reminds us why we registered here in the first place, so we try to start a conversation, and it becomes a referendum on MMA, every time. So, most of us drift away. <repeat>



I'm posting here in only this thread because a poster was curious about why some non WC exponents posted in this forum. While I haven't posted here in a few years, I have posted in the MMA specific threads.



> Let me tell you something about how you train...oh wait, i can't because I have no idea what you do or don't do in your club. What makes you think you know so much about us? Bonus points if you can answer without saying "Alan Orr", "Bruce Lee" or referring to people who aren't active members of TB Wing Chun forum discussions.



It's mainly feedback from fighters and ex-WC practitioners on why they don't choose WC as their striking art of choice when it is time to develop a career as a professional fighter.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 5, 2020)

Okay.


----------



## Callen (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> When I say dogma, I'm talking about the strict orthodoxy that WC practitioners adhere to, which appears to be highly grounded in traditional practices.


Like what, for example?


Hanzou said:


> It doesn't appear that many want to go beyond the traditions and mores of traditional WC, and from what I see on this forum, they choose to argue incessantly about the meaning of this or that form.


You would have to know what the true traditions and mores of WC are in order to make that kind of assumption, and based on your use of the word dogma, I'm not so sure you have a complete idea of what WC is all about. There is no such thing as "Traditional" or "Modern" Wing Chun, only Wing Chun. It has always been an adaptive, concept based system. Perhaps you have been exposed to WC through someone (or several people) with a limited understanding.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2020)

Callen said:


> Like what, for example?


You would have to know what the true traditions and mores of WC are in order to make that kind of assumption, and based on your use of the word dogma, I'm not so sure you have a complete idea of what WC is all about. There is no such thing as "Traditional" or "Modern" Wing Chun, only Wing Chun. It has always been an adaptive, concept based system. Perhaps you have been exposed to WC through someone (or several people) with a limited understanding.[/QUOTE]

Instead of me fumbling through the terminologies and intricacies of your martial art, how about I pose a simple question for you?

Why is Wing Chun not considered a viable striking style by professional fighters?

For example, these are the top MMA gyms;

Training Programs - Alliance MMA Gym
Huntington Beach — Kings Mma
http://novauniao.com
Home
Roufusport MMA Mixed Martial Arts Academy
https://www.sbgireland.com
https://www.jacksonwink.com
etc.

And Wing Chun is taught in none of them. Why is that? Please don't get defensive. I'm very curious about what your answer would be.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 6, 2020)

Callen said:


> Like what, for example?
> 
> You would have to know what the true traditions and mores of WC are in order to make that kind of assumption, and based on your use of the word dogma, I'm not so sure you have a complete idea of what WC is all about. There is no such thing as "Traditional" or "Modern" Wing Chun, only Wing Chun. It has always been an adaptive, concept based system. Perhaps you have been exposed to WC through someone (or several people) with a limited understanding.



God....
He's not still going on is he? I couldn't face anymore of him constantly moving the goal posts because he was so desperate to talk about MMA in a wing chun forum... I had to put him on ignore.

Geez...no one in this wing chun forum is interested in mma... so he made up some wing chun friends who were. Just sad.

Original question: why do non wing chun guys come to wing chun forums to
divert the discussions in wing chun forums?

conclusion: some people aren't very interesting or self aware yet they still feel the need to be the center of attention.


----------



## Callen (Oct 6, 2020)

Honestly, I'm not sure what your goal is at this point... why does it matter? Are you questioning the effectiveness of Wing Chun? If that's your real motif here, then it's a different discussion all together and does not require unproductive comparisons to competitive sports like MMA. 



Hanzou said:


> Instead of me fumbling through the terminologies and intricacies of your martial art, how about I pose a simple question for you?
> 
> Why is Wing Chun not considered a viable striking style by professional fighters?
> 
> ...


Well, there are a lot of systems/arts that aren't taught in a lot of gyms all over the world. I wouldn't expect to find Competition Karate in a Krav Maga gym either... I would have to make guesses to answer your extremely broad questions, but let's see:

Perhaps it's because most people in MMA do not want to invest the time to completely learn the WC system. Perhaps it is because MMA is comprised of things that can be learned easily, and WC isn't on the list of systems to half-learn, or sort-of "dabble" in. Perhaps it is because MMA coaches have absolutely zero knowledge of the WC system, and have no business attempting to teach "professional fighters" their poorly interpreted version of what they think WC is supposed to look like. If the professional fighters don't know what they're doing, then of course it won't work. You can't just make the stuff up and expect results, right?

I could write paragraphs of speculative answers to your two questions, but the bottom line is that MMA is not the bar for WC. Not only is it currently not the measure, it is doubtful that it will ever be. Most circles in the WC community simply don't care about MMA and it is trivial as to why it is, or is not seen in any competitive sport. It is most likely not taught in your gyms because WC practitioners don't want to participate in your games.

The need to compare a competitive sport against any established non-competitive Martial Art system is absolutely pointless and irrelevant. I will however, be happy to have a meaningful exchange with you to help you better understand the Wing Chun system and its applied effectiveness.

And this is me not being defensive.


----------



## Callen (Oct 6, 2020)

Snark said:


> God....
> He's not still going on is he? I couldn't face anymore of him constantly moving the goal posts because he was so desperate to talk about MMA in a wing chun forum... I had to put him on ignore.


Yeah, I feel where you're coming from. It can be a challenge to have productive discussions on forums, but we can also use these opportunities to contribute towards the preservation of the Wing Chun system and breakdown the stereotypes.


----------



## Steve (Oct 6, 2020)

In a thread asking why folks who don't train WC post in threads in the WC subforum, you guys seem to be getting seriously worked up about someone answering the question. 

Also, for what it's worth, you guys aren't doing much to break down stereotypes right now, either. If that's your goal, you're missing the mark by a fair bit.

I'll go back to read only mode now.


----------



## Callen (Oct 6, 2020)

Steve said:


> Also, for what it's worth, you guys aren't doing much to break down stereotypes right now, either. If that's your goal, you're missing the mark by a fair bit.


How so, Steve?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 6, 2020)

Steve said:


> In a thread asking why folks who don't train WC post in threads in the WC subforum, you guys seem to be getting seriously worked up about someone answering the question.


If I start a "non-republic" thread, I assume that I want to invite non-republic members, and that should be democrat.


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 6, 2020)

Steve, in the thread that Hanzou started in the (not) Wing Chun forum looking for validation of MMA superiority (his words) over anything else you posted that training in TMA was the same as doing nothing at all in terms of fight efficacy and that it prepared you less than working out in a gym. You closed with: 





Steve said:


> ...I think we all know that this is true.  I mean, does anyone question that this is how it would go?



So, your views on all of us (TKD, Wing Chun, Tai Chi, everything in one bucket) are clear and there's no point in conversation. I didn't post in the other thread, because I'm not going to go into the MMA forum to argue for Wing Chun. I don't go anywhere to argue for Wing Chun. The question is what motivates you guys to come into the Wing Chun forum to undermine what we do? What would it take to get you to stop?



Steve said:


> ...
> 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, train x4 days per week for 2 hours each day:
> 
> Group 1:  100 trained 100 in any competitive style (e.g., muay thai, boxing, bjj, sambo, judo)
> ...



I know for a fact that no training does not equal the training that I've been through and that I share with people who seek it out with me. I know for a fact that Parkour does not equally prepare you for a fight as the training I've done. It doesn't matter to me that you feel differently, but sheesh, if that is the starting point of our conversation it is also the ending point.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2020)

Callen said:


> Honestly, I'm not sure what your goal is at this point... why does it matter? Are you questioning the effectiveness of Wing Chun? If that's your real motif here, then it's a different discussion all together and does not require unproductive comparisons to competitive sports like MMA.



"Effectiveness" has a rather wide application. I would say that it doesn't have much fighting effectiveness, but for fitness, coordination, learning Chinese culture, etc. I'm sure it is effective in some areas. However, if you wish to become a professional fighter, WC isn't the most effective style for you to be practicing. Again, I have seen WC practitioners say this as well.



> Well, there are a lot of systems/arts that aren't taught in a lot of gyms all over the world. I wouldn't expect to find Competition Karate in a Krav Maga gym either... I would have to make guesses to answer your extremely broad questions, but let's see:



Yes, that should tell you something.



> Perhaps it's because most people in MMA do not want to invest the time to completely learn the WC system. Perhaps it is because MMA is comprised of things that can be learned easily, and WC isn't on the list of systems to half-learn, or sort-of "dabble" in. Perhaps it is because MMA coaches have absolutely zero knowledge of the WC system, and have no business attempting to teach "professional fighters" their poorly interpreted version of what they think WC is supposed to look like. If the professional fighters don't know what they're doing, then of course it won't work. You can't just make the stuff up and expect results, right?
> 
> I could write paragraphs of speculative answers to your two questions, but the bottom line is that MMA is not the bar for WC. Not only is it currently not the measure, it is doubtful that it will ever be. Most circles in the WC community simply don't care about MMA and it is trivial as to why it is, or is not seen in any competitive sport. It is most likely not taught in your gyms because WC practitioners don't want to participate in your games.
> 
> ...



Actually what really happened is that experienced WC practitioners attempted to enter MMA and they got dismantled, leading to people pursuing fighting to disregard it as something worthwhile to practice. Consider that if you can take up boxing and become a better striker in 6 months than you can in six years of WC, why would you bother with the latter?

I'm sure you'll say that it is because the "real" WC guys didn't show up to fight, but I have serious doubts that the WC community of instructors would pass up on the billion dollar MMA industry if they could partake in it. For example, Bjj instructors are often hired as MMA coaches, and they make quite a lot of money doing it. Also Bjj gyms benefit from their closeness with MMA and it helps drive their businesses, and is part of the reason you see an explosion of both Bjj and MMA gyms in most cities these days. 

Wing Chun isn't a part of it because its simply not made for it. Considering the amount of attempts WC exponents have made to enter MMA and have utterly failed, it's no wonder that they say they don't care. It simply has too much baggage to be effective in that arena. Thus once again if a WC exponent wants to know where to go if they want to become a professional fighter, it's probably best to just tell them to go elsewhere.


----------



## Steve (Oct 6, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Steve, in the thread that Hanzou started in the (not) Wing Chun forum looking for validation of MMA superiority (his words) over anything else you posted that training in TMA was the same as doing nothing at all in terms of fight efficacy and that it prepared you less than working out in a gym. You closed with:
> 
> So, your views on all of us (TKD, Wing Chun, Tai Chi, everything in one bucket) are clear and there's no point in conversation. I didn't post in the other thread, because I'm not going to go into the MMA forum to argue for Wing Chun. I don't go anywhere to argue for Wing Chun. The question is what motivates you guys to come into the Wing Chun forum to undermine what we do? What would it take to get you to stop?
> 
> ...


I think it's really odd that you are responding here to my post on another thread.  I think it would just confuse things to respond here.  If you're not interested in discussing, that's fine. But I encourage you to do it in the correct thread.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> "Effectiveness" has a rather wide application. I would say that it doesn't have much fighting effectiveness, but for fitness, coordination, learning Chinese culture, etc. I'm sure it is effective in some areas. However, if you wish to become a professional fighter, WC isn't the most effective
> 
> .



I don't hear anyone here saying they want to become a professional fighter.
Can't speak for everyone, but I'm learning wing tsun for the shear enjoyment of it.

And yes I get exercise, coordination,
 flexiblility and a whole host of things from it...and believe it or not, I can fight.
Not as a professional, or as a sport competitor. but then I never set out to do that.


----------



## Callen (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Effectiveness" has a rather wide application. I would say that it doesn't have much fighting effectiveness, but for fitness, coordination, learning Chinese culture, etc. I'm sure it is effective in some areas. However, if you wish to become a professional fighter, WC isn't the most effective style for you to be practicing. Again, I have seen WC practitioners say this as well.


Yeah, apparently we could do this forever and get nowhere...

No one in this thread has mentioned to you that they want to be a professional fighter. You're wasting your time with that here. You also might have better luck with your proselytizing elsewhere. If your agenda is pitching MMA while trying to somehow prove your confirmation bias that WC is not a good striking system, then you’re trolling in the wrong place.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2020)

yak sao said:


> I don't hear anyone here saying they want to become a professional fighter.
> Can't speak for everyone, but I'm learning wing tsun for the shear enjoyment of it.
> 
> And yes I get exercise, coordination,
> ...





Callen said:


> Yeah, apparently we could do this forever and get nowhere...
> 
> No one in this thread has mentioned to you that they want to be a professional fighter. You're wasting your time with that here. You also might have better luck with your proselytizing elsewhere. If your agenda is pitching MMA while trying to somehow prove your confirmation bias that WC is not a good striking system, then you’re trolling in the wrong place.



I never said any of you did. I was simply responding to a question posed by the OP, and suddenly several of you got into your feelings because for some reason you viewed the mention of Bruce Lee and MMA as some sort of attack on Wing Chun.

Anyways, I think this conversation has run its course.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Anyways, I think this conversation has run its course.



Don't let the door hit you in the butt


----------



## Highlander (Oct 8, 2020)

TL;DR


----------



## Poppity (Oct 9, 2020)

Callen said:


> Yeah, I feel where you're coming from. It can be a challenge to have productive discussions on forums, but we can also use these opportunities to contribute towards the preservation of the Wing Chun system and breakdown the stereotypes.




I am all for having productive discussions from other arts and I am on occasion interested in having actual discussions with people from the MMA community if they can manage to have a two way conversation.

 hanzou couldn't manage that. He was playing the big man, making stuff up, being ignorant and contradictory and then claiming everyone was being offended or defensive.

Your not going to get through to anyone like that.

For example this mma guy lays out some perceived flaws regarding wing chun in MMA competitions without being a douche about it.

Wing Chun in MMA: Effective, or Too Dangerous? - The MMA Guru.

I don't care about whether Wing chun is effective in a competitive format, the point is, if you do, like a lot of MMA guys, do you want to discuss it reasonably or hide behind your computer ridicule a martial art and then claim anyone who calls you out is being defensive.


----------



## Steve (Oct 9, 2020)

You guys are being very


Snark said:


> I am all for having productive discussions from other arts and I am on occasion interested in having actual discussions with people from the MMA community if they can manage to have a two way conversation.
> 
> hanzou couldn't manage that. He was playing the big man, making stuff up, being ignorant and contradictory and then claiming everyone was being offended or defensive.
> 
> ...


Do you guys care if wc is effective anywhere, or do you train for health, fitness, or fun.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2020)

Snark said:


> I am all for having productive discussions from other arts and I am on occasion interested in having actual discussions with people from the MMA community if they can manage to have a two way conversation.
> 
> hanzou couldn't manage that. He was playing the big man, making stuff up, being ignorant and contradictory and then claiming everyone was being offended or defensive.
> 
> ...



Anytime an article makes an excuse that a martial art is "too deadly for competition", you know you're dealing with people making up excuses instead of looking at the underlying reasons why their art fails in a very public venue.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 9, 2020)

Steve said:


> You guys are being very
> 
> Do you guys care if wc is effective anywhere, or do you train for health, fitness, or fun.



I love your optimism and belief in yourself...but...

Just because some great athletes train in a similar sports to you, doesn't mean that you are a great athlete or a great fighter. But don't let that stop you.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 9, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Anytime an article makes an excuse that a martial art is "too deadly for competition", you know you're dealing with people making up excuses instead of looking at the underlying reasons why their art fails in a very public venue.



Yeah... But the article doesn't say that... Wow, look Im sorry I was joking earlier, I didn't realise you actually had a problem reading.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2020)

Snark said:


> Yeah... But the article doesn't say that... Wow, look Im sorry I was joking earlier, I didn't realise you actually had a problem reading.



A few paragraphs down;

*



			It Wasn’t Designed for Competition
		
Click to expand...

*


> Wing Chun does not have ‘rules’ and was not designed for use in competition.
> 
> In fact, the art of Wing Chun focuses on landing strikes to ‘illegal’ areas, such as the groin and throat. Of course, this is a huge drawback in a sanctioned competition. If you can’t use core elements of a martial art due to the rule-set, you’re unlikely to get far!
> 
> ...


And then the article erroneously talks about how various fighters claimed that Wing Chun techniques should be banned from MMA. They didn't advocate to ban WC techniques, they advocated to ban "dirty" techniques. Then the article erroneously attributes the success of certain fighters to Wing Chun. I can state with complete confidence that Anderson Silva was successful in MMA because of Muay Thai and BJJ, not because of his dabbling in Wing Chun.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 9, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> A few paragraphs down;
> 
> 
> And then the article erroneously talks about how various fighters claimed that Wing Chun techniques should be banned from MMA. They didn't advocate to ban WC techniques, they advocated to ban "dirty" techniques. Then the article erroneously attributes the success of certain fighters to Wing Chun. I can state with complete confidence that Anderson Silva was successful in MMA because of Muay Thai and BJJ, not because of his dabbling in Wing Chun.




This is awkward. I thought you didn't read it.  I didn't realise you tried to read it and completely misunderstood the contents.

I feel really bad about making fun of your reading ability, I get it, life's hard enough without people pointing it out.


----------



## Steve (Oct 9, 2020)

Snark said:


> I love your optimism and belief in yourself...but...
> 
> Just because some great athletes train in a similar sports to you, doesn't mean that you are a great athlete or a great fighter. But don't let that stop you.


I haven’t said anything about me.   I asked a question.

but I like the way you’re thinking.   Now let’s apply that same logic to wing chun.


----------



## Steve (Oct 9, 2020)

Snark said:


> This is awkward. I thought you didn't read it.  I didn't realise you tried to read it and completely misunderstood the contents.
> 
> I feel really bad about making fun of your reading ability, I get it, life's hard enough without people pointing it out.


Snark is an appropriate handle for you.  You seem entirely disinterested in having a rational discussion.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2020)

Snark said:


> This is awkward. I thought you didn't read it.  I didn't realise you tried to read it and completely misunderstood the contents.
> 
> I feel really bad about making fun of your reading ability, I get it, life's hard enough without people pointing it out.



Except I understood the article just fine. The point is that despite his overall conclusion, he was still making excuses for Wing Chun. No need to be a baby about this. Every art has its limitations, some just happen to have more than others.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 9, 2020)

Steve said:


> I haven’t said anything about me.   I asked a question.
> 
> but I like the way you’re thinking.   Now let’s apply that same logic to wing chun.



I don't blame you for not talking about you, I can't think of anything to say, I even pointed out things that you aren't, as opposed to are... I can see why you do what you do... Dragging down others so you can feel better about yourself...  It's kinda invigorating.




Steve said:


> Snark is an appropriate handle for you.  You seem entirely disinterested in having a rational discussion.



You should be familiar with those qualities I've adopted your approach.


----------



## Poppity (Oct 9, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Except I understood the article just fine. The point is that despite his overall conclusion, he was still making excuses for Wing Chun. No need to be a baby about this. Every art has its limitations, some just happen to have more than others.




Naah you don't understand it at all. Don't worry,.it's clearly not the first time. Baby... lol, name calling, really. Look it's your poor reading comprehension, no one else's just own it. 

Good effort on getting through that wordy article though.


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> Do you guys care if wc is effective anywhere, or do you train for health, fitness, or fun.


  Yes. I want my WC to be effective in a self defense situation. Not too worried about it holding up in the ring. MMA has the ability to hold up in the ring and on the streets. And people who train MMA become better fighters quicker id agree. WC takes a long time to get good at. And even longer to get good enough to use it against someone else who is trained. BUT. I don't do it just to be a better fighter. I enjoy the history of it. I enjoy the forms and the theory. I enjoy the art aspect of it.  
I also train with people who practice other styles and we spare and mix it up. And it works pretty good!


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Except I understood the article just fine. The point is that despite his overall conclusion, he was still making excuses for Wing Chun. No need to be a baby about this. Every art has its limitations, some just happen to have more than others.


Not what I got out of the article at all. What I got out of the article is that WC has a place in MMA. But if you go in as a strict WC guy you'll get destroyed. But that's true about all the arts. That's why McGregor boxed and Mayweather didn't jump into the cage


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Yes. I want my WC to be effective in a self defense situation. Not too worried about it holding up in the ring. MMA has the ability to hold up in the ring and on the streets. And people who train MMA become better fighters quicker id agree. WC takes a long time to get good at. And even longer to get good enough to use it against someone else who is trained. BUT. I don't do it just to be a better fighter. I enjoy the history of it. I enjoy the forms and the theory. I enjoy the art aspect of it.
> I also train with people who practice other styles and we spare and mix it up. And it works pretty good!


i can see that, i play chess  for the same reason and that doesnt make you good at fighting either, but i enjoy it, so thats all that matters for both of us


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> i can see that, i play chess  for the same reason and that doesnt make you good at fighting either, but i enjoy it, so thats all that matters for both of us


I too enjoy chess. I play on my app on my phone if you're ever interested in a match! I'm so so at it


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

In case anyone needs to caught up. MMA is the only effective form of training to learn self defense. TMA are all trash. But WC is waaaay worse then most because it doesn't work in the ring (even tho some major names in MMA train some WC and say they like it) So were all just wasting or time and need to do MMA or just stop training all together. Roll over and die sorta deal


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2020)

Highlander said:


> I too enjoy chess. I play on my app on my phone if you're ever interested in a match! I'm so so at it


yea we could gove it ago, ive just started again after a 30 year lay off, mostly coz i ran out of people to play

i do like the over the board mano mano, then a lots is about phycoligy and reading body language, may be its nit that far from fighting as i first thought


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> yea we could gove it ago, ive just started again after a 30 year lay off, mostly coz i ran out of people to play
> 
> i do like the over the board mano mano, then a lots is about phycoligy and reading body language, may be its nit that far from fighting as i first thought


In person Chess is a whole nother ball game. Sorta like discussing fighting online. You can only be so effective in communicating your point haha. Ill find a link for the app I use


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Not what I got out of the article at all. What I got out of the article is that WC has a place in MMA. But if you go in as a strict WC guy you'll get destroyed. But that's true about all the arts. That's why McGregor boxed and Mayweather didn't jump into the cage



To be fair, there are strict Bjj guys who enter MMA and don’t get destroyed, so that isn’t true for all martial arts. When I say “strict” I mean that 90-95% of what they do is Bjj. It would be the equivalent of a Wing Chin guy learning sprawl and a few grappling escapes and doing nothing else but Wing Chun. However we don’t see that happening.


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess @jobo 
I think my user name is xwubbalubbadubdubx


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, there are strict Bjj guys who enter MMA and don’t get destroyed, so that isn’t true for all martial arts. When I say “strict” I mean that 90-95% of what they do is Bjj. It would be the equivalent of a Wing Chin guy learning sprawl and a few grappling escapes and doing nothing else but Wing Chun. However we don’t see that happening.


Fair most TMA not all. A good grappler can definitely kill in the cage. I have read that the rules are sit up to favor grappling though because the Gracie's no clue how much water that holds tho. And yeah a strict WC guy would be murder in the ring. But I think that would be true for boxing too.


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

Look. If any of us WC guys were training for an MMA match you better believe that we'd be training with BJJ intrusctors and all the other instructors we could get our hands on. Or atleast I would. Thats fine, I can live with the knowledge that if I had to fight a professional fighter I'd have to train professionally. 
"You're training to fight an average person, leave the professionals to me"- Emin Boztepe

I heard an interesting comment once that really put everything into prospective. "The average guy in the 21st century can go their whole life and never throw a single punch, if all you do is get a bag and practice hitting a few times a week your ahead of the the curve" -unknown 
I feel confident that I can defend myself against 75 percent of the people out there. The other 25 are people like us who train and put in work. Maybe I'll win maybe I won't. But it won't come down to a matter of style. It will come down to who had the most heart. 


Or **** maybe they just completely kick my *** and I lay there and cry. IDK, I don't plan on getting in many fights


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Fair most TMA not all. A good grappler can definitely kill in the cage. I have read that the rules are sit up to favor grappling though because the Gracie's no clue how much water that holds tho. And yeah a strict WC guy would be murder in the ring. But I think that would be true for boxing too.



I would say that fighting in general benefits a grappler because their training allows them to go full blast with little holding back. For example, I can practice a heel hook to near perfection in a “fighting” situation in a gym. Even Boxers have to pull punches when they practice. This is exactly the reason Judo beat Classical Jujutsu in the 19th century in Japan.


----------



## Highlander (Oct 10, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I would say that fighting in general benefits a grappler because their training allows them to go full blast with little holding back. For example, I can practice a heel hook to near perfection in a “fighting” situation in a gym. Even Boxers have to pull punches when they practice. This is exactly the reason Judo beat Classical Jujutsu in the 19th century in Japan.


We've talked about this same thing when training. Grapplers are lucky cause they can go 100% 100% of the time.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 10, 2020)

It is hard to understand this constant argument about what system or method of training works in the street and development of effective fighters.

I believe I have seen most systems be used effectively in real combat at one the of another and have seen them not work.

Why argue, spend more time training, you are only quoting hypothesis, if you yourself have never used it in a real life situation.

And, if you haven't, your opinion really doesn't mean much. Regardless of how many sport competitions you have won, your art is still useless in the streets, if you have never fought outside of competition. IMO


----------



## Callen (Oct 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> Do you guys care if wc is effective anywhere, or do you train for health, fitness, or fun.


I would think that most WC practitioners care if it is effective, yes. I enjoy training, fighting and going as hard as my body will let me. The group I train with will exchange hands with anyone, regardless of lineage or style. Not one of us cares about how well we would do in the ring, that's simply not our measurement of success. 

IMO, the internet can benefit or divide the Martial Arts community. I believe this "discussion" is an example of how it can be tricky to navigate the two. If we were all speaking and working together in person, I'm sure this would have a far more productive outcome. I think the take-away should be more about how we can learn from each other; and less focus on the presumptuous declarations of styles and systems, that in the end just hold us all back from making progress.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, there are strict Bjj guys who enter MMA and don’t get destroyed, so that isn’t true for all martial arts. When I say “strict” I mean that 90-95% of what they do is Bjj. It would be the equivalent of a Wing Chin guy learning sprawl and a few grappling escapes and doing nothing else but Wing Chun. However we don’t see that happening.


Can you give an example of a strict BJJ guy, not in the lightweight divisions, who can reach the upper echelons of MMA?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 11, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Can you give an example of a strict BJJ guy, not in the lightweight divisions, who can reach the upper echelons of MMA?



Why did you put a qualifier on the weight class? Featherweights and Lightweights can’t make it to the upper echelons of MMA?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Why did you put a qualifier on the weight class? Featherweights and Lightweights can’t make it to the upper echelons of MMA?


Nah. But from what I've seen since they tend to have less KOs, BJJ alone can get you farther in those weight classes.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 11, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Nah. But from what I've seen since they tend to have less KOs, BJJ alone can get you farther in those weight classes.



That's an interesting theory. Maybe if Gordon Ryan finally enters MMA you'll see a heavyweight with Bjj alone dominating. We'll see.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> "Effectiveness" has a rather wide application. I would say that it doesn't have much fighting effectiveness, but for fitness, coordination, learning Chinese culture, etc. I'm sure it is effective in some areas. However, if you wish to become a professional fighter, WC isn't the most effective style for you to be practicing. Again, I have seen WC practitioners say this as well.





yak sao said:


> I don't hear anyone here saying they want to become a professional fighter.
> Can't speak for everyone, but I'm learning wing tsun for the shear enjoyment of it.
> 
> And yes I get exercise, coordination,
> ...


There's quite an extensive continuum stretching between "training that does nothing to make you a better fighter" and "training that prepares you for winning professional MMA fights." It's not a binary choice between one or the other.

My WC training is very limited, but I have found elements which occasionally come in useful for me during MMA sparring. In additional, I've found other elements which I think could be applicable during non-sportive fights. I won't say it's the most effective system I've trained in, but it definitely has the potential to make someone a better fighter if trained correctly. (I have some thoughts about what training it "correctly" for fighting effectiveness means, but I'll save those for another thread.)

Also, having trained and done some light sparring with Yak Sao, I can say that I'm confident he can fight (using his WC) much better than the average untrained person. I won't say that he's on the level of the professional MMA fighters I've sparred with, but he wouldn't claim to be.



Hanzou said:


> To be fair, there are strict Bjj guys who enter MMA and don’t get destroyed, so that isn’t true for all martial arts. When I say “strict” I mean that 90-95% of what they do is Bjj.


In the current era of MMA development, I can't think of anyone competing at a high level in MMA with just BJJ training. Even the fighters who have built their game around winning with jiu-jitsu spend significant time training their striking and wrestling. Partly this is so they know how to neutralize the striking and wrestling of their opponents. Partly this is so they can use the threat of these other skills to create openings for their BJJ.



Highlander said:


> I have read that the rules are sit up to favor grappling though because the Gracie's no clue how much water that holds tho.


Yeah, that's not really true at all. You could even make a decent case that the current unified rules have a slight bias in favor of strikers. (Probably because this makes for fights which are more exciting for the audience.)



Callen said:


> Perhaps it's because most people in MMA do not want to invest the time to completely learn the WC system. Perhaps it is because MMA is comprised of things that can be learned easily, and WC isn't on the list of systems to half-learn, or sort-of "dabble" in.



Trust me, MMA fighters will put in the time necessary to learn any system which works for them in the cage. Much of what high-level fighters do in MMA is not easy or quick to learn by any stretch of the imagination. Bear in mind that a high-level fighter of the caliber that makes it into the UFC has spent many more hours of training than 99.99% of the hobbyist martial artists out there.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, again, the MMA community only "attacks" WC when WC enters the MMA sphere, such as when lunatics like Shawn Obasi enter the MMA sphere pushing WC and face plant hard


Obasi's biggest downfall wasn't that he came in from a WC background. His biggest problem was that he came in with the arrogance to say (paraphrasing slightly) "I'm a WC Man, I'm only a WC man, I refuse to learn or try anything else for my entry into MMA." In the current MMA world, that would guarantee him a losing record even if he came in as a strong boxer or Muay Thai fighter.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In the current era of MMA development, I can't think of anyone competing at a high level in MMA with just BJJ training. Even the fighters who have built their game around winning with jiu-jitsu spend significant time training their striking and wrestling. Partly this is so they know how to neutralize the striking and wrestling of their opponents. Partly this is so they can use the threat of these other skills to create openings for their BJJ.



Which is why I said they're using 90-95% Bjj. Take Angela Lee for example, the One FC atom weight champ;






She's pretty much winning all of her fights with Bjj.

Also fighters like McKenzie Dern (9-1) and Ryan Hall (8-1) in UFC pretty much win all of their non-decision fights via submission. Their stand up isn't great, and is pretty much used as a set up for getting their opponent to the ground and subbing them. That's where the 5-10% of something else is coming into play.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Obasi's biggest downfall wasn't that he came in from a WC background. His biggest problem was that he came in with the arrogance to say (paraphrasing slightly) "I'm a WC Man, I'm only a WC man, I refuse to learn or try anything else for my entry into MMA." In the current MMA world, that would guarantee him a losing record even if he came in as a strong boxer or Muay Thai fighter.



Well that, and he attempted to apply WC to every problem in MMA, like using WC principles and applying it to takedown defense instead of simply using proven methods from grappling.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Also fighters like McKenzie Dern (9-1) and Ryan Hall (8-1) in UFC pretty much win all of their non-decision fights via submission. Their stand up isn't great, and is pretty much used as a set up for getting their opponent to the ground and subbing them. That's where the 5-10% of something else is coming into play.


I'm not sure about Dern, but Ryan Hall's striking is only "not great" compared to really high level professional striking specialists. He's put a lot of hours into it and trained with high level strikers. It's the fact that he actually can be dangerous with his strikes which gives him the ability to use them as set ups for his grappling. If he was just half-assing his striking training then it wouldn't work nearly as well to set up his BJJ.


Hanzou said:


> Well that, and he attempted to apply WC to every problem in MMA, like using WC principles and applying it to takedown defense instead of simply using proven methods from grappling.


Exactly. That's the natural consequence of his arrogance in refusing to learn anything beyond what he already knew. (It also probably didn't help that he seemed to have some emotional instability issues, at least in the footage I saw of him.)


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not sure about Dern, but Ryan Hall's striking is only "not great" compared to really high level professional striking specialists. He's put a lot of hours into it and trained with high level strikers. It's the fact that he actually can be dangerous with his strikes which gives him the ability to use them as set ups for his grappling. If he was just half-assing his striking training then it wouldn't work nearly as well to set up his BJJ.



Where would you put his striking level at though? I don't see a scenario where he wins fights with only his striking without his opponent being extremely concerned about his ground game. That forces his opponents into awkward situations, like his decision victory against Gray Maynard. Maynard completely refused to engage in close quarter fighting despite his immense wrestling background, so he stayed at range where Hall just peppered him with kicks.

Angela Lee and McKenzie Dern are even more Bjj-centric. I can't think of a single fight that Lee has won where she didn't submit someone using a Bjj sub. Check out Lee's highlight vid I posted, I think you'll really enjoy it.



> Exactly. That's the natural consequence of his arrogance in refusing to learn anything beyond what he already knew. (It also probably didn't help that he seemed to have some emotional instability issues, at least in the footage I saw of him.)



I agree. Dude was a complete basket case, but you know darn well you got a good laugh out of it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Steve, in the thread that Hanzou started in the (not) Wing Chun forum looking for validation of MMA superiority (his words) over anything else you posted that training in TMA was the same as doing nothing at all in terms of fight efficacy and that it prepared you less than working out in a gym. You closed with:
> 
> So, your views on all of us (TKD, Wing Chun, Tai Chi, everything in one bucket) are clear and there's no point in conversation. I didn't post in the other thread, because I'm not going to go into the MMA forum to argue for Wing Chun. I don't go anywhere to argue for Wing Chun. The question is what motivates you guys to come into the Wing Chun forum to undermine what we do? What would it take to get you to stop?
> 
> ...


Just have a few minutes to post and I'd like to address just a couple of misunderstandings in the post above.  I did not say training wing Chun or any other sport would yield no results.  What I actually said is that it would take years... Probably at least 3 to 5 before we might see appreciable, observable differences between a person who trains without application and someone who doesn't train at all. I said that after a year I would not expect to see any real difference. 

The main point, though, is that I shared my hypothesis and said that I would be interested in finding out whether I'm right or not.  I did not say that I was right or wrong.  Rather, I shared my belief and a general interest in finding out whether I'm right or wrong.  That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's an important one to me.

Also, just to clarify, my belief is that, if applied regularly, two things will happen.  First, the skills will improve for individuals much faster and more reliably.  Second, that the style will remain calibrated to application, helping to avoid any shenanigans such as what we see when folks shoe horn things they don't understand into their style.

If you don't apply the skills outside of training, I think you're doing things the hard way.  However, there are other reasons to train, so if fighting skill isn't your primary motivation to train, I say have fun.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2020)

Snark said:


> I don't blame you for not talking about you, I can't think of anything to say, I even pointed out things that you aren't, as opposed to are... I can see why you do what you do... Dragging down others so you can feel better about yourself...  It's kinda invigorating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think you should post when you've been drinking.  You get a little punchy.


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just have a few minutes to post and I'd like to address just a couple of misunderstandings in the post above.  I did not say training wing Chun or any other sport would yield no results.  What I actually said is that it would take years... Probably at least 3 to 5 before we might see appreciable, observable differences between a person who trains without application and someone who doesn't train at all. I said that after a year I would not expect to see any real difference.
> 
> The main point, though, is that I shared my hypothesis and said that I would be interested in finding out whether I'm right or not.  I did not say that I was right or wrong.  Rather, I shared my belief and a general interest in finding out whether I'm right or wrong.  That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's an important one to me.
> 
> ...


thats not my exsperiance steve, really the reverse is  true , for those comming ibto ma for the first time and those coming in to sport for athe first time in a long tine, they make enourmas gains in the first 12 months, then the law of demintioning returns applies and the rate of progrss slows considerably to no n at all, after 3/ 4 years


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just have a few minutes to post and I'd like to address just a couple of misunderstandings in the post above.  I did not say training wing Chun or any other sport would yield no results.  What I actually said is that it would take years... Probably at least 3 to 5 before we might see appreciable, observable differences between a person who trains without application and someone who doesn't train at all. I said that after a year I would not expect to see any real difference.
> 
> The main point, though, is that I shared my hypothesis and said that I would be interested in finding out whether I'm right or not.  I did not say that I was right or wrong.  Rather, I shared my belief and a general interest in finding out whether I'm right or wrong.  That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's an important one to me.
> 
> ...



There is an assumption that how people train, whether they focus on application, for example, and/or how much conditioning they do, can be known based on which style they practice. Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason, but I think that this assumption is the root of a lot of the antipathy in our collective unproductive arguments. In my experience it is not a reliable assumption.

What is considered "traditional" is another baseline standard that if we were going to have productive discussions intra-style, we would need to resolve. I don't personally believe that it is traditional in southern kung fu styles to wear silk uniforms and primarily practice forms and choreographed fight sequences, but some people do and some people who don't train in a TMA system believe that is what happens inside of all TMA systems and schools. It certainly happens in some, but I assure you, it is not how everyone trains.

I don't believe that tournament chi sao is a traditional way to train in Wing Chun, but some people do. I have no problem with those people, but it's got nothing to do with me.

MMA deserves respect. I really admire the way that people train in BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, MMA gyms. I love the sports of boxing and Muay Thai and admire grappling sports, like Judo, Jiu Jitsu, and various forms of wrestling, though I haven't spent significant time in any of them, the way that I have in boxing. But, my wife joined a boxing gym a few years back and loves it. It's gotten her in shape, it's therapeutic, it's given her some confidence, and it wouldn't not work for self defense, she knows how to throw a punch and maintain her balance now, maybe even some footwork. But, as much as I love her, she's not better prepared for self defense than my students. She's just not. My students go through more application training, get hit more, face non-compliant, unconstrained by rules force than she ever will. The idea that your legitimacy or lack thereof is about what style or system you affiliate with is flawed.

I get that there are a lot of examples of people walking into MMA gyms with black belts that they got usually as kids, who can't handle 20 seconds in a ring with an intermediate MMA student. We get them too. I've trained cops and air marshals, and ex military people with and without TMA training that they felt left them short and if you own an MMA gym, you have too. My students and I to varying degrees have all been challenged and tested in training and in the real world with varying degrees of success that we learn from and bring back into our training. We don't talk about it much, we don't post it on YouTube and we don't make sweeping claims about our superiority, but I wish the every time that I logged into MartialTalk, which honestly I have diminishing reasons to do, our legitimacy wasn't being dismissed by people who watched the Yip Man movies or read the Tao of JKD.

The challenge I give to everyone who inquires with me about training is to think hard about what it is that they are worried about happening that they are training for and then find what will help them the most to prepare for that. The answer isn't always Wing Chun and it isn't always to train with me, but sometimes it is.

The arrogance of the viewpoint that it is always MMA or BJJ or boxing is a fundamental difference that is just a barrier to any reasonable conversation. The original point of this thread was "if you believe the Wing Chun is BS and a waste of time, unless it's just for fun or fitness or some other non-application purpose, then why do you reply to Wing Chun threads?" I don't mean this particular thread and neither did the OP, he meant every single question or thought or opinion or discussion in the Wing Chun forum.

There are only a few possible answers:

It's just straight up trolling
You believe that you are absolutely right and everyone in this forum, even though you've never trained with them is wrong or lying and you owe it to people to inform them of the right way...like an evangelical of some sort. This appears to be specifically against the rules at MartialTalk, but it is not generally enforced in the Wing Chun forums for some reason, which is why MartialTalk is really not a great place for people who want to connect with other Wing Chun people. Too much noise. 

You're posting uninformed throw away remarks off the top of your head without realizing that you're being entirely dismissive of the credibility of people who you really don't know much about.
If anyone wants to own any of those, then great. We definitely have trolls and though trolls never own being trolls, we have had some say things like "because I want to" and "because I have a right to say whatever I want", which really equates to trolling. I'm sure there are also true believers. And I give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that some people are just not self aware enough to understand what ****s they are being.

It is what it is and we're not going to change it with this discussion or any other. Even if we all came to some agreement right now, someone is going to join tomorrow and start this all over again. What is isn't in a "Friendly Martial Arts Community" unless you are from one of the UFC approved approaches to training.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats not my exsperiance steve, really the reverse is  true , for those comming ibto ma for the first time and those coming in to sport for athe first time in a long tine, they make enourmas gains in the first 12 months, then the law of demintioning returns applies and the rate of progrss slows considerably to no n at all, after 3/ 4 years



I think what Steve is getting at (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the styles based more on application (i.e. more full contact sparring) tend to have a quicker rate of student effectiveness than styles who tend to practice a more passive approach and are based more on theory. For example, a boxer in a ring everyday fighting opponents is going to be a better fighter in 6 months than someone practicing forms in a traditional style in the same time frame. That's simply reality, because it's experience versus non experience.

You can even witness this within the exact same style with different training philosophies in place. For example, there was a push within Bjj about a decade ago to not allow white belts to roll (spar) with one another until blue belt. That practice was quickly abandoned when those fresh blue belts with no fighting experience were getting absolutely smashed by blue belts from other schools who allowed their white belts to spar with each other.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Where would you put his striking level at though? I don't see a scenario where he wins fights with only his striking without his opponent being extremely concerned about his ground game. That forces his opponents into awkward situations, like his decision victory against Gray Maynard. Maynard completely refused to engage in close quarter fighting despite his immense wrestling background, so he stayed at range where Hall just peppered him with kicks.


You could say the same thing about those MMA fighters who win all their fights through striking and knockouts. The reason they're able to do so is that they've developed a strong enough grappling game that their opponents don't feel they can easily and safely take them down. The days of anyone being able to compete at a high level in MMA without having solid skills in both striking and grappling are over - even if what you see from a given fighter in the cage seems to be mostly just one or the other. If someone comes in only competent in one domain, their opponents will force them into the areas where they are weak. 



Hanzou said:


> Angela Lee and McKenzie Dern are even more Bjj-centric. I can't think of a single fight that Lee has won where she didn't submit someone using a Bjj sub. Check out Lee's highlight vid I posted, I think you'll really enjoy it.


I love watching Lee fight. Her grappling flow is amazing. Same with Dern.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's quite an extensive continuum stretching between "training that does nothing to make you a better fighter" and "training that prepares you for winning professional MMA fights." It's not a binary choice between one or the other.
> 
> My WC training is very limited, but I have found elements which occasionally come in useful for me during MMA sparring. In additional, I've found other elements which I think could be applicable during non-sportive fights. I won't say it's the most effective system I've trained in, but it definitely has the potential to make someone a better fighter if trained correctly. (I have some thoughts about what training it "correctly" for fighting effectiveness means, but I'll save those for another thread.)
> 
> ...


I suspect (but may be wrong) that what he meant was that it takes more hours to get to a similar level of effectiveness. I think that's true of a lot of "traditional" arts. Some may even be capable of producing the same level of fighter "eventually", but some systems (boxing and MT come to mind) seem to have a better record of reliably delivering that competence in shorter time periods for folks who really put a lot of hours in. Some of that may be inherent in the training methods, and some may be because so many systems focus on hobbyists, who have a different set of training needs than folks putting in 30+ hours per week.

This is something I've tried to say in other threads, but I haven't done a good job of it. Many systems have bits that needn't be in there, and aren't necessary for fastest path to competency. But they are part of what make the art interesting and different, so folks keep them (and when they shed them, it's not really that art any more). I think most hobbyists are (or eventually become) aware of this, and accept it as part of the deal. It's especially true for those "-do" arts that take seriously the commitment to delivering more than fighting skills. If you focus entirely on fighting skills (or even more narrowly, on fighting skills for a particular competition format), it makes sense to ditch everything that doesn't feed that purpose.

From my reading and off-line discussions with WC folks, I think WC - like the aiki arts - holds onto some things because it's part of what makes the art what it is. And they're okay with it not being an absolute pursuit of the fastest path to fighting competency.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You could say the same thing about those MMA fighters who win all their fights through striking and knockouts. The reason they're able to do so is that they've developed a strong enough grappling game that their opponents don't feel they can easily and safely take them down. The days of anyone being able to compete at a high level in MMA without having solid skills in both striking and grappling are over - even if what you see from a given fighter in the cage seems to be mostly just one or the other. If someone comes in only competent in one domain, their opponents will force them into the areas where they are weak.



I can't really say I agree with that. When you listen to the commentary for strikers like Usman, Masvidal, Adesanya, or McGregor,  you never hear someone say "Fighter X's gameplan is avoiding the takedown because they don't want to engage on the ground with Fighter Y". I'm definitely not saying that McGregor, Usman, Masvidal, etc. don't have highly developed ground fighting skills, they definitely do. However, it's rather clear that you're dealing with an entirely different level of grappling with the Bjj-based fighters, and the fighters know that.



> I love watching Lee fight. Her grappling flow is amazing. Same with Dern.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats not my exsperiance steve, really the reverse is  true , for those comming ibto ma for the first time and those coming in to sport for athe first time in a long tine, they make enourmas gains in the first 12 months, then the law of demintioning returns applies and the rate of progrss slows considerably to no n at all, after 3/ 4 years


My experience has been a cross between these, within TMA. There's a gain of knowledge and technical skill in the first year - they're able to "move right". But a couple of years later, they start to "move well" and can actually make things work the way they should. For the next few years, this continues, but at a slower rate, which diminishes almost logorithmically.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think what Steve is getting at (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the styles based more on application (i.e. more full contact sparring) tend to have a quicker rate of student effectiveness than styles who tend to practice a more passive approach and are based more on theory. For example, a boxer in a ring everyday fighting opponents is going to be a better fighter in 6 months than someone practicing forms in a traditional style in the same time frame. That's simply reality, because it's experience versus non experience.
> 
> You can even witness this within the exact same style with different training philosophies in place. For example, there was a push within Bjj about a decade ago to not allow white belts to roll (spar) with one another until blue belt. That practice was quickly abandoned when those fresh blue belts with no fighting experience were getting absolutely smashed by blue belts from other schools who allowed their white belts to spar with each other.


I'd assert this is training methods, not necessarily the style - though the two correlate strongly in some styles. If a boxer spent their sparring time shadow boxing, they'd likely take a lot longer getting to that proficiency (if they ever did). Similarly, if we compared two WC practitioners, where one focused on forms and the other spent a lot of time sparring, I think it'd be pretty easy to guess which would develop their fighting skills faster.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I can't really say I agree with that. When you listen to the commentary for strikers like Usman, Masvidal, Adesanya, or McGregor,  you never hear someone say "Fighter X's gameplan is avoiding the takedown because they don't want to engage on the ground with Fighter Y". I'm definitely not saying that McGregor, Usman, Masvidal, etc. don't have highly developed ground fighting skills, they definitely do. However, it's rather clear that you're dealing with an entirely different level of grappling with the Bjj-based fighters, and the fighters know that.


I don't think Tony was arguing those strikers had ground games on par with the BJJ-centric fighters. But if McGregor didn't have a competent ground game (and takedown defense), other fighters would have found that weakness pretty early in his pro career and would have used it to minimize his striking.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'd assert this is training methods, not necessarily the style - though the two correlate strongly in some styles. If a boxer spent their sparring time shadow boxing, they'd likely take a lot longer getting to that proficiency (if they ever did). Similarly, if we compared two WC practitioners, where one focused on forms and the other spent a lot of time sparring, I think it'd be pretty easy to guess which would develop their fighting skills faster.


You're getting there.  It's about application (and the training culture that promotes it) and not style.  I think most martial arts styles are cool as hell. I don't like how some reason, and I think it's dangerous if they confuse martial training with fighting application, more so if they promote this as a "feature" of the style.

Sparring is a good training tool, and essential, I think.  But it isn't fighting.  It concerns me that you conflate them.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think Tony was arguing those strikers had ground games on par with the BJJ-centric fighters. But if McGregor didn't have a competent ground game (and takedown defense), other fighters would have found that weakness pretty early in his pro career and would have used it to minimize his striking.


Chase Hooper is a young fighter.  Ufc contract before he was 21.  Has had 2 UFC fights now and is 1 and 1.  He has terrible striking but is a beast on the mat.  Decent wrestling and too tier bjj.  I think he's peaked if he doesn't improve his striking.  He's done extremely well without great striking, but he just had no chance in his last fight.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2020)

Does anyone think the thread has drifted far enough away from the op to warrant starting a new thread?


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> There is an assumption that how people train, whether they focus on application, for example, and/or how much conditioning they do, can be known based on which style they practice. Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason, but I think that this assumption is the root of a lot of the antipathy in our collective unproductive arguments. In my experience it is not a reliable assumption.
> 
> What is considered "traditional" is another baseline standard that if we were going to have productive discussions intra-style, we would need to resolve. I don't personally believe that it is traditional in southern kung fu styles to wear silk uniforms and primarily practice forms and choreographed fight sequences, but some people do and some people who don't train in a TMA system believe that is what happens inside of all TMA systems and schools. It certainly happens in some, but I assure you, it is not how everyone trains.
> 
> ...


I really believe you are making a lot of assumptions.  Your entire post is about how other people think and why they think it.  Speaking for myself, I don't think of anything in an mma or bjj centric way and I have no beef with WC.  If you think otherwise, you are mistaken.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'd assert this is training methods, not necessarily the style - though the two correlate strongly in some styles. If a boxer spent their sparring time shadow boxing, they'd likely take a lot longer getting to that proficiency (if they ever did). Similarly, if we compared two WC practitioners, where one focused on forms and the other spent a lot of time sparring, I think it'd be pretty easy to guess which would develop their fighting skills faster.



Absolutely, but we also have to look at what those styles produce on a whole. Not sparring in Boxing is a personal choice, because sparring is a pretty integral part of the sport. There are many traditional martial art schools that don’t allow sparring. Also if we look at the top boxers in the world, it’s pretty clear what type of fighter that sport can produce. It’s unclear what a top fighter from traditional Chinese martial arts would look like. Those that have stepped forward to challenge sport fighters haven’t done very well, and show a rather distinct lack of fighting knowledge. That said, they deserve respect for attempting to defend their martial art.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think Tony was arguing those strikers had ground games on par with the BJJ-centric fighters. But if McGregor didn't have a competent ground game (and takedown defense), other fighters would have found that weakness pretty early in his pro career and would have used it to minimize his striking.



Well that’s the point; If we’re discussing fighters with ground games beyond the already high standard of MMA to the point where opponents attempt to avoid that range completely, then the martial art giving those fighters that advantage should be recognized. Being forced to avoid the ground completely is a huge disadvantage in MMA.

More to the original point, if a MMA fighter is winning their fights using Bjj strategies, and their skill in Bjj is respected to the point where their opponents actively avoid that entire range of fighting, is it fair to say that that fighter is 90-95% using Bjj to win their fights?


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> Does anyone think the thread has drifted far enough away from the op to warrant starting a new thread?



If by "drifted away" you mean that we have 3 people talking not only about MMA at this point, but about specific professional MMA fighters, then...no, that's what normally happens in Wing Chun threads and it is exactly the point that I think the OP was trying to suss out. 



Steve said:


> I really believe you are making a lot of assumptions...



I can't say what you do or don't believe Steve, I'll take your word for it, though the post in the other thread that I quoted here and you didn't want to acknowledge would suggest differently. But this doesn't have to be about you (or me). There is a regular cast of characters who join Wing Chun threads to discredit and promote their superior (MMA) worldview and we do not have to make assumptions about them because they are clear on it.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> I can't say what you do or don't believe Steve, I'll take your word for it, though the post in the other thread that I quoted here and you didn't want to acknowledge would suggest differently. But this doesn't have to be about you (or me). There is a regular cast of characters who join Wing Chun threads to discredit and promote their superior (MMA) worldview and we do not have to make assumptions about them because they are clear on it.



Actually before this thread, I haven’t posted in the WC forum in a long time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're getting there.  It's about application (and the training culture that promotes it) and not style.  I think most martial arts styles are cool as hell. I don't like how some reason, and I think it's dangerous if they confuse martial training with fighting application, more so if they promote this as a "feature" of the style.
> 
> Sparring is a good training tool, and essential, I think.  But it isn't fighting.  It concerns me that you conflate them.


You start this post condescending, and just dig deeper.


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Actually before this thread, I haven’t posted in the WC forum in a long time.


neither has anyone else , but some how people who seldom if ever post are getting blamed by people who seldom post for people seldomly posting


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 12, 2020)

This is a WC sub-forum. Nobody care about your non-WC guy's opinions. Why are your non-WC guys still hanging around here?

This is a non-WC thread. Nobody care about your WC guy's opinions. Why are your WC guys still hanging around here?

A non-WC thread in a WC sub-forum, is that funny?


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> neither has anyone else , but some how people who seldom if ever post are getting blamed by people who seldom post for people seldomly posting



Well, let's see. That should be easy enough to check. Including this discussion, you have posted to Wing Chun threads 200 times since 2017. That's kind of a lot for someone who doesn't train in Wing Chun or respect it at all.

Some highlights of a few of the contributions from the thread you hijacked that prompted @Highlander to start this dog of a thread.



jobo said:


> ok learning wc is like learning to cook with an empty source pan,





jobo said:


> how many wcers dors it take to change a light bulb,  cant be done if its off the centre line





jobo said:


> did you hear about the chunner who got stuck in a maze, he could only go in straight lines





jobo said:


> i dont think it sucks, i think it blows
> how about this one
> 
> if your going to drag your back foot wear a roller skate



So @Hanzou you keep saying it isn't you...never said it was, but this is what we're talking about.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 12, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> So @Hanzou you keep saying it isn't you...never said it was, but this is what we're talking about.



Oh you’re talking about Jobo... well....


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 12, 2020)

Not just Jobo, but sure. Especially if he's going to say crazy **** like prior to this thread he hasn't posted in a Wing Chun forum in a long time.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Oct 12, 2020)

Wait...what's not Wing Chun?

Christ.

Tiger style, for starters.  Definitely little to no snow leopard. 

Horse?  Nope.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Well, let's see. That should be easy enough to check. Including this discussion, you have postea 200 in d to Wing Chun threads 200 times since 2017. That's kind of a lot for someone who doesn't train in Wing Chun or respect it at all.
> 
> Some highlights of a few of the contributions from the thread you hijacked that prompted @Highlander to start this dog of a thread.
> 
> ...





ShortBridge said:


> Well, let's see. That should be easy enough to check. Including this discussion, you have posted to Wing Chun threads 200 times since 2017. That's kind of a lot for someone who doesn't train in Wing Chun or respect it at all.
> 
> Some highlights of a few of the contributions from the thread you hijacked that prompted @Highlander to start this dog of a thread.
> 
> ...


200 in very nearly 4 years is seldom considering i do about 200 posts a month and before that post it was many months seince my previous one
and those were in request for wc maxims, so i was invited to make the posts
.that said they are funny, well i think there funny anyway,

and im an equal opertunity poster,  i mock sillyness where ever i find it
.it just the wc lot are so far up their own  &&&& they they get all butt hurt if people laugh at them and its like peopke walking round with clown shoes, if you dont want to be laughed at, dont do it

karate and all the other tmas) regularly gets the treatment from the mma guys, but no one starts self indulgent whingeing threads saying how mean they are.

coz karate men are hard


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> If by "drifted away" you mean that we have 3 people talking not only about MMA at this point, but about specific professional MMA fighters, then...no, that's what normally happens in Wing Chun threads and it is exactly the point that I think the OP was trying to suss out.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what you do or don't believe Steve, I'll take your word for it, though the post in the other thread that I quoted here and you didn't want to acknowledge would suggest differently. But this doesn't have to be about you (or me). There is a regular cast of characters who join Wing Chun threads to discredit and promote their superior (MMA) worldview and we do not have to make assumptions about them because they are clear on it.


I am pretty sure I'm referencing that other post specifically, and welcome you to reread my posts now that you have a better idea of what I'm trying to say.  You can post a response there if you like.  Or not 

And you wc guys (not you but others) have been incredibly rude and hostile in this thread, and bear as much of the responsibility for the tone as anyone else.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You start this post condescending, and just dig deeper.


I don't mean to be condescending.  It's possible that it seems condescending to you because you already think you get it.  EDIT:  Just to add, what I mean by close, but not quite there is that I agree with you completely that it's not the style, it's the training.  But then you somehow suggest sparring isn't training.  That doesn't compute.  I would ask you to presume good intent.  I'm not trying to win an argument.  I'm encouraged to post because I think you (and sometimes others) get really close to getting what I mean, but then take a crazy Ivan at the last minute that makes me think we're close to agreement.  

This is, honestly, more relevant in the other thread (where it is on topic) so if the moderators want to move it, feel free.  But this is exactly why I like to think about doing an actual study.  I believe it's not the styles; it's the training model.  And in particular, it's training models that *lead to *application as opposed to training models that *are *the application.  To try and keep this a bit on topic, consider this.  Chi sao seems to be a bit of a controversial topic among WC practitioners.  In particular, the idea of chi sao competitions and the like.  I see this as a kind of inevitable misapplication of the style.  Whether the chi sao competitions become more widely accepted and mainstream or not, the emphasis on developing chi sao skills as an end goal is understandable, and in the absence of other venues for application, inevitable.

Conversely, BJJ competitors who focus entirely on a single rule set for competition will inevitably see their training drift in that direction. We see this in any form of application.  Application encourages reliable, predictable skill development, but it also focuses skill development on what is being applied.  In TKD and in Judo, as the competitive rule sets have focused the skill development, some skills atrophy and others are developed with emphasis because the ruleset.  It's easy to see how much of an impact application has on skill development.  This same process is observable in any other context for application.  Cops do cop things well, soldiers do soldier things well, etc.  The answer, though, isn't to eliminate any external application and focus entirely on training.  Rather, it's to encourage diversity in application.

And ultimately, as I said in the other thread, this is so fundamental and universal to skill development that I don't think style matters.  In the other thread, I outlined four groups, and while I listed some examples of styles associated with training model, the style involved is not relevant.  That wasn't intended to be limiting.  So, for example, you could take 40 people (two groups of 20) with no previous experience, where they train BJJ in isolation with a competent instructor (to eliminate the variable of quality training partners).  Group one is training for competitions and required to compete a minimum number of times per year, and group two does not compete.  I think group 1 develops skills quickly, and I would expect that group 2 will take years to see any appreciable skill development.  After 1 year, I don't think that group 2 can demonstrate much skill.  Possibly some skill development after three or five years, but stunted when compared to the developing expertise within group 1.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> And ultimately, as I said in the other thread, this is so fundamental and universal to skill development that I don't think style matters.  In the other thread, I outlined four groups, and while I listed some examples of styles associated with training model, the style involved is not relevant.  That wasn't intended to be limiting.  So, for example, you could take 40 people (two groups of 20) with no previous experience, where they train BJJ in isolation with a competent instructor (to eliminate the variable of quality training partners).  Group one is training for competitions and required to compete a minimum number of times per year, and group two does not compete.  I think group 1 develops skills quickly, and I would expect that group 2 will take years to see any appreciable skill development.  After 1 year, I don't think that group 2 can demonstrate much skill.  Possibly some skill development after three or five years, but stunted when compared to the developing expertise within group 1.



Didn't this actually happen within Bjj when there were schools that eliminated sparring among white belts because it was deemed too dangerous? Those schools eventually stopped doing it because when those non-sparring white belts became blue belts they were seriously lacking in fundamental ability, despite their greater emphasis on drills and practice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't mean to be condescending.  It's possible that it seems condescending to you because you already think you get it.  EDIT:  Just to add, what I mean by close, but not quite there is that I agree with you completely that it's not the style, it's the training.  But then you somehow suggest sparring isn't training.  That doesn't compute.  I would ask you to presume good intent.  I'm not trying to win an argument.  I'm encouraged to post because I think you (and sometimes others) get really close to getting what I mean, but then take a crazy Ivan at the last minute that makes me think we're close to agreement.
> 
> This is, honestly, more relevant in the other thread (where it is on topic) so if the moderators want to move it, feel free.  But this is exactly why I like to think about doing an actual study.  I believe it's not the styles; it's the training model.  And in particular, it's training models that *lead to *application as opposed to training models that *are *the application.  To try and keep this a bit on topic, consider this.  Chi sao seems to be a bit of a controversial topic among WC practitioners.  In particular, the idea of chi sao competitions and the like.  I see this as a kind of inevitable misapplication of the style.  Whether the chi sao competitions become more widely accepted and mainstream or not, the emphasis on developing chi sao skills as an end goal is understandable, and in the absence of other venues for application, inevitable.
> 
> ...


Actually, your third sentence is where you go off the track. I never said sparring wasn't training. Not once.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Didn't this actually happen within Bjj when there were schools that eliminated sparring among white belts because it was deemed too dangerous? Those schools eventually stopped doing it because when those non-sparring white belts became blue belts they were seriously lacking in fundamental ability, despite their greater emphasis on drills and practice.


Which is pretty much what you'd expect. Not sure why the folks running those schools didn't.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, your third sentence is where you go off the track. I never said sparring wasn't training. Not once.


Hmm.  Okay.  You said this:


gpseymour said:


> I'd assert this is training methods, not necessarily the style - though the two correlate strongly in some styles. If a boxer spent their sparring time shadow boxing, they'd likely take a lot longer getting to that proficiency (if they ever did). Similarly, if we compared two WC practitioners, where one focused on forms and the other spent a lot of time sparring, I think it'd be pretty easy to guess which would develop their fighting skills faster.


where I talk about application, you tend to substitute the word “sparring” and then move on.  So, to be clear, I agree with your overarching point, that training model is important.   However, it suggests to me that you don’t “get it” when, instead of thinking about contexts for application, your brain shifts instead to sparring as application.  Said differently, if you think sparring is the key to skill development, I think you’re still missing the point.

Now, to hanzous point, where application also exists, (E.g., competition), sparring is very beneficial.  Absent application, sparring can be pretty pointless.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Which is pretty much what you'd expect. Not sure why the folks running those schools didn't.



Frankly I think the underlying cause was a certain school trying to push online belt programs, where the person could do drills, but couldn't really spar. Certain  affiliated schools drinking the kool-aid of the main school attempted to bring that concept into their actual gyms, much to the detriment of the students there.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Now, to hanzous point, where application also exists, (E.g., competition), sparring is very beneficial.  Absent application, sparring can be pretty pointless.



Now that is an interesting point. The other side of the coin is that if your competition is devoid of fighting application, it can still cause your sparring to be pointless (i.e. point-fighting karate vs. full contact Karate).


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Now that is an interesting point. The other side of the coin is that if your competition is devoid of fighting application, it can still cause your sparring to be pointless (i.e. point-fighting karate vs. full contact Karate).


Whatever the application is, that's the skill you're developing.  So if it's a chi sao competition, your chi sao is going to be strong.  Whether or not that translates to another context depends on your skill level and how similar the contexts are.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Whatever the application is, that's the skill you're developing.  So if it's a chi sao competition, your chi sao is going to be strong.  Whether or not that translates to another context depends on your skill level and how similar the contexts are.



So essentially what you're saying is that a competition aspect is vital to give martial practice a general purpose and to increase the general skill level of its participants?


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Whatever the application is, that's the skill you're developing.  So if it's a chi sao competition, your chi sao is going to be strong.  Whether or not that translates to another context depends on your skill level and how similar the contexts are.


it will most definitely  tranfere, the only question is how much 

whacking a tenis ball agaibst a wall transferes to playibg tennis,


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So essentially what you're saying is that a competition aspect is vital to give martial practice a general purpose and to increase the general skill level of its participants?


its far from guaranteed tp do either of those thibgs


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> its far from guaranteed tp do either of those thibgs



I've experienced that in Bjj where there was a competition aspect, versus not experiencing that in Shotokan where there was no competition aspect.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I've experienced that in Bjj where there was a competition aspect, versus not experiencing that in Shotokan where there was no competition aspect.


im not really undestandibg your point,  so il run with what ive got

practisibg karate can increse your abilities at actually fighting  like hittibg a tennis  ball against a wall, competition is not guarenteed to do any thing at all
like goibg up against a good tennis player is not always going to make you better at tennis and goibg up agaibst a bad tennis player certainly wont


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> im not really undestandibg your point,  so il run with what ive got
> 
> practisibg karate can increse your abilities at actually fighting  like hittibg a tennis  ball against a wall, competition is not guarenteed to do any thing at all
> like goibg up against a good tennis player is not always going to make you better at tenis



What I'm saying is that without the competition aspect in Shotokan, there was no hierarchy in skill beyond our dojo. That led to certain people in our dojo thinking we were hot ****, but beyond our dojo we were actually scrubs. Which is why when a boxer visited our school, we got tooled.

In Bjj there is a rather clear hierarchy beyond our school. This is partially because of how popular Bjj is, but also because there was always a sense that there are elite Bjj practitioners and you know very clearly who those elite practitioners are because they compete. Those elite practitioners in turn develop new techniques that filter down to the professionals, instructors, coaches, amateurs, and hobbyists. That gives the general Bjj community a direction in their sparring. Which is why when a boxer and a wrestler visited our school, we tooled them.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> What I'm saying is that without the competition aspect in Shotokan, there was no hierarchy in skill beyond our dojo. That led to certain people in our dojo thinking we were hot ****, but beyond our dojo we were actually scrubs. Which is why when a boxer visited our school, we got tooled.
> 
> In Bjj there is a rather clear hierarchy beyond our school. This is partially because of how popular Bjj is, but also because there was always a sense that there are elite Bjj practitioners and you know very clearly who those elite practitioners are because they compete. Those elite practitioners in turn develop new techniques that filter down to the professionals, instructors, coaches, amateurs, and hobbyists. That gives the general Bjj community a direction in their sparring. Which is why when a boxer and a wrestler visited our school, we tooled them.


but im still waitibg for you to show that takibg part im comperticions slways ibcreases yoyr skill level, which is what you seemed to sugest above


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> but im still waitibg for you to show that takibg part im comperticions slways ibcreases yoyr skill level, which is what you seemed to sugest above



It always increased my skill level, because I was taking competition class alongside my standard Bjj class, and pretty much training everyday. Again, I can only speak for my personal experience, your mileage will vary.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It always increased my skill level, because I was taking competition class alongside my standard Bjj class, and pretty much training everyday. Again, I can only speak for my personal experience, your mileage will vary.


so ut was the class that oncreased your level not the actual contest  , that sounds reasonable


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 13, 2020)

Someone please give jobo some spelling lessons.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 13, 2020)

wckf92 said:


> Someone please give jobo some spelling lessons.



I picture it more that he just has big sausage fingers.... or his voice text doesn't do British accents.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

yak sao said:


> I picture it more that he just has big sausage fingers.... or his voice text doesn't do British accents.


thats a fair summary  follow by cant be ars3d going through it again


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Hmm.  Okay.  You said this:
> where I talk about application, you tend to substitute the word “sparring” and then move on.  So, to be clear, I agree with your overarching point, that training model is important.   However, it suggests to me that you don’t “get it” when, instead of thinking about contexts for application, your brain shifts instead to sparring as application.  Said differently, if you think sparring is the key to skill development, I think you’re still missing the point.
> 
> Now, to hanzous point, where application also exists, (E.g., competition), sparring is very beneficial.  Absent application, sparring can be pretty pointless.


No, I specifically was addressing sparring. Whether that's application or not is an entirely different discussion, and not really salient to my point, I thnk. If you disagree about what I said - without trying to substitute "application" for "sparring" - I'd be interested in understanding where our difference lies.

Sadly, if you think sparring isn't a factor in developing skills, I don't think I understand your thought process, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Frankly I think the underlying cause was a certain school trying to push online belt programs, where the person could do drills, but couldn't really spar. Certain  affiliated schools drinking the kool-aid of the main school attempted to bring that concept into their actual gyms, much to the detriment of the students there.


That makes sense. I've discussed those online programs, and I think they have value for folks who already have some grappling experience (and a partner to work with), but their usefulness to a beginner seems doubtful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> its far from guaranteed tp do either of those thibgs


I think it'd be difficult to imagine a scenario where competition didn't lead to improving skill in whatever the competition is, over time.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think it'd be difficult to imagine a scenario where competition didn't lead to improving skill in whatever the competition is, over time.


how much time? and how much skill and how are you measuribg outcomes


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No, I specifically was addressing sparring. Whether that's application or not is an entirely different discussion, and not really salient to my point, I thnk. If you disagree about what I said - without trying to substitute "application" for "sparring" - I'd be interested in understanding where our difference lies.
> 
> Sadly, if you think sparring isn't a factor in developing skills, I don't think I understand your thought process, at all.


Sparring can be a great training tool, though it's too broad a term to be meaningful.  Some sparring is probably counter productive.  Some sparring is very productive.  Just depends on whether it helps you or hinders you reaching the goal. 

However, application is always productive because application is the goal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Frankly I think the underlying cause was a certain school trying to push online belt programs, where the person could do drills, but couldn't really spar. Certain  affiliated schools drinking the kool-aid of the main school attempted to bring that concept into their actual gyms, much to the detriment of the students there.


It's pretty sad that since the Covid-19, my class has no contact. When my opponent

- push me from 10 feet away, my body is leaning back.
- sweep me from 10 feet away, my leg is off the ground.
- ...

I'm afraid my opponent may think that he can really do that to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> im not really undestandibg your point,  so il run with what ive got
> 
> practisibg karate can increse your abilities at actually fighting  like hittibg a tennis  ball against a wall, competition is not guarenteed to do any thing at all
> like goibg up against a good tennis player is not always going to make you better at tennis and goibg up agaibst a bad tennis player certainly wont


Competition tends to raise the skill level of the group of participants, though not necessarily the skill of a given individual.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Competition tends to raise the skill level of the group of participants, though not necessarily the skill of a given individual.


That statement doesn’t make sense to me.  Are you talking about exceptions to the rule?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sparring can be a great training tool, though it's too broad a term to be meaningful.  Some sparring is probably counter productive.  Some sparring is very productive.  Just depends on whether it helps you or hinders you reaching the goal.
> 
> However, application is always productive because application is the goal.


This is where I run into a problem with your narrow definition of "application". By your own sentence, someone for whom competition is not the goal, then competition doesn't qualify as application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> That statement doesn’t make sense to me.  Are you talking about exceptions to the rule?


No. As you correctly point out, competition isn't training. An individual can compete and not learn from it, not make useful adjustments. In that case, they don't benefit from it, so it won't improve their skill.

It will tend to improve the group, though, in two ways. Firstly, with folks competing, they have more feedback to improve the system. BJJ is an excellent case in point for this. Secondly, folks who aren't good in competition won't tend to stick around (there are exceptions), so the group's overall skill level improves somewhat by attrition. I assume (though can't prove) this latter is a minor effect in most cases, though it seems likely the "harder" the competition, the more of this effect there will be.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is where I run into a problem with your narrow definition of "application". By your own sentence, someone for whom competition is not the goal, then competition doesn't qualify as application.



Is it possible that in a martial art driven by competition, even individuals not pursuing the art for competition purposes would still benefit from the overall elevated skill level of the group?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Competition tends to raise the skill level of the group of participants, though not necessarily the skill of a given individual.


possibly things that involve " team work" but even then not much to be honest.

with in all the sports, games etal ive participated with in, competition against compiticion standard players , doesnt generaly give you enough repaticions to improve your skills.

you need to go away and practice and practice if you wish to make any notable improvement, then come back to compiticion to test your progress

there is very little real world differanc3 between practice for competition andd competition standard of practice

other than the progess feedback loop, and even that is largely negated if you practice with/ against compition standards of training partners

somebody needs to be,doing competition  it doesnt need to be you


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is where I run into a problem with your narrow definition of "application". By your own sentence, someone for whom competition is not the goal, then competition doesn't qualify as application.


My definition of "application" is expansive.  It is literally that someone apply skills in their intended context.  And to be clear, the issue isn't whether "sparring" can be an application of training.  It's that sparring isn't an application of fighting skills.  As I've said repeatedly, when you take any external application away, the training itself supplants that.  Simply put, you can become an expert in the training exercises you create.  

I outlined four groups of new martial arts trainees, and shared my hypothesis about their skill progression.  Do you disagree?  Do you think that the folks in group 2 will hold their own against the folks in group 1 after 1 year?  3 years?  5 years?  How would they fare against someone who just exercises after 1 year?  3 years?  5 years?

You're arguing semantics.  I'm not.  I'm just stating what I think are obvious practical results based on how people train. The proof is in the pudding.  

And just to restate why this matters.  Because people are being misled.  Sometimes on purpose, by con artists.  Sometimes by other people who have also been misled.  It's benign provided you don't need to use the skills.  But given the subject matter, if you can't fight, you should know it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No. As you correctly point out, competition isn't training. An individual can compete and not learn from it, not make useful adjustments. In that case, they don't benefit from it, so it won't improve their skill.


What?  That's rubbish.  If you train in BJJ 3 to 4 times per week diligently and compete 2 or 3 times per year regularly, you may not be the next coming of Rickson Gracie, but you will certainly become skilled enough to earn a purple belt.  Absent injury or illness, you just simply can't fail.  Though there may be some exceptions to this rule. 

It's like learning to drive.  Driving is a difficult and complex task.  But just about everyone learns it.  They spend some time in focused training, where they are expected to also apply the skills under the watchful eye of a coach.  And then off they go.  Bad drivers who, hopefully, through application, will become good drivers.  





> It will tend to improve the group, though, in two ways. Firstly, with folks competing, they have more feedback to improve the system. BJJ is an excellent case in point for this. Secondly, folks who aren't good in competition won't tend to stick around (there are exceptions), so the group's overall skill level improves somewhat by attrition. I assume (though can't prove) this latter is a minor effect in most cases, though it seems likely the "harder" the competition, the more of this effect there will be.


Also rubbish.  There are all kinds of people who HATE competing who do it because they know how important it is to their development.  There are people who compete and lose every time.  Not everyone is a phenom, and there are sharks in every school.  You are articulating an argument against competition based on, I believe, your own hang ups and insecurity about losing.  The thing about a performance based art like boxing, BJJ, MMA, or any of the numerous others, is that in order to improve you have to get over looking foolish or feeling embarrassed because you suck.  Everyone sucks relative to someone else.  The only way to get better is to lose less often. 

The group gets better because the group supports the individuals.

The above rationalization is a perfect example of the kind of rationalization I mentioned to @skribs in another thread when he talked about training in BJJ.  There are a lot of people who are worried about looking foolish who can't get over that ego, and so they create fiction like yours above to rationalize their decisions.  So, to be clear, the reason people leave is because they are not resilient enough to do something that is actually hard to do, where they may not see immediate results.  But that's not a training model issue.  That's a resilience issue, and something we really need to address in our culture, where folks are told all the time that they can lose weight by taking a pill, or gain lean muscle by strapping on some electrodes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> how much time? and how much skill and how are you measuribg outcomes


As Steve (I think) said, competition supports skill development in what's required in the competition. So, looking at the skills used in the competition, are the competitors (as a group) better than those who don't compete? And how much does that change over time?

As for how much time, that'd depend on a lot of factors, including how much change folks involved are willing to embrace. BJJ has seen a lot of progress in a fairly short history, because the proponents largely embrace change, so readily adopt anything that improves performance (in this case, in the competition).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sparring can be a great training tool, though it's too broad a term to be meaningful.  Some sparring is probably counter productive.  Some sparring is very productive.  Just depends on whether it helps you or hinders you reaching the goal.
> 
> However, application is always productive because application is the goal.


I agree with everything except the implicit hard border between sparring and application. I simply don't think it's a binary thing. If the skill being developed is the ability to put someone on the ground who is trying to resist that, then doing that is application, mostly regardless of the context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's pretty sad that since the Covid-19, my class has no contact. When my opponent
> 
> - push me from 10 feet away, my body is leaning back.
> - sweep me from 10 feet away, my leg is off the ground.
> ...


I can't really see the point of miming at a distance. I've converted entirely to movement drills and such, where there's some benefit without contact, and little chance of folks developing false expectations of what they're working on.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> As Steve (I think) said, competition supports skill development in what's required in the competition. So, looking at the skills used in the competition, are the competitors (as a group) better than those who don't compete? And how much does that change over time?
> 
> As for how much time, that'd depend on a lot of factors, including how much change folks involved are willing to embrace. BJJ has seen a lot of progress in a fairly short history, because the proponents largely embrace change, so readily adopt anything that improves performance (in this case, in the competition).


so hoe are you showing its the competition that improves skills rather than the training for competition


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Is it possible that in a martial art driven by competition, even individuals not pursuing the art for competition purposes would still benefit from the overall elevated skill level of the group?


It's kind of like herd immunity.  

Seriously, though, folks who don't compete don't progress as quickly as those who do.  Right?  In the same school where two people start at the same time, one competes regularly and one doesn't, who do you think is going to develop reliable skills faster?

So, the person who doesn't compete, but trains with competitors will benefit from that competitive environment.  But their own individual progression will be a function of what they're doing, not what the competitors are doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Is it possible that in a martial art driven by competition, even individuals not pursuing the art for competition purposes would still benefit from the overall elevated skill level of the group?


Absolutely, assuming they're not insulated. So, let's take BJJ as an easy example. Let's look at four schools.


This school, everyone competes. The benefit is as we've discussed elsewhere in this thread (and others).
This school, some folks compete. The rest of the folks there are rolling with those folks, so get a secondary benefit. The school, as a whole, is working on new discoveries from those competitions, and they get good feedback from the competitors.
This school, nobody competes, but they follow trends coming from schools that compete. They probably still get some marginal benefit, but certainly less than the first two.
This school, nobody competes, and they only develop internally (meaning very limited input from competitors). They won't develop even as much as #3.
Even a couple of competitors being involved makes a difference. I'd argue even some former competitors are a benefit, since they bring some savvy from what they learned and experienced - kind of like when a person with some BJJ joins a school that has limited ground grappling. Even if that person isn't great at BJJ, they bring a bit of that experience with them and improve their partners by simply being harder to work against.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> possibly things that involve " team work" but even then not much to be honest.
> 
> with in all the sports, games etal ive participated with in, competition against compiticion standard players , doesnt generaly give you enough repaticions to improve your skills.
> 
> ...


This is a discussion I've had before (with Steve, probably). You're correct that the competition doesn't directly improve skill. It's the feedback and input from competition that does the deed. Folks find out what works in a broader context, and probably see things done differently than they saw at their school.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> so hoe are you showing its the competition that improves skills rather than the training for competition


They're intrinsically linked.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> They're intrinsically linked.


no they are not, i can go and train with my local rugby team with no intent to compete, repeat for a thousand sports including bjj

in fact im doibg just that with the chess club, ive refuse to play competive matches.

my abilities from playibg competition class players is definetly improving


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 14, 2020)

Reading through this thread, reminds me of the arguments and the excuses, that point fighters used to justify point competition in the 80's.

30yrs later and it seems to have not changed at all.

Although competition can improve a person's ability, it is still based on rule set and the safety of the competitor. But, it still remains the same...if competition is what and all you have ever done, it's best just to keep your skill set and career, in competition.

I find it hard to respect the opinion of artist, that have 100% of their knowledge in competition. Their skill is simply limited.

One of the biggest cons in the martial arts, are those who have never used it outside of the ring, saying that it will work in reality. IMO that is.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Absolutely, assuming they're not insulated. So, let's take BJJ as an easy example. Let's look at four schools.
> 
> 
> This school, everyone competes. The benefit is as we've discussed elsewhere in this thread (and others).
> ...


Two quick thoughts.  First, I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between groups 3 and 4.  They're the same.

Second, can you remind me what you think we're developing?  And can you explain how a self defense school fits into this model?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> My definition of "application" is expansive.  It is literally that someone apply skills in their intended context.  And to be clear, the issue isn't whether "sparring" can be an application of training.  It's that sparring isn't an application of fighting skills.  As I've said repeatedly, when you take any external application away, the training itself supplants that.  Simply put, you can become an expert in the training exercises you create.
> 
> I outlined four groups of new martial arts trainees, and shared my hypothesis about their skill progression.  Do you disagree?  Do you think that the folks in group 2 will hold their own against the folks in group 1 after 1 year?  3 years?  5 years?  How would they fare against someone who just exercises after 1 year?  3 years?  5 years?
> 
> ...


Ah, this is the first time you've included "intended context" that I can recall. That actually clarifies a lot. I can see your point, but don't agree that intended context is necessary for application. If the skill being developed is fighting skill, it can be applied in many contexts, and all of those are application. The purest application would be whatever context the individual has in mind, but the broad skill can be applied elsewhere, which is beneficial to development.

I'm not arguing semantics, actually. We literally mean different things when we say "application". You keep bringing that word up. I specifcally try to avoid it because I know we don't agree on the definition, and stick to words we should be able to generally agree on.

Is "sparring" vague? Yes. So is "competition". Can either be beneficial to development? Yes, and sometimes in similar ways. Because they can be using identical rules and have much of the same context, depending how they are approached. I see competition as (potentially) the apex of sparring, rather than something different from it.

I'll go back and look for the post with the groups and see what I think of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> What?  That's rubbish.  If you train in BJJ 3 to 4 times per week diligently and compete 2 or 3 times per year regularly, you may not be the next coming of Rickson Gracie, but you will certainly become skilled enough to earn a purple belt.  Absent injury or illness, you just simply can't fail.  Though there may be some exceptions to this rule.


So, it's impossible that someone would just not take any lesson from their competition? C'mon man. We've all met people who wouldn't even follow what was being taught in a MA class, and this isn't nearly as extreme as that.



> It's like learning to drive.  Driving is a difficult and complex task.  But just about everyone learns it.  They spend some time in focused training, where they are expected to also apply the skills under the watchful eye of a coach.  And then off they go.  Bad drivers who, hopefully, through application, will become good drivers.  Also rubbish.


There are plenty of bad drivers who refuse (or are unable?) to learn from what happens around them on the road.



> There are all kinds of people who HATE competing who do it because they know how important it is to their development.  There are people who compete and lose every time.  Not everyone is a phenom, and there are sharks in every school.  You are articulating an argument against competition based on, I believe, your own hang ups and insecurity about losing.  The thing about a performance based art like boxing, BJJ, MMA, or any of the numerous others, is that in order to improve you have to get over looking foolish or feeling embarrassed because you suck.  Everyone sucks relative to someone else.  The only way to get better is to lose less often.


Those folks are trying to learn, so they will benefit. You seem to be rebutting an assertion I didn't make, and rather vigorously. Something in this triggered you, and I don't understand what. Some folks just aren't open to learning. That's not really a controversial statement.



> The group gets better because the group supports the individuals.
> 
> The above rationalization is a perfect example of the kind of rationalization I mentioned to @skribs in another thread when he talked about training in BJJ.  There are a lot of people who are worried about looking foolish who can't get over that ego, and so they create fiction like yours above to rationalize their decisions.  So, to be clear, the reason people leave is because they are not resilient enough to do something that is actually hard to do, where they may not see immediate results.  But that's not a training model issue.  That's a resilience issue, and something we really need to address in our culture, where folks are told all the time that they can lose weight by taking a pill, or gain lean muscle by strapping on some electrodes.


I never said it was a training model issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> so hoe are you showing its the competition that improves skills rather than the training for competition


Training for the competition doens't happen without the competition, so is part of the effect. The skill development doesn't happen during the competition event, but because of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's kind of like herd immunity.
> 
> Seriously, though, folks who don't compete don't progress as quickly as those who do.  Right?  In the same school where two people start at the same time, one competes regularly and one doesn't, who do you think is going to develop reliable skills faster?
> 
> So, the person who doesn't compete, but trains with competitors will benefit from that competitive environment.  But their own individual progression will be a function of what they're doing, not what the competitors are doing.


What would you argue is the direct effect of the competition in this case, assuming the non-competitors are going hard with the competitors on a regular basis?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> no they are not, i can go and train with my local rugby team with no intent to compete, repeat for a thousand sports including bjj
> 
> in fact im doibg just that with the chess club, ive refuse to play competive matches.
> 
> my abilities from playibg competition class players is definetly improving


That's actually arguing my point, in my response to Hanzou. You get the benefit of the team's competition. You are part of the group, even if you don't compete (which actually happens to some high school athletes who almost never make it on the game field).


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is a discussion I've had before (with Steve, probably). You're correct that the competition doesn't directly improve skill. It's the feedback and input from competition that does the deed. Folks find out what works in a broader context, and probably see things done differently than they saw at their school.


yes, but that feed back loop isnt at all necersary to improve, which is the gist of the discusion or necersary at all if your trainibg with against compition class players, you get all the feed back you need from the training


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That's actually arguing my point, in my response to Hanzou. You get the benefit of the team's competition. You are part of the group, even if you don't compete (which actually happens to some high school athletes who almost never make it on the game field).


well im glad we agree, that the compitiction or nothing point is bogus


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Two quick thoughts.  First, I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between groups 3 and 4.  They're the same.


I'd argue there's a big difference. My approach to MA is very different from some others. I borrow good ideas and techniques from a lot of places, including folks who compete. Because of that, I'm tougher to deal with than others with similar experience within my primary art. That third school getting input on what works and getting new ideas means they aren't teaching the same thing 100 years later, when better implementation has been discovered. Now, how big is that difference? That'd be damnablly hard to try to quantify.



> Second, can you remind me what you think we're developing?  And can you explain how a self defense school fits into this model?


Whichever skills are involved in that hypothetical competition. And a SD-oriented school could fit in at literally any of those points, if they can find a competition model that fits well with the skills they're working to develop. Most tend to be at that last point, unfortunately. I'd like to see most of them at that second point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes, but that feed back loop isnt at all necersary to improve, which is the gist of the discusion or necersary at all if your trainibg with against compition class players, you get all the feed back you need from the training


No, I never said there wouldn't be improvement without it - just that there tends to be more improvement with it. And again, if you're training with competitors, you're part of the group being improved by the competition.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's kind of like herd immunity.
> 
> Seriously, though, folks who don't compete don't progress as quickly as those who do.  Right?  In the same school where two people start at the same time, one competes regularly and one doesn't, who do you think is going to develop reliable skills faster?
> 
> So, the person who doesn't compete, but trains with competitors will benefit from that competitive environment.  But their own individual progression will be a function of what they're doing, not what the competitors are doing.



Well let's say that your training partners are Danaher's Death Squad, and while you don't compete, you're rolling with absolute Jiujitsu monsters all the time. Wouldn't that training make you a cut above a typical Bjj practitioner who trains with ordinary people?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No, I never said there wouldn't be improvement without it - just that there tends to be more improvement with it. And again, if you're training with competitors, you're part of the group being improved by the competition.


so again how are you spkitibg the improvement from the training with the improvemebt from the compitiction? which i ask a few posts ago, to make that claim you mus have some rational ?

your second is also with iut foundation,  first you would need to show that the others are being inproved by the compiticuon and thats far from a common occurrence,  people tend to Plato and then need to go and train harder to make progess


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Well let's say that your training partners are Danaher's Death Squad, and while you don't compete, you're rolling with absolute Jiujitsu monsters all the time. Wouldn't that training make you a cut above a typical Bjj practitioner who trains with ordinary people?


probebly not to ve honest, just like playibg tenis with mr fedrer wobt improve me any, the game will be to one sided and to short  to make any difference


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Reading through this thread, reminds me of the arguments and the excuses, that point fighters used to justify point competition in the 80's.
> 
> 30yrs later and it seems to have not changed at all.
> 
> ...



I think the difference is that the skill set developed in MMA and Bjj competition can and has been directly applied to self defense.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> probebly not to ve honest, just like playibg tenis with mr fedrer wobt improve me any, the game will be to one sided and to short  to make any difference



One sided at first. However, over time, you're going to get better because you're personal skill level has to also rise with the constant competition.

It's like how the Bulls as a whole got better as a team because of Michael Jordan.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think the difference is that the skill set developed in MMA and Bjj competition can and has been directly applied to self defense.


the skill set in karate has also been applied to self defence


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> One sided at first. However, over time, you're going to get better because you're personal skill level has to also rise with the constant competition.
> 
> It's like how the Bulls as a whole got better as a team because of Michael Jordan.


no thats just nit how it works, if i get tied in a knot in 2 seconds il still be gettibg tied in a knot in five years,  you need someone only slightly better than you to be able to learn


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> ...you need someone only slightly better than you to be able to learn



Wow...can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Jobo on anything! hahaha... But he makes a good point with this statement.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> no thats just nit how it works, if i get tied in a knot in 2 seconds il still be gettibg tied in a knot in five years,  you need someone only slightly better than you to be able to learn



If you're still getting tied in knots 5 years later, you have a bad instructor, or you're simply not practicing. I got tied in knots in 2 seconds when I first started Bjj, but that stopped happening the more I learned.



jobo said:


> the skill set in karate has also been applied to self defence



If you say so.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> If you're still getting tied in knots 5 years later, you have a bad instructor, or you're simply not practicing. I got tied in knots in 2 seconds when I first started Bjj, but that stopped happening the more I learned.
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.


if i get tird in a knot in two seconds i will only ever get 3 seconds of pratice, that probebly less than 30 mins over 5 years, no one will improve like that

when i had asperations of being an internation at 8 ball pool, i used to practice with ibternational players, i only got one shot every half hour,  it wasnt at all good practice


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> if i get tird in a knot in two seconds i will only ever get 3 seconds of pratice, that probebly less than 30 mins over 5 years, no one will improve like that



Where did I say that the *only* thing you're going to be doing is sparring against a better grappler? I'm talking about standard practice, and then sparring against someone who is far better than you are. This happens in pretty much every Bjj gym, and the students always get better over time.

I would also argue that even if the only thing you were doing was constantly sparring against someone better than you, you're going to get better in that scenario as well.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that the only thing you're going to be doing is going up against a better grappler? I'm talking about standard practice, and then sparring against someone who is far better than you are. This happens in pretty much every Bjj gym, and the students always get better over time.


where did you sayibg anythibg about, other training,  i can only go of what you write, unless i take up mind reading


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> so again how are you spkitibg the improvement from the training with the improvemebt from the compitiction? which i ask a few posts ago, to make that claim you mus have some rational ?
> 
> your second is also with iut foundation,  first you would need to show that the others are being inproved by the compiticuon and thats far from a common occurrence,  people tend to Plato and then need to go and train harder to make progess


You'd need to show me that it's not a common occurrence that groups aren't improved by competition. You keep going back to discussing individuals, not the population. Each individual will plateau eventually, but each successive generation of people in that population starts a bit more advanced by the knowledge of the folks previous to them. Competition is the consistent feedback loop that helps measure what works and what doesn't (in the context of the competition).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> so again how are you spkitibg the improvement from the training with the improvemebt from the compitiction? which i ask a few posts ago, to make that claim you mus have some rational ?
> 
> your second is also with iut foundation,  first you would need to show that the others are being inproved by the compiticuon and thats far from a common occurrence,  people tend to Plato and then need to go and train harder to make progess


You'd need to show me that it's not a common occurrence that groups aren't improved by competition. You keep going back to discussing individuals, not the population. Each individual will plateau eventually, but each successive generation of people in that population starts a bit more advanced by the knowledge of the folks previous to them. Competition is the consistent feedback loop that helps measure what works and what doesn't (in the context of the competition).


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You'd need to show me that it's not a common occurrence that groups aren't improved by competition. You keep going back to discussing individuals, not the population. Each individual will plateau eventually, but each successive generation of people in that population starts a bit more advanced by the knowledge of the folks previous to them. Competition is the consistent feedback loop that helps measure what works and what doesn't (in the context of the competition).


not i dont, the burden of poof lies with the one who affirms and thats you


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> where did you sayibg anythibg about, other training,  i can only go of what you write, unless i take up mind reading


By understanding how communication works, maybe? Context matters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> not i dont, the burden of poof lies with the one who affirms and thats you


So, when I make a claim, I must support with direct scientific evidence (which you'll invariably find doesn't suit your needs). But when you make a direct claim, "nuh-uh".

Got it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, this is the first time you've included "intended context" that I can recall. That actually clarifies a lot. I can see your point, but don't agree that intended context is necessary for application. If the skill being developed is fighting skill, it can be applied in many contexts, and all of those are application. The purest application would be whatever context the individual has in mind, but the broad skill can be applied elsewhere, which is beneficial to development.
> 
> I'm not arguing semantics, actually. We literally mean different things when we say "application". You keep bringing that word up. I specifcally try to avoid it because I know we don't agree on the definition, and stick to words we should be able to generally agree on.
> 
> ...


Okay.  Go back and look, and I think you'll find I say "context" and "intended context' pretty much every time.  I think I've used those actual words, but if you're going to ding me for not saying "intended context" (as in that exact phrase), then yes you're having a semantics discussion and not a practical one. 

Competition is a very broad term for a specific context where people apply skills.  Welding is a broad term.  Blacksmithing is a broad term.  Piloting is a broad term.  Within each, a person can develop specialized skills that develop some skills to a high degree while allowing others to atrophy.  Or, conversely, a person can apply skills across a broad spectrum creating a more well rounded skill set (possibly, at the expense of highly specialized expertise).  That in no way means that they are not examples of application.

All of that aside, I've been thinking about this, and I think the root of where you and I disagree is what we consider to be a fight.  Fights can have rules or not.  A cop has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight.  A bouncer has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight.  A boxing match, or a muay thai match, or a BJJ match... they have rules, but they are still fights.  Sparring is not a fight.  At least, I would not consider it a fight.  So, if you're fighting, you're applying fighting skills.  If you're not fighting, you aren't.

So, you seem to get hung up on the semantics of "application."  but I encourage you to remember what we're talking about, which is learning how to fight.  If the goal is to be an expert in some fighting context, you have to actually get into some fights.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, when I make a claim, I must support with direct scientific evidence (which you'll invariably find doesn't suit your needs). But when you make a direct claim, "nuh-uh".
> 
> Got it.


well you could try not presenting uniformed unsupportable oppinions as facts

second i havent asked for scientific proof only your rational for havibg formed that opinion 

and third you said i had to provived evidence to dis prove your uniformed  unsuportable opinion,  and thats silly, its on you


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> where did you sayibg anythibg about, other training,  i can only go of what you write, unless i take up mind reading



Again this is what happens when you randomly jump into conversations without looking at the discussion that led up to the post your were responding to. The context was Student A being someone who doesn't compete, but is in a school of elite  Bjj monsters who compete, and Student B being in a typical Bjj with typical training partners. The argument was that student A would develop a higher level of skill because he's training with a group that has a higher skill level, despite his personal lack of competing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I can't really see the point of miming at a distance. I've converted entirely to movement drills and such, where there's some benefit without contact, and little chance of folks developing false expectations of what they're working on.


When you teach your new students a new drill, you have to tell him what he is doing.

For example,

- Use right hand to grab on opponent's left wrist.
- Use left hand to control his right elbow joint.
- Move right hand to pull his neck.
- Use right leg to hook his leading leg.

Since you don't want to have any physical contact, you stay 10 feet away and respond to his attack.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think the difference is that the skill set developed in MMA and Bjj competition can and has been directly applied to self defense.


As can and has been demonstrated, by  all other martial arts, in some way or another. If the individual has proven it for themselves, then can they speak with experience. If not, for me personally, I will not learn from them, nor will I respect their opinion concerning non-sport combat. 

I believe that all sport combat, is simply sparring, not fighting, so I am bias when it comes to subject.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> not i dont, the burden of poof lies with the one who affirms and thats you


You also made a claim, which you've not even provided any logic for. But you'll just argue it's not a claim, and so on, rather than discussing the points I made with any attempt at discussion. So, I suspect we're done with the topic unless you intend to actually add or debate the actual topic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Okay.  Go back and look, and I think you'll find I say "context" and "intended context' pretty much every time.  I think I've used those actual words, but if you're going to ding me for not saying "intended context" (as in that exact phrase), then yes you're having a semantics discussion and not a practical one.


You're taking that as an attack, and it wasn't meant as such. I better understand your position with that in mind. If you've said it that way before, I'll just assume I hadn't had enough coffee when I read it.



> Competition is a very broad term for a specific context where people apply skills.  Welding is a broad term.  Blacksmithing is a broad term.  Piloting is a broad term.  Within each, a person can develop specialized skills that develop some skills to a high degree while allowing others to atrophy.  Or, conversely, a person can apply skills across a broad spectrum creating a more well rounded skill set (possibly, at the expense of highly specialized expertise).  That in no way means that they are not examples of application.


I would say those are all, in fact, examples of application. My use of the term is just broader than yours.



> All of that aside, I've been thinking about this, and I think the root of where you and I disagree is what we consider to be a fight.  Fights can have rules or not.  A cop has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight.  A bouncer has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight.  A boxing match, or a muay thai match, or a BJJ match... they have rules, but they are still fights.  Sparring is not a fight.  At least, I would not consider it a fight.  So, if you're fighting, you're applying fighting skills.  If you're not fighting, you aren't.


I agree with most of that. But where's the key difference that makes sparring a fight during competition but not outside that competition? Let's be clear: the basic activity is the same, but the context changes. Heck, I've even ended up in briefly uncontrolled fights during sparring, when someone got frustrated and forgot there were rules.



> So, you seem to get hung up on the semantics of "application."  but I encourage you to remember what we're talking about, which is learning how to fight.  If the goal is to be an expert in some fighting context, you have to actually get into some fights.


You're now arguing the semantics of "fight". In fact, the real basis of this recurring discussion is your argument over the semantics of the term "application". You claim I'm arguing semantics, but look at exactly what you're doing. You're arguing the definition and usage of a term - arguing, in fact, that your usage is correct and mine is not. That's semantics, Steve.[/quote]


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You also made a claim, which you've not even provided any logic for. But you'll just argue it's not a claim, and so on, rather than discussing the points I made with any attempt at discussion. So, I suspect we're done with the topic unless you intend to actually add or debate the actual topic.


What you don't realize is that this is effortless for @jobo...  he could do this all day.  If there is such a concept as aiki for online discussion, he is the master.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> well you could try not presenting uniformed unsupportable oppinions as facts
> 
> second i havent asked for scientific proof only your rational for havibg formed that opinion
> 
> and third you said i had to provived evidence to dis prove your uniformed  unsuportable opinion,  and thats silly, its on you


I've presented the basic rationale. You've just rebutted with something like "that's not what commonly happens". Which, of course, is a claim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you teach your new students a new drill, you have to tell him what he is doing.
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...


If I brought in a new student right now, they'd get weapon work (and maybe strikes) only. Not something I'd normally do, but this isn't normal times. They'd be working on movement, power when a heavy bag is handy, and not much else. Because anything else, for them to understand it, they'd need to tussle with a partner, whether for grappling or striking, and for now my classes are entirely no-touch. I don't think grappling (including sweeps) can be effectively learned without touch. I'd argue that it's likely to create bad habits that are harder to unlearn than the correct method would be to learn from scratch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> What you don't realize is that this is effortless for @jobo...  he could do this all day.  If there is such a concept as aiki for online discussion, he is the master.


It's a way to pass the time.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're taking that as an attack, and it wasn't meant as such. I better understand your position with that in mind. If you've said it that way before, I'll just assume I hadn't had enough coffee when I read it.


Not at all.  No sense of attack or anything.  Just calling the balls and strikes like I see them.  





> I would say those are all, in fact, examples of application. My use of the term is just broader than yours.


I'm actually okay with adjusting my vernacular to your own.  A few months ago, I aligned my use of the term to your own.  So, if you want to call sparring an "application" of your style, fine.  Hopefully, this makes it easier for you to understand.  The problem isn't whether you're getting better at sparring.  It's whether sparring is fighting, or similar enough to a fight so that you can use the skills if you get into a fight.  





> I agree with most of that. But where's the key difference that makes sparring a fight during competition but not outside that competition? Let's be clear: the basic activity is the same, but the context changes. Heck, I've even ended up in briefly uncontrolled fights during sparring, when someone got frustrated and forgot there were rules.


You're making my left eye twitch. 





> You're now arguing the semantics of "fight". In fact, the real basis of this recurring discussion is your argument over the semantics of the term "application". You claim I'm arguing semantics, but look at exactly what you're doing. You're arguing the definition and usage of a term - arguing, in fact, that your usage is correct and mine is not. That's semantics, Steve.


Not semantics.  I'm actually really tired of the vocabulary tests we all have to take around here.  It's exhausting. This is why I proposed the four groups of people.  It's a simple proposition.  Do you disagree why my hypothesis?  Honestly?  Do you genuinely believe that a group of people who never fights (even if they "spar" in class) will learn reliable, observable skills in a year?  I don't.  I think you pair them up in a fight with someone who doesn't train at all, and there would be no real difference in performance.  After three years?  Maybe...  maybe not.  After five years?  Yeah, probably some, if the training is high quality.  

But even after five years, I would not expect them to perform well against someone with even 1 year of performance based training where they are actually expected to fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Not at all.  No sense of attack or anything.  Just calling the balls and strikes like I see them.  I'm actually okay with adjusting my vernacular to your own.  A few months ago, I aligned my use of the term to your own.  So, if you want to call sparring an "application" of your style, fine.  Hopefully, this makes it easier for you to understand.  The problem isn't whether you're getting better at sparring.  It's whether sparring is fighting, or similar enough to a fight so that you can use the skills if you get into a fight.  You're making my left eye twitch. Not semantics.  I'm actually really tired of the vocabulary tests we all have to take around here.  It's exhausting. This is why I proposed the four groups of people.  It's a simple proposition.  Do you disagree why my hypothesis?  Honestly?  Do you genuinely believe that a group of people who never fights (even if they "spar" in class) will learn reliable, observable skills in a year?  I don't.  I think you pair them up in a fight with someone who doesn't train at all, and there would be no real difference in performance.  After three years?  Maybe...  maybe not.  After five years?  Yeah, probably some, if the training is high quality.
> 
> But even after five years, I would not expect them to perform well against someone with even 1 year of performance based training where they are actually expected to fight.


You made a sidelong comment on what I think is the key part of my post. I've never quite understood why you draw a black-and-white difference between competition and sparring. I've never competed in MA, but I've competed in plenty of other things. A pick-up game of soccer has all the bits of a formal soccer game. In pick-up games, I've actually played against folks who were at a skill level I'd never have run into in competition (I wasn't good enough to get to that level). To me, they're the same in most ways. Take it to a game against a close rival team and things change. Same for a playoff game. But most formal matches weren't distinctly different from the scrimmages and pick-up games.

How does that change with MA?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I've presented the basic rationale. You've just rebutted with something like "that's not what commonly happens". Which, of course, is a claim.


thats not a claim it is an observation


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats not a claim it is an observation


Okay, so mine is an "observation", too. Now what?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so mine is an "observation", too. Now what?


youve already said your was a " rational" 
so not an observation then!


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> As can and has been demonstrated, by  all other martial arts, in some way or another. If the individual has proven it for themselves, then can they speak with experience. If not, for me personally, I will not learn from them, nor will I respect their opinion concerning non-sport combat.
> 
> I believe that all sport combat, is simply sparring, not fighting, so I am bias when it comes to subject.



So who do you think is better at defending themself? A MMA fighter, or some guy who does a kata with knives?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So who do you think is better at defending themself? A MMA fighter, or some guy who does a kata with knives?


who is attacking them?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> who is attacking them?



Ninjas.


----------



## Highlander (Oct 14, 2020)

@Steve are you saying that the only way to get good at fighting is to actually fight? That training/sparring in class doesn't really help?


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You made a sidelong comment on what I think is the key part of my post. I've never quite understood why you draw a black-and-white difference between competition and sparring.


That's true.  I see a clear, black and white difference between competition and sparring.  They are not the same thing.  One is training and the other is not training.  Honestly, and I'm being completely serious, I do not understand how this is controversial or confusing in any way.  To me, it's like saying fish are not frogs, even though they both like water.





> I've never competed in MA, but I've competed in plenty of other things. A pick-up game of soccer has all the bits of a formal soccer game. In pick-up games, I've actually played against folks who were at a skill level I'd never have run into in competition (I wasn't good enough to get to that level). To me, they're the same in most ways. Take it to a game against a close rival team and things change. Same for a playoff game. But most formal matches weren't distinctly different from the scrimmages and pick-up games.
> 
> How does that change with MA?


What are we actually talking about here?  You're seem to think it's a given that sparring is equivalent to even a pick up game of soccer.  I don't think that's true, though it's definitely not the same as playing in a league. I get that you think they're the same, but that's because you have a vested interest in validating sparring as fighting.

But once again, that really misses the entire point.   Why are we picking nits over this, when the outcome so clearly makes my point?  To borrow my words from another thread (where all of this is far more on topic).  We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You're so close to the wall, you can't see the shape of the room.

How reliably can someone expect to apply their fighting skills within the context of their style and without?  I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular intervals, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close.  To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.

So, 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, randomly assigned to one of the following four groups:

Group 1:  100 trained in MMA (or BJJ, or Judo, etc).
Group 2:  100 in that same style, but without competition.
Group 3:  100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
Group 4:  100 who don't train as a control group.
In each of the groups, to eliminate as many variables as possible, they all start from scratch with no previous martial arts experience, and they train only as a group (i.e., no other training partners) under a well qualified instructor.

After a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly.  Group 2 would, I believe, be no more capable of fighting than Group 4, and in a fight would probably be indistinguishable.

After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3.  In a fight, groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable (as far as fighting skill).  It's possible that group 2 fights better than group 4, but I think performance will be very close between the two groups, both far below groups 1 and 3.  

After 5 years, group 1 would begin to display visible expertise in the area.  Group 3 would be very fit, but fighting ability would have plateaued.  I would expect the only question at 5 years to be whether Group 2 fights better than Group 4.  Maybe after 5 years, they would, more likely if the training is excellent (e.g., includes sparring).  But I don't see group 2 even now outfighting the fitness group (group 3), and well below the competitive group.  Their lack of actual fighting experience will not (I believe) be enough for them to overcome the athleticism of the fitness group.  

And, as I said before, I think we all know that this is true.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Ninjas.


well they would both loose then


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> well they would both loose then



I didn't say who would survive, I said who would do_ better_.

And I'm not talking about movie Ninjas, I'm talking about these Ninjas;


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say who would survive, I said who would do_ better_.
> 
> And I'm not talking about movie Ninjas, I'm talking about these Ninjas;


if you loose you loose, nether does better

if its thise specific ninjas then they both win, so again a draw


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

Highlander said:


> @Steve are you saying that the only way to get good at fighting is to actually fight? That training/sparring in class doesn't really help?


Oh, those are two separate things, and not mutually exclusive.  Yes, the only way to get good at fighting (or anything) is to fight.  Specially, the only way to get REALLY good at anything is to accumulate enough experience to become an expert.  

And, yes, training and sparring do really help.  Good training can make the transition to application a lot faster, and people who train a little, apply a lot, train a little more, etc. are generally going to progress faster than without training.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> if you loose you loose, nether does better
> 
> if its thise specific ninjas then they both win, so again a draw



Not really. Say you're protecting your family, and you doing _better_ gives them enough time to escape, even though you die?

What if a woman is attacked, and stabbed multiple times. However before she dies she's able to choke her attacker to death,  sparing future victims from her fate?

As a self defense advocate, it's rather amusing to see you use the term "win or lose" when discussing self defense. Sometimes positive outcomes still result with the defender being killed.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Oh, those are two separate things, and not mutually exclusive.  Yes, the only way to get good at fighting (or anything) is to fight.  Specially, the only way to get REALLY good at anything is to accumulate enough experience to become an expert.
> 
> And, yes, training and sparring do really help.  Good training can make the transition to application a lot faster, and people who train a little, apply a lot, train a little more, etc. are generally going to progress faster than without training.


if someone never fights, how would you kbow how good they were at fighting ?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Not really. Say you're protecting your family, and you doing _better_ gives them enough time to escape, even though you die?
> 
> What if a woman is attacked, and stabbed multiple times. However before she dies she's able to choke her attacker to death,  sparing future victims from her fate?
> 
> As a self defense advocate, it's rather amusing to see you use the term "win or lose" when discussing self defense. Sometimes positive outcomes still result with the defender being killed.


if your dead youve definelty lost


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> if your dead youve definelty lost



If I'm dead but my family survived (versus all of us being killed) that's a win.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> If I'm dead but my family survived (versus all of us being killed) that's a win.


but you wouldnt know your family had,survided or not coz your still dead


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> but you wouldnt know your family had,survided or not coz your still dead



Uh, my family survives whether I know it or not.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Uh, my family survives whether I know it or not.


or doesnt,survive, you still dont know


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> or doesnt,survive, you still dont know



We're saying that in this scenario they do survive.

Again, what's the better outcome? You and your entire family getting killed, or just you?


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> We're saying that in this scenario they do survive.
> 
> Again, what's the better outcome? You and your entire family getting killed, or just you?



no your sayibg that, im saying you dont know coz your dead


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> no your sayibg that, im saying you dont know coz your dead



You didn't answer the question.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You didn't answer the question.


 but id never know if they survived or not, would i, coz im dead, so how could a dead man answer your question

nb if you partner thought anything of you they would stop and help, so clearly they arnt that bothered about you


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> well they would both loose then





jobo said:


> if someone never fights, how would you kbow how good they were at fighting ?


Lol.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> but id never know if they survived or not, would i, coz im dead, so how could a dead man answer your question



Okay, so let's make you an observer to the situation instead of the person it's happening to. Now answer the question.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Okay, so let's make you an observer to the situation instead of the person it's happening to. Now answer the question.


am i an observer in an inertial reference frame ?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> am i an observer in an inertial reference frame ?



So you're going to intentionally avoid the question. Got it.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So you're going to intentionally avoid the question. Got it.


YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SCENARIO, NOW THERE IS AN OBSERVER, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF OBSERVER I AM


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SCENARIO, NOW THERE IS AN OBSERVER, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF OBSERVER I AM



LoL! I didn't change the scenario at all. I just made you the observer instead of the participant.

Seriously, this is not difficult. You're just being obtuse.


----------



## jobo (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> LoL! I didn't change the scenario at all. I just made you the observer instead of the participant.
> 
> Seriously, this is not difficult. You're just being obtuse.


OF COURSE you've changed it, you've added an observer, , youl probably change it again


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 14, 2020)

jobo said:


> OF COURSE you've changed it, you've added an observer, , youl probably change it again



Wow... Like I said, "Got it".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> youve already said your was a " rational"
> so not an observation then!


So observations are irrational?


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So observations are irrational?


no their data, they are nether a rationale or irrational


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> no their data, they are nether a rationale or irrational


But something rational can't be an observation?


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> But something rational can't be an observation?


its,  data , data collection doesnt require processing , to be data, as its nit been run through yoyr logic funxtions it is nether ratonal or irational.

its your eye acting as a camera, a picture is not rational or irational its just a picture.

if YOU decided the picture shows big foot, then its you beibg irrational,  not the picture


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> That's true.  I see a clear, black and white difference between competition and sparring.  They are not the same thing.  One is training and the other is not training.  Honestly, and I'm being completely serious, I do not understand how this is controversial or confusing in any way.  To me, it's like saying fish are not frogs, even though they both like water.What are we actually talking about here?  You're seem to think it's a given that sparring is equivalent to even a pick up game of soccer.  I don't think that's true, though it's definitely not the same as playing in a league. I get that you think they're the same, but that's because you have a vested interest in validating sparring as fighting.
> 
> But once again, that really misses the entire point.   Why are we picking nits over this, when the outcome so clearly makes my point?  To borrow my words from another thread (where all of this is far more on topic).  We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You're so close to the wall, you can't see the shape of the room.
> 
> ...


I'm going to reply twice, because you're dismissing something as unimportant that I really want to understand. You seem to see my questions about it as an attack on your position - some nit picking. It's not. I want to understand your position, because it confuses me. But I'll come to that in the other post.

As to the 4 groups, if you assume (which would be an unsafe assumption, in my opinion) that group 3 gets MUCH better fitness than group 2 (who are, after all, spending all that same time in something that requires significant effort), then 3 would be better equipped to escape. I see no reason to expect group 2 would be less capable at fighting than group 3, and you'd have to show me something to support that. My other post will get to the heart of this, but I'm separating it out because you keep coming back to this.

If you honestly think a boxing coach (to take just one area of MMA) can't give someone signfiicant improvements in their fighting skills without them ever entering a competition, you appear to have real disstain fro coaches and instructors. They are largely ineffective in your stated position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Oh, those are two separate things, and not mutually exclusive.  Yes, the only way to get good at fighting (or anything) is to fight.  Specially, the only way to get REALLY good at anything is to accumulate enough experience to become an expert.
> 
> And, yes, training and sparring do really help.  Good training can make the transition to application a lot faster, and people who train a little, apply a lot, train a little more, etc. are generally going to progress faster than without training.


Your second paragraph is in direct contradiction, in my reading, to your assertion in your longer post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> That's true.  I see a clear, black and white difference between competition and sparring.  They are not the same thing.  One is training and the other is not training.  Honestly, and I'm being completely serious, I do not understand how this is controversial or confusing in any way.  To me, it's like saying fish are not frogs, even though they both like water.What are we actually talking about here?  You're seem to think it's a given that sparring is equivalent to even a pick up game of soccer.  I don't think that's true, though it's definitely not the same as playing in a league. I get that you think they're the same, but that's because you have a vested interest in validating sparring as fighting.
> 
> But once again, that really misses the entire point.   Why are we picking nits over this, when the outcome so clearly makes my point?  To borrow my words from another thread (where all of this is far more on topic).  We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You're so close to the wall, you can't see the shape of the room.
> 
> ...


Okay, for the second response to this. You've still missed answering my question of how sparring (in all iterations) is so very distant from competiiton (in all iterations).

So, let me ask you to answer two questions:

How does a pick-up soccer game differ from a league event among people of the same level?
How is sparring not analogous to a pick-up soccer game? (As in, where does the analogy fail?)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> its,  data , data collection doesnt require processing , to be data, as its nit been run through yoyr logic funxtions it is nether ratonal or irational.
> 
> its your eye acting as a camera, a picture is not rational or irational its just a picture.
> 
> if YOU decided the picture shows big foot, then its you beibg irrational,  not the picture


So, your conclusion - from your observation - that it's common that "it's far from a common occurrence" is the part that's irrational.

That makes more sense.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm going to reply twice, because you're dismissing something as unimportant that I really want to understand. You seem to see my questions about it as an attack on your position - some nit picking. It's not. I want to understand your position, because it confuses me. But I'll come to that in the other post.


I can't wait. But once again, just so you know, I don't feel like attacked in any way.  It's also not so much that you're attacking the position than I think you're throwing out red herrings that are irrelevant to my post.  





> As to the 4 groups, if you assume (which would be an unsafe assumption, in my opinion) that group 3 gets MUCH better fitness than group 2 (who are, after all, spending all that same time in something that requires significant effort), then 3 would be better equipped to escape. I see no reason to expect group 2 would be less capable at fighting than group 3, and you'd have to show me something to support that. My other post will get to the heart of this, but I'm separating it out because you keep coming back to this.


If you look at martial artists and compare them to regular people who train specifically for fitness (e.g., crossfit, ninja warrior type training), there is a clear difference in fitness level.  I'm not speaking theoretically (i.e., _could_ a hypothetical person who trains in a "TMA" style be as fit as a different hypothetical person who trains in crossfit).  I'm saying, walk into a crossfit gym and look at a representative sample of folks who have been training for a year, three years, or five years.  Compare them to a similar representative sample of folks who have been training in an uncompetitive, training focused MA for one, three, or five years.  I guess, simply put, I think you're mistaken, but if my dreams come true, we could actually conduct the study and find out definitively.  





> If you honestly think a boxing coach (to take just one area of MMA) can't give someone signfiicant improvements in their fighting skills without them ever entering a competition, you appear to have real disstain fro coaches and instructors. They are largely ineffective in your stated position.


I think it has little to do with the boxing coach.  He can certainly teach them about all kinds of things that are important.  I'm saying the boxing coach can do a lot of things, but he can't physically move the trainees arms or think for the trainee.  He can't get into a boxing ring and box for the trainee.  And absent real time application of the technique in its intended context, you're taking away an essential coaching tool, which is timely feedback on actual performance. 

I think coaches/instructors can make a HUGE difference.  But ultimately, people learn to do things all the time without a coach.  You can replace a coach with application, but you can't replace application with a coach.  So, all that to say, if a school of 20 beginners never actually boxes, they aren't going to progress nearly as quickly as the group who does.  And after a year, I am pretty confident that any skill they have will not transfer to an actual fight.  Look at videos of Kung Fu masters who get into actual fights.  We have all seen those videos.  Their WC or what have you looks excellent in training and in training drills... even sparring.  But when two WC masters actually get into a fight, it looks like elementary school grappling on the ground without any technique.  If you didn't know they were WC masters, you wouldn't be able to tell they trained in an MA at all.

So, just to restate the main point here.  Don't get caught up in whether someone can LOOK like a boxer after a year without competition.  The real question is, can they fight?  In a fight, will they be able to leverage the boxing skills they have learned?  Do they have sufficient skill level and are the contexts similar enough for a reliable and predictable transfer of learning to occur?


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, your conclusion - from your observation - that it's common that "it's far from a common occurrence" is the part that's irrational.
> 
> That makes more sense.


no its still an observation, a simple statement of fact, not observing somethibg is just as much data as observing it


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, for the second response to this. You've still missed answering my question of how sparring (in all iterations) is so very distant from competiiton (in all iterations).
> 
> So, let me ask you to answer two questions:
> 
> ...


I know, and to be clear, I'm not going to address it for two main reasons.  First, I think it's self apparent.  I mean, there is a fundamental difference, and I can't begin to diagnose why you choose not to recognize it.  Don't get me wrong.  I could give explaining it a shot, but I think it would end up being a tremendous amount of wasted time on my part.  It's happened before.  I explain it in a long post that takes up time I'd much rather be doing something else.  You respond with two sentences that makes it clear you don't get it.  I explain it again differently.  You still don't get it.  I start to try and simplify my explanation, and you say I'm being condescending.  I explain it again, and that's about the time I'm told that what I'm saying is obvious and everyone already knows it (but then asks the same question again).  I get frustrated.   Don't get me wrong.  There are things with enough meat on the bone that we can discuss them.  But if we can't agree as a given... as a fundamental understanding... that sparring is not fighting, well, I'm not sure where things go.  As I've said in the past, if you insist on holding that to be true, I hope you AND your students never have to test your practical skill level in an actual fight. 

Second, I think the questions you ask above aren't all that relevant.  They get into semantics.  The salient question, I think, is whether or not sparring is fighting.  I don't think it is.  I think sparring with training partners is _obviously _not a fight.  You seem to believe otherwise, and I think you have a vested interest in promoting a style of training where you can learn the art of fighting without needing to fight. 

I have reservations about anything that says it can teach you to do something without any actual application on the part of the student.  I understand how skills develop, and have personally trained literally tens of thousands of people to do things at an expert level over the years.  So, when I hear that folks are learning to fight without fighting, I am skeptical (to be as generous as possible).  So, when someone trains and only spars, he or she is becoming an expert training partner.  And if that person ever gets into an actual fight with someone, they will need to transfer their training partner skills to a different context.  Their likelihood of success will depend on two things: their skill level, and how similar those skills are to the new context.  We see evidence all the time that the two contexts are dissimilar enough that transfer of skill is unreliable and break down in an actual fight.  As I mentioned above, we even have examples from highly skilled practitioners.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> I know, and to be clear, I'm not going to address it for two main reasons.  First, I think it's self apparent.  I mean, there is a fundamental difference, and I can't begin to diagnose why you choose not to recognize it.  Don't get me wrong.  I could give explaining it a shot, but I think it would end up being a tremendous amount of wasted time on my part.  It's happened before.  I explain it in a long post that takes up time I'd much rather be doing something else.  You respond with two sentences that makes it clear you don't get it.  I explain it again differently.  You still don't get it.  I start to try and simplify my explanation, and you say I'm being condescending.  I explain it again, and that's about the time I'm told that what I'm saying is obvious and everyone already knows it (but then asks the same question again).  I get frustrated.   Don't get me wrong.  There are things with enough meat on the bone that we can discuss them.  But if we can't agree as a given... as a fundamental understanding... that sparring is not fighting, well, I'm not sure where things go.  As I've said in the past, if you insist on holding that to be true, I hope you AND your students never have to test your practical skill level in an actual fight.
> 
> Second, I think the questions you ask above aren't all that relevant.  They get into semantics.  The salient question, I think, is whether or not sparring is fighting.  I don't think it is.  I think sparring with training partners is _obviously _not a fight.  You seem to believe otherwise, and I think you have a vested interest in promoting a style of training where you can learn the art of fighting without needing to fight.
> 
> I have reservations about anything that says it can teach you to do something without any actual application on the part of the student.  I understand how skills develop, and have personally trained literally tens of thousands of people to do things at an expert level over the years.  So, when I hear that folks are learning to fight without fighting, I am skeptical (to be as generous as possible).  So, when someone trains and only spars, he or she is becoming an expert training partner.  And if that person ever gets into an actual fight with someone, they will need to transfer their training partner skills to a different context.  Their likelihood of success will depend on two things: their skill level, and how similar those skills are to the new context.  We see evidence all the time that the two contexts are dissimilar enough that transfer of skill is unreliable and break down in an actual fight.  As I mentioned above, we even have examples from highly skilled practitioners.


for any of that to make,sence, you need both a defintion of sparing and one for fighting

at the moment your defintion of either changes from post to post to fit what ever point  your tryibg to make

i think there doesnt have to be any differance at all and in my exsperiabce of sparing in my club with a few " partners "there is no differance
 if you get hit its hurts greatly, its certainly a good faximily of a,ring fight, though not at all like a pub fight


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> I can't wait. But once again, just so you know, I don't feel like attacked in any way.  It's also not so much that you're attacking the position than I think you're throwing out red herrings that are irrelevant to my post.  If you look at martial artists and compare them to regular people who train specifically for fitness (e.g., crossfit, ninja warrior type training), there is a clear difference in fitness level.  I'm not speaking theoretically (i.e., _could_ a hypothetical person who trains in a "TMA" style be as fit as a different hypothetical person who trains in crossfit).  I'm saying, walk into a crossfit gym and look at a representative sample of folks who have been training for a year, three years, or five years.  Compare them to a similar representative sample of folks who have been training in an uncompetitive, training focused MA for one, three, or five years.  I guess, simply put, I think you're mistaken, but if my dreams come true, we could actually conduct the study and find out definitively.
> I think it has little to do with the boxing coach.  He can certainly teach them about all kinds of things that are important.  I'm saying the boxing coach can do a lot of things, but he can't physically move the trainees arms or think for the trainee.  He can't get into a boxing ring and box for the trainee.  And absent real time application of the technique in its intended context, you're taking away an essential coaching tool, which is timely feedback on actual performance.


Okay, but if we are allocating, say 6 hours a week to the metered activity, and the MMA class is vigorous, I wouldn't expect a huge difference in overall fitness. Would there be a measurable difference? Probably. How much of that would transfer? That depends what they're working on. If it's basic strength training and cardio, I'd have to see some evidence that makes someone inherently better at fighting than someone with good overall fitness (remember, 6 hours a week of MMA) AND who is trained in movement, punching speed/power/timing, etc. I think you'd need an immense difference in fitness level for that, and I don't think you can get that with equal hours.



> I think coaches/instructors can make a HUGE difference.  But ultimately, people learn to do things all the time without a coach.  You can replace a coach with application, but you can't replace application with a coach.  So, all that to say, if a school of 20 beginners never actually boxes, they aren't going to progress nearly as quickly as the group who does.  And after a year, I am pretty confident that any skill they have will not transfer to an actual fight.  Look at videos of Kung Fu masters who get into actual fights.  We have all seen those videos.  Their WC or what have you looks excellent in training and in training drills... even sparring.  But when two WC masters actually get into a fight, it looks like elementary school grappling on the ground without any technique.  If you didn't know they were WC masters, you wouldn't be able to tell they trained in an MA at all.


So, your basic assertion is that training a year with a boxing coach without competing - doing literally everything else a competitive boxer does - you'd learn almost nothing about actually boxing? That's an absurd stance, Steve.



> So, just to restate the main point here.  Don't get caught up in whether someone can LOOK like a boxer after a year without competition.  The real question is, can they fight?  In a fight, will they be able to leverage the boxing skills they have learned?  Do they have sufficient skill level and are the contexts similar enough for a reliable and predictable transfer of learning to occur?


So, if someone competes once, how much does that change their skill level? And how the heck did they get good enough to compete the first time, *if they can't learn to fight without competing??
*
Here's the example I'll use. I've talked with @drop bear at some length about the first-fight program they run where he trains. The new person puts real effort in for I think 12 weeks. It's a really dedicated process, with tons of training and fitness. They then get in for their first fight. I'll bet if that person put in all that effort and then just didn't decide to do that first fight, they'd still be just as good 24 hours later as if they took the first fight. And their folks apparently make a pretty good showing off that program.

Competition matters, but lack of it doesn't magically negate the effect of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> no its still an observation, a simple statement of fact, not observing somethibg is just as much data as observing it


No, you've drawn a conclusion. And made a claim that somethign isn't common. I've observed exactly the opposite, and given you the reason why it likely happens the way I observed.

You're talking yourself in circles now. Try again - I'm having fun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> I know, and to be clear, I'm not going to address it for two main reasons.  First, I think it's self apparent.  I mean, there is a fundamental difference, and I can't begin to diagnose why you choose not to recognize it.  Don't get me wrong.  I could give explaining it a shot, but I think it would end up being a tremendous amount of wasted time on my part.  It's happened before.  I explain it in a long post that takes up time I'd much rather be doing something else.  You respond with two sentences that makes it clear you don't get it.  I explain it again differently.  You still don't get it.  I start to try and simplify my explanation, and you say I'm being condescending.  I explain it again, and that's about the time I'm told that what I'm saying is obvious and everyone already knows it (but then asks the same question again).  I get frustrated.   Don't get me wrong.  There are things with enough meat on the bone that we can discuss them.  But if we can't agree as a given... as a fundamental understanding... that sparring is not fighting, well, I'm not sure where things go.  As I've said in the past, if you insist on holding that to be true, I hope you AND your students never have to test your practical skill level in an actual fight.
> 
> Second, I think the questions you ask above aren't all that relevant.  They get into semantics.  The salient question, I think, is whether or not sparring is fighting.  I don't think it is.  I think sparring with training partners is _obviously _not a fight.  You seem to believe otherwise, and I think you have a vested interest in promoting a style of training where you can learn the art of fighting without needing to fight.
> 
> I have reservations about anything that says it can teach you to do something without any actual application on the part of the student.  I understand how skills develop, and have personally trained literally tens of thousands of people to do things at an expert level over the years.  So, when I hear that folks are learning to fight without fighting, I am skeptical (to be as generous as possible).  So, when someone trains and only spars, he or she is becoming an expert training partner.  And if that person ever gets into an actual fight with someone, they will need to transfer their training partner skills to a different context.  Their likelihood of success will depend on two things: their skill level, and how similar those skills are to the new context.  We see evidence all the time that the two contexts are dissimilar enough that transfer of skill is unreliable and break down in an actual fight.  As I mentioned above, we even have examples from highly skilled practitioners.


So, you're willing to argue your point, but not to help me understand. Not groovy. Not at all.

I think we've gone about as far as we can. You make absurd claims (training can't produce skill without competition) and refuse to engage when someone wants to understand.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No, you've drawn a conclusion. And made a claim that somethign isn't common. I've observed exactly the opposite, and given you the reason why it likely happens the way I observed.
> 
> You're talking yourself in circles now. Try again - I'm having fun.


no i haven't drawn a conclusion,

elephants are not common round here is a simple statement of fact based on not ever having seen an elephant, just as there are a lot of dogs round here is again a report of an observation
a conclusion would be why i think ive never seen an elephant


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> no i haven't drawn a conclusion,
> 
> elephants are not common round here is a simple statement of fact based on not ever having seen an elephant, just as there are a lot of dogs round here is again a report of an observation
> a conclusion would be why i think ive never seen an elephant


Actually, you've got it backwards. Your observation would be that you've not seen any elephants about. The conclusion is that they are, therefore, not common.

Try again.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, you've got it backwards. Your observation would be that you've not seen any elephants about. The conclusion is that they are, therefore, not common.
> 
> Try again.


no, its a summation of the data


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

Look, at this point, I'm frankly tired of arguing the theory.  The difference between training (including sparring) and application is all around us.  We can see examples within MA training and in literally every other practical skill human beings learn from childhood to adulthood.  We can agree to disagree, but it really seems like you're the one who feels attacked, and that's not my intention. I'm not arguing anything at this point.  I'm just repeating the same points over and over in different ways in a vain effort to help you understand them.  So, when you say I am willing to argue my point but not help you understand it, I take exception, because I've been trying to explain this concept to you for months. I've written hundreds of words trying to explain this to you in different ways to help you understand.

I believe you won't or can't understand it because it would mean that you would need to reevaluate your training model, which I believe you won't or can't do.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're willing to argue your point, but not to help me understand. Not groovy. Not at all.
> 
> I think we've gone about as far as we can. You make absurd claims (training can't produce skill without competition) and refuse to engage when someone wants to understand.


For the record (should one exist), I'm saying you develop skills that you apply.  And that if you don't apply skills outside of training, then the training becomes a circular loop.  Training isn't really about _producing _skills.  Training prepares people to develop skills through experience.  As I've said repeatedly, you can't become competent in an activity you don't do, much less become expert in that activity.  This is true whether you are fighting or knitting.  And competition isn't the only kind of fighting that exists.  It is simply the safest and most accessible to people who aren't professionally violent.  This isn't absurd, though I understand why you have an interest in characterizing it as such.

And for what it's worth, you're getting snippy.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Look, at this point, I'm frankly tired of arguing the theory.  The difference between training (including sparring) and application is all around us.  We can see examples within MA training and in literally every other practical skill human beings learn from childhood to adulthood.  We can agree to disagree, but it really seems like you're the one who feels attacked, and that's not my intention. I'm not arguing anything at this point.  I'm just repeating the same points over and over in different ways in a vain effort to help you understand them.  So, when you say I am willing to argue my point but not help you understand it, I take exception, because I've been trying to explain this concept to you for months. I've written hundreds of words trying to explain this to you in different ways to help you understand.
> 
> I believe you won't or can't understand it because it would mean that you would need to reevaluate your training model, which I believe you won't or can't do.


can you give some examples,

all training includes a go at simulated reality, if it doesnt then its not training by any reasonable measure, lots of training includes the actual application in varying amounts, usually increasing amounts

bus drivers start off driving a bus, in a yard, then the road then the road with passengers, each step includes the application

what thing are you thinking of were training makes no attempt to include application


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> what thing are you thinking of were training makes no attempt to include application



Forms/Kata.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Forms/Kata.


he said examples " were all around us" kata is not all around me, i doubt its all aroubd either you or him so im guessing he had something else in mind


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Forms/Kata.


that said kata is/ can be closely tied to the devekopment of skills for an application, i dont think its the most efficient or time effective way of gettibg there. but its wrong to say its not tied to an application,  unless there is no appkication beyond the form


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> can you give some examples,
> 
> all training includes a go at simulated reality, if it doesnt then its not training by any reasonable measure, lots of training includes the actual application in varying amounts, usually increasing amounts
> 
> ...


Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.  

Emin Boztepe sparring:









Emin Boztepe fighting:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> he said examples " were all around us" kata is not all around me, i doubt its all aroubd either you or him so im guessing he had something else in mind



Kata/Forms are all around the martial arts.



Steve said:


> Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.
> 
> Emin Boztepe sparring:
> 
> ...



I gotta say, that is a fantastic example.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.
> 
> Emin Boztepe sparring:
> 
> ...


i thiugh you were talkibg abiut examples " all around us"  this is just the db tactic of building strawman of bizare you tube vids and sayibg look all tma are like this, i thought better of you

non of those people are even near me by several thiusand miles,, what examples have you got that are " all around us " ?


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Kata/Forms are all around the martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, that is a fantastic example.


he said us, so thats  him,me  and as youve jumped in you

and as ive said kata is not with out benifit to ma performance, just not much benifit


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> he said us, so thats  him,me  and as youve jumped in you



"Us" as in the MA community as a whole, not "us" as in just the three of us. We're in different parts of the globe.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> i thiugh you were talkibg abiut examples " all around us"  this is just the db tactic of building strawman of bizare you tube vids and sayibg look all tma are like this, i thought better of you
> 
> non of those people are even near me by several thiusand miles,, what examples have you got that are " all around us " ?


 I think you misunderstood, then.

to be clear, this isn't about whether it was a successful fight or not.  It's whether his skills transferred from one context (training/sparring) successfully to another (fighting).  BJJ has real issues in a fight.  Alone, it can be a problem.  That's not my point.  I'm not arguing one style over another.  This isn't about one style vs another, and truly isn't about whether or not WC is an excellent style.  I think WC looks really cool, and as a tween/teen in the 80s, I wanted to be a ninja in the worst way. 

I'm strictly talking about transfer of learning.  Does a person's skill in one context transfer successfully to another.  A BJJ guy, good or bad, is skilled enough that you will see those skills clearly in a fight.  A boxer or MMA fighter is skilled enough that you will see those skills clearly in a fight.  They translate clearly.  Emin Boztepe's WC was unrecognizable as WC in the real fight we have on tape.

So, yeah, transfer of learning is all around us.  You provided several examples yourself.   Look at it this way.  A person who plays gran turismo on their PS4... can that person drive a bus?  Probably not... at least not without a lot of practice.  First try, I expect they would not be successful, particularly under pressure to perform. 

What about someone who has been driving a car for a long time?  Maybe... given some time.  Right out of the gate?  Possibly, if they are given lots of room, don't have to negotiate any tight corners, and aren't under any pressure.  But again, I wouldn't expect their skills to transfer reliably.  The context is just too different.

What about someone who is experienced driving a semi towing a 40ft trailer?  I'd expect that person to have no trouble at all driving a bus, even if they've never done it before.  Because their skill level is high and the contexts are similar.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think you misunderstood, then.
> 
> to be clear, this isn't about whether it was a successful fight or not.  It's whether his skills transferred from one context (training/sparring) successfully to another (fighting).  BJJ has real issues in a fight.  Alone, it can be a problem.  That's not my point.  I'm not arguing one style over another.  I'm strictly talking about transfer of learning.  Does a person's skill in one context transfer successfully to another.  A BJJ guy, good or bad, is skilled enough that you will see those skills clearly in a fight.  A boxer or MMA fighter is skilled enough that you will see those skills clearly in a fight.  They translate clearly.  Emin Boztepe's WC was unrecognizable as WC in the real fight we have on tape.
> 
> So, yeah, transfer of learning is all around us.  You provided several examples yourself.


so the,weight if yoyr aguement is two vague assurances that you cant back up and one dodgy vid and from that youve reached a conclusion for all tmas

im still waitibg for your claim it all around us,


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> so the,weight if yoyr aguement is two vague assurances that you cant back up and one dodgy vid and from that youve reached a conclusion for all tmas
> 
> im still waitibg for your claim it all around us,



Wouldn't MMA, Bjj, and Boxing back themselves up? We see them in multiple street fighting contexts, and MMA is considered the objective standard of Martial Arts effectiveness.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't MMA, Bjj, and Boxing back themselves up? We see them in multiple street fighting contexts, and MMA is considered the objective standard of Martial Arts effectiveness.


no they wouldnt back up the specific claim he made, why dont you makes your own points instead of just misunderstanding steves points, it doubling my work load having to explain what Steve said to you


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> no they wouldnt back up the specific claim he made, why dont you makes your own points instead of just misunderstanding steves points, it doubling my work load having to explain what Steve said to you



Projection?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 15, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Projection?



Rejecting reality and substituting his own.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2020)

jobo said:


> so the,weight if yoyr aguement is two vague assurances that you cant back up and one dodgy vid and from that youve reached a conclusion for all tmas
> 
> im still waitibg for your claim it all around us,


Get used to disappointment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Look, at this point, I'm frankly tired of arguing the theory.  The difference between training (including sparring) and application is all around us.  We can see examples within MA training and in literally every other practical skill human beings learn from childhood to adulthood.  We can agree to disagree, but it really seems like you're the one who feels attacked, and that's not my intention. I'm not arguing anything at this point.  I'm just repeating the same points over and over in different ways in a vain effort to help you understand them.  So, when you say I am willing to argue my point but not help you understand it, I take exception, because I've been trying to explain this concept to you for months. I've written hundreds of words trying to explain this to you in different ways to help you understand.
> 
> I believe you won't or can't understand it because it would mean that you would need to reevaluate your training model, which I believe you won't or can't do.


My last point on this, just for clarification. This has all been wholly academic to me. You've tried at least twice in this thread to make this discussion about my approach, but it isn't. I've mentioned several areas distinctly not related to my own teaching and training, and you've largely chosen to ignore those. My belief is that you have a strong emotional attachment to your point, but no real logic behind it. I've come to that conclusion because you ignore what should be the easy areas for discussion, and keep trying to bring it back to something that is more personal.

I'll just let it drop, because I'll never manage to get out of you what you have refused thus far to discuss.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> e a clear, black and white difference between competition and sparring. They are not the same thing. One is training and the other is not training. Honestly, and I'm being completely serious, I do not understand how this is controversial or confusing in any way. To me, it's like saying fish are not frogs, even though they both like water


Could you break this down a little more specifically, rather than just reiterating how obvious you find it?

I certainly agree that sparring can be very different from competition. In fact, I encourage my students (most of the time), to make their sparring different from competition in certain ways which I think will speed their progression in various skills which will help them in competition and elsewhere. But that doesn’t have to be the case. In fact, sometimes it’s definitely not.

Let’s take BJJ, for example. Start two people on their feet, have them try to take each other down, achieve positional dominance (with an eye towards the assigned point values of the various positions), and submit each other. Is it sparring or is it competition? 

Typically in sparring I might encourage my students to experiment with new techniques and tactics rather than just focus on their A-game. If they have superior physical attributes I might encourage them to focus on winning with technique rather than exploiting their physical superiority. I might encourage them to focus on being playful and learning rather than on “winning”. When I offer such guidance and the students follow it, then the sparring would indeed by qualitatively different from competition.

The thing is, it doesn’t always have to be that way. Sometimes I (or another coach) will encourage the student to bring everything they have to a match on the gym mats - physical attributes, their best techniques, their full motivation. Sometimes the students will do this regardless of what you tell them to do. (When I’m sparring with newer students it’s not uncommon for me to be in “learning” sparring mode while they are in full blown competition to win mode.)

My question to you is, when two practitioners in the gym are both sparring with full intent on winning (rather than just having fun or exploring a certain aspect of their game), how is that not competition just because an official tournament has not been declared? 

I prefer to mostly spar for learning rather than “winning”, but I’ve certainly had my share of BJJ and Judo sparring matches which ended up indistinguishable from tournament matches. (BTW, in my Sumo experience there is really no distinction between practice matches and tournament matches. The short, intense nature of the matches doesn’t lend itself to my “sloth-jitsu” experimental learning sparring approach. Everything happens too quickly and you really have to push yourself as hard as you can.)

In striking arts like boxing and Muay Thai, it does make sense to clearly distinguish sparring from competition so that fighters don’t get concussed or otherwise injured before they get to their official matches. Nevertheless there are gyms that don’t believe in that approach. (Pat Militech’s gym was notorious for making every sparring session a real fight and fighters regularly got knocked out in sparring.) Even in gyms with a more sensible approach, things can escalate and I’ve seen people get knocked out in regular sparring. (Not to mention that some pros operate at a level where their controlled sparring is still hitting harder than less advanced amateurs are hitting in their official fights.)

In summation, I’m saying that while I personally believe in keeping sparring distinct from “competition” most of the time, the two domains have fuzzy boundaries and can overlap considerably. If you disagree, I’d like to see the details of your analysis.


----------



## Graywalker (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So who do you think is better at defending themself? A MMA fighter, or some guy who does a kata with knives?


Depends, if the guy that trains with knives, is using his knives during the fight...an MMA guy, would be pretty stupid to fight him.

Without the knives, that would depend mostly on the individual, not the sport/art trained in.


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My last point on this, just for clarification. This has all been wholly academic to me. You've tried at least twice in this thread to make this discussion about my approach, but it isn't. I've mentioned several areas distinctly not related to my own teaching and training, and you've largely chosen to ignore those. My belief is that you have a strong emotional attachment to your point, but no real logic behind it. I've come to that conclusion because you ignore what should be the easy areas for discussion, and keep trying to bring it back to something that is more personal.
> 
> I'll just let it drop, because I'll never manage to get out of you what you have refused thus far to discuss.


Well, for what it's worth, it seems to me that you have a vested interest in validating your non-fighting training model, and so you are either unwilling or unable to consider that what you're doing might be great training, but that you can't be an expert in something you are inexperienced at doing.  I've explained this concept to you in at least a dozen different ways with different examples, patiently (I believe) answering all of your questions, and adapting the vocabulary from thread to thread in an effort to use the words in the same way you do.  So, when you say that it's emotional, I want to assure you that the emotion is occasional frustration.  When you ask the same questions over and over, and don't understand the answer, over multiple threads over the course of literally years, I honestly think it's absurd for you to say that this is about me ignoring anything. 

But saying I have an emotional attachment to this point is like saying I'm emotionally attached to the rules of math.  If a person who doesn't speak English decides he's going to teach English to other people, I think we'd all recognize that he's not qualified.  If he insists that he IS qualified because he can recite phonetically every Tony Award winning Broadway musical for the past 50 years, plus the collected speeches of the last 6 presidents, I think we would still say that he's not qualified.  Even if he insists that he's saying the words, he's not speaking the language.  I wouldn't say in that case (as in this case) that we have an emotional attachment to the point, whether that guy ever admits his lack of expertise or not.  

Here's an abbreviated summary of this discussion over the years.  Disclaimer, this presents as a linear progression, but this has actually been a looping, overlapping discussion that we've had in different ways in multiple threads, so most of the points are presented once, but actually were discussed many, many.... many........ many times, in different ways.  

Me:  I don't think folks who are inexperienced with self defense should be teaching self defense to others.
You (and others): Wait... I teach self defense!  How dare you?
Me:  Do you have any experience?  I mean, it's a basic thing... people shouldn't teach things without some expertise. 
You (and others):  But I have trained for X number of years in this system that is badass and tailored for self defense.  We don't do that namby pamby sport stuff.  This is the real deal, when your life is on the line.
Me:  Has your life ever been on the line?  Nevermind.  It's simple.  You have to actually do the thing you're learning in context in order to become an expert in it.
You (and others):  {Scoff!} What about CPR?
Me:  Okay.  Let's look at CPR success rates overall and by people who are not in the medical field (actually shares statistics).  But more to the point, would you want someone without any medical experience teaching even a simple procedure (not a skill) like CPR?  It's like flying a plane.  Who would you want teaching you to fly a plane, someone with only simulator experience or someone with hours actually flying planes?
You and others:  But what about a plane crash?  How do they learn that?  What about Sully?
Me:  Okay, what about him?  He was able to land the plane in the Hudson because he had accumulated a lifetime of experience flying planes AND he was very well trained.  If you're going to learn to pilot, he would be an expert among experts... AND if you're going to learn what to do in an emergency, his experience would be invaluable as an instructor.   Like Sully, if self defense is about fighting, and neither you nor your students are doing any fighting, how can you expect to apply those skills under pressure in a different context?
You:  Well... I still don't like how you use the term "application" and if you're saying I can't use my skills in self defense, I disagree.
Me:   How many times have you self defensed?
You:  I'm going to ignore that question.  You're making this personal.
Me:  Okay.
You:  You're ignoring my questions.
Me:  Fine.  Here are more examples and yet another explanation of the same thing.
@dvcochran:  Everything you say is so obvious, and you say the same thing over and over in different ways. 
Me:  I know you mean that as an insult, but I completely agree. 
You:  You're ignoring my question. 
Me:  You have to fight to learn how to fight.  The more you fight, the better at it you'll get (especially if you have a good coach). 
You:  But what about sparring?
Me:  Sparring isn't a fight, but it might be really good for training.
You:  But what if I'm really mean when I spar?
Me:  That's fine... might be better training.  [insert explanation with examples ranging from cooking to driving a bus to piloting an aircraft, and an invitation to provide an example of any activity or skill outside of "self defense" where people can accumulate expertise without doing something]
You:  I've sparred with people who don't even do Aikido. 
Me:  I mean, did you?  (and if you recall, we had a long discussion about sparring at that time, where we talked about things like how someone isn't likely to shame you or make you look bad when you meet up for friendly training.  It's collegial, friendly, and positive... in most ways the opposite of a fight.  If I seem reluctant to rehash that, it's because I AM reluctant to do that again, but I encourage you to go reread it).
You:  But, I mean... you're using the term "application."  Isn't sparring an application?
Me:  Okay, fine... I'll start using your definition of application.
You:  Yay... so, I'm right!.
Me:  No, there's actually a ton of information available about how to design training, and how experience and application fit.  [Shares a lot of basic information and explanations, with sources, of instructional design theory, various training models, and where really great training can help people.  Also explains a very simple, but often misunderstood concept of transfer of learning... along with more examples.]
You:  You're ignoring me.  it's really good sparring.  Surely that counts, right?
Me:  I'm frustrated. 
You:  Why won't you answer my questions?
Me:  Let's try something new.  Obviously examples, analogies, explanation of learning theory and instructional design principles, and a lot of creative writing aren't resonating.  I'll share my hypothesis.  I'll try to encapsulate everything we've discussed and distill it into three sample groups (plus a control group), eliminating as many variables as possible, to focus not on style but on the training model. 
You:  I think someone who trains in a TMA can be super ripped... as much as a guy in CrossFit. 
Me:  Well, theoretically... but if you walk into a school that doesn't apply the skills in context, outside of the insular group... such as a typical TMA, and compare the 1 yr, 3 yr, and 5 yr students vs people who have been doing CrossFit for the same length of time, the fitness levels will not be comparable. 
You:  You never answered my question about sparring.
Me:  Yes I did.   What about those groups?  The proof is in the pudding.  Lots of styles spar.  Here's an example of what a high level WC person looks like sparring and here's what he looks like fighting. 
You:  But can you provide examples?  If not, I think you're just being emotional.
Tony:  Yeah, how about examples?

In a nutshell, this is how I've seen this conversation progress.  It doesn't help that every thread seems to start from scratch, and in this case, a thread where this discussion is entirely on-topic was abandoned and this poor thread was hijacked.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Get used to disappointment.


its not a disapointment i oredixted you would not be avke to justify your statements, to that end its nice to be proved correct, but then i nearly always am


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My question to you is, when two practitioners in the gym are both sparring with full intent on winning (rather than just having fun or exploring a certain aspect of their game), how is that not competition just because an official tournament has not been declared?


Good points. How constructive the sparring will be is entirely dependent upon how much experience the students have, how much experience their training partners have, and how much experience their coaches have? 

Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.

Edit:  Just to add real quick, the point here is that we're not in a vacuum here.  Your post includes a lot of elements that ground the training in real world experience in many different ways.  This isn't a point about training (and what you describe is good training).  It's about connecting the training in different ways to things outside the training.  Those threads, whether they are amateur or professional, are venues for application.  Cops apply fighting skills, but not in the same way an MMA fighter does.  Though both are applying those skills, and can bring that experience back into training.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Good points. How constructive the sparring will be is entirely dependent upon how much experience the students have, how much experience their training partners have, and how much experience their coaches have?
> 
> Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.


well no, not really, youl learn to move to not get hit and youl learm to hit people who keep moving, thats a natral outcome of the activity, provided your reasonably evenly matched otherwise its to short to have a lot of benfit in the short term for either party


----------



## Highlander (Oct 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.
> 
> Emin Boztepe sparring:
> 
> ...


Few points here.
1.I can see the transfer of the training that Emin had in this video. The 'fight' started past punching range and went straight to grappling. So you won't see the striking from the first 2 videos and he used the WT principles very well. Dropped into a good stance. When we he was about to be thrown he sat his hips back and counter threw. Followed his opponent down while keeping spine straight. Didn't wrestle but got to a point where he could punch and threw several pulled punches to the face.
2. The reason I said 'fight is because I'd agure this is more of a sparring match. Emin was sent there to show him up (we won't get into the controversy of why) but he wasn't there to really hurt him. So it was a non-friendly sparring match.
3. Emin grew up getting in multiple street fights as a young adult so he has fighting experience and experience in multiple other styles.

Even if we take the WC is awesome vs WC is crap stuff off the table. This is a video of a guy with alot of fighting experience vs someone who probably hasn't really pressure tested his training in his life (he sorta just flopped around on the ground) the video still proves your point to an extent. But from the opposite side. Emin had the upper hand because he had pressure trained his art.
That being said I disagree that the only way to get good at fighting is to fight (ring or street) you just need to do what I call "pressure train"


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Few points here.
> 1.I can see the transfer of the training that Emin had in this video. The 'fight' started past punching range and went straight to grappling. So you won't see the striking from the first 2 videos and he used the WT principles very well. Dropped into a good stance. When we he was about to be thrown he sat his hips back and counter threw. Followed his opponent down while keeping spine straight. Didn't wrestle but got to a point where he could punch and threw several pulled punches to the face.
> 2. The reason I said 'fight is because I'd agure this is more of a sparring match. Emin was sent there to show him up (we won't get into the controversy of why) but he wasn't there to really hurt him. So it was a non-friendly sparring match.
> 3. Emin grew up getting in multiple street fights as a young adult so he has fighting experience and experience in multiple other styles.
> ...


Thanks, and to be clear, this is NOT intended to be a WC is great vs WC stinks example.

When you say "pressure train" maybe it would help to reframe my point just a little.  Someone in a really good training program will make progress.  But in a year, will they make enough progress to apply skills successfully?  What about in three years or five years?  Depends, for sure.  If it's a complex skill set, like self defense, we see guys with a year or three or even five years of MA training in all kinds of styles that can't apply those skills in a fight.   In the Cheung vs Boztepe example above, you mentioned that Boztepe had experience fighting but the other guy didn't.  You mentioned that he "just sorta flopped around on the ground."  I agree.  Now, as a lay person to WC, I didn't see anything resembling WC in Boztepe's fight, but I'll take your word that it's there.  But I assume that Cheung has sparred and trained.  Right?  I didn't look for videos of Cheung sparring, but can we reasonably assume that he trains in a similar manner to Boztepe?  How long has Cheung been training?  More than five years, I'm guessing, but in a fight, he just sorta flopped around on the ground.

The overarching point that I always try to reiterate is not about whether a person can eventually, successfully use WC or some other style in a fight.  That's definitely part of it, don't get me wrong.  But the real point is whether that's a reasonable way to teach people something as critical as how to fight, whether it's efficient, whether it's reliable, and whether, ultimately, it could ever produce an expert (i.e., someone who is skilled enough to teach other people).  I would say that if we're talking about a training program absent any kind of external application of the skills, the answer to all of those is no.  Can you teach someone to drive a bus without ever allowing them to drive a bus?  I don't know... maybe?  But is that a reasonable way to do it?  Is it efficient?  Would it be reliable?  And could a person who has never driven a bus, given any amount of time and training, ever be considered an expert?


----------



## Highlander (Oct 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Thanks, and to be clear, this is NOT intended to be a WC is great vs WC stinks example.
> 
> When you say "pressure train" maybe it would help to reframe my point just a little.  Someone in a really good training program will make progress.  But in a year, will they make enough progress to apply skills successfully?  What about in three years or five years?  Depends, for sure.  If it's a complex skill set, like self defense, we see guys with a year or three or even five years of MA training in all kinds of styles that can't apply those skills in a fight.   In the Cheung vs Boztepe example above, you mentioned that Boztepe had experience fighting but the other guy didn't.  You mentioned that he "just sorta flopped around on the ground."  I agree.  Now, as a lay person to WC, I didn't see anything resembling WC in Boztepe's fight, but I'll take your word that it's there.  But I assume that Cheung has sparred and trained.  Right?  I didn't look for videos of Cheung sparring, but can we reasonably assume that he trains in a similar manner to Boztepe?  How long has Cheung been training?  More than five years, I'm guessing, but in a fight, he just sorta flopped around on the ground.
> 
> The overarching point that I always try to reiterate is not about whether a person can eventually, successfully use WC or some other style in a fight.  That's definitely part of it, don't get me wrong.  But the real point is whether that's a reasonable way to teach people something as critical as how to fight, whether it's efficient, whether it's reliable, and whether, ultimately, it could ever produce an expert (i.e., someone who is skilled enough to teach other people).  I would say that if we're talking about a training program absent any kind of external application of the skills, the answer to all of those is no.  Can you teach someone to drive a bus without ever allowing them to drive a bus?  I don't know... maybe?  But is that a reasonable way to do it?  Is it efficient?  Would it be reliable?  And could a person who has never driven a bus, given any amount of time and training, ever be considered an expert?


I didnt take it as an attack on WC at all. And I appreciate the 'take your word for it comment' takes a whole discussion off the table so we can focus on the overall topic.
As far as how Cheung trained I honestly have no clue. But I'm willing to bet, off this video alone, that he doesn't train the style under pressure. Emin, I know for a fact, does. Often.
When I say train under pressure it can be a lot of things. Maybe you focus on a single attack, say a hook, and have the partner come in throwing the technique at you at full speed. If you don't stop it or move youre getting hit, hard. You raise the quality and power/speed of the attack based on the training MA guys skill level. The idea is to slowly make this more free where you have one guys throwing whatever they want as hard as they want and the MA must stop it. We keep this different from sparring by doing short burst. Say 3-5 secs then reset. This gives you a pretty good idea of how to use the MA under some real pressure. Is it a fight? No. But this training well help in a fight


----------



## Highlander (Oct 16, 2020)

@Steve I had a student that we trained for a while with this idea. Maybe roughly a year or more. We pressure trained and drilled and hit eachother. One day he got attacked by a guy with a machete (road rage incident) he had a collapsible baton in his car and used it to defend himself... BUT. He had never pressure trained with it... he swung at the guy and missed..  he said he had a flash of 'this is gonna get me killed so he dropped the baton and stepped in on the guy. He grabbed his arm and proceeded to defend himself with his fist. Something he had trained under pressure in class. He took the guy down and got away unscathed. Training under pressure gave him the skills he needed to fight and saved his life


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Emin Boztepe fighting:



Willy should have learned some jiujitsu.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, for what it's worth, it seems to me that you have a vested interest in validating your non-fighting training model, and so you are either unwilling or unable to consider that what you're doing might be great training, but that you can't be an expert in something you are inexperienced at doing.  I've explained this concept to you in at least a dozen different ways with different examples, patiently (I believe) answering all of your questions, and adapting the vocabulary from thread to thread in an effort to use the words in the same way you do.  So, when you say that it's emotional, I want to assure you that the emotion is occasional frustration.  When you ask the same questions over and over, and don't understand the answer, over multiple threads over the course of literally years, I honestly think it's absurd for you to say that this is about me ignoring anything.
> 
> But saying I have an emotional attachment to this point is like saying I'm emotionally attached to the rules of math.  If a person who doesn't speak English decides he's going to teach English to other people, I think we'd all recognize that he's not qualified.  If he insists that he IS qualified because he can recite phonetically every Tony Award winning Broadway musical for the past 50 years, plus the collected speeches of the last 6 presidents, I think we would still say that he's not qualified.  Even if he insists that he's saying the words, he's not speaking the language.  I wouldn't say in that case (as in this case) that we have an emotional attachment to the point, whether that guy ever admits his lack of expertise or not.
> 
> ...


Again, you're trying to make this about me and my training model (which you don't actually know). I'm just trying to understand a specific point.

Beyond that, you've put several weak arguments into my mouth that I never made. That's borderline strawmanning. You've lost your objectivity on this, in what appears to be an attempt at something directed at me (because that's who you keep bringing it back to), though I'm not sure what. What you think of my training model no longer interests me. It did when you were giving good, objective input I could learn from. You've stopped doing that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Good points. How constructive the sparring will be is entirely dependent upon how much experience the students have, how much experience their training partners have, and how much experience their coaches have?
> 
> Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.


Couldn't the same be said for competition?


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Couldn't the same be said for competition?


couldn't what be said?


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Again, you're trying to make this about me and my training model (which you don't actually know). I'm just trying to understand a specific point.
> 
> Beyond that, you've put several weak arguments into my mouth that I never made. That's borderline strawmanning. You've lost your objectivity on this, in what appears to be an attempt at something directed at me (because that's who you keep bringing it back to), though I'm not sure what. What you think of my training model no longer interests me. It did when you were giving good, objective input I could learn from. You've stopped doing that.


I'm suggesting that your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge a simple point is understandable.   I'm not commenting on your training model anymore.   I'm simply saying you aren't qualified to teach self defense because you have no experience. You are probably a great aikido instructor and I think it's more honest and accurate to just stick to that.  

The rest is a tongue in cheek, but accurate account of the progression of this discussion.  If you don't think you've said those things I invite you to take a trip down memory lane.  It's all here in various threads over the last few years.

Regarding objectivity, is that a thing we are striving for?  What a funny thing to say.   I think my points stand on their own, they're supported by experience, by external sources, and they're consistent with literally every other human activity.  But I didn't know objectivity was a goal.  For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in this forum is objective, nor have I ever expected otherwise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> couldn't what be said?


What I quoted. Couldn't it be equally true if you replaced the word "sparring" with "competition"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge a simple point is understandable.   I'm not commenting on your training model anymore.   I'm simply saying you aren't qualified to teach self defense because you have no experience. You are probably a great aikido instructor and I think it's more honest and accurate to just stick to that.
> 
> The rest is a tongue in cheek, but accurate account of the progression of this discussion.  If you don't think you've said those things I invite you to take a trip down memory lane.  It's all here in various threads over the last few years.
> 
> Regarding objectivity, is that a thing we are striving for?  What a funny thing to say.   I think my points stand on their own, they're supported by experience, by external sources, and they're consistent with literally every other human activity.  But I didn't know objectivity was a goal.  For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in this forum is objective, nor have I ever expected otherwise.


It's a point I've tried to get clarification on, but you haven't been willing to try to clarify.

As for what I've said, you've confused yourself on a few of those points. Not surprising, since you seem to read me less for comprehension these days.

As for the crap about SD, where did that even come into this thread? I've made no mention of it. We were talking about competition. You are STILL trying to make this about my training model, rather than your own statements. Your whole approach to this topic confounds any attempt I make to gain understanding.


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> What I quoted. Couldn't it be equally true if you replaced the word "sparring" with "competition"?


LOL.  Okay.  You can have a brown squirrel and a brown dog.  Just because they're both brown doesn't mean they're the same thing.


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It's a point I've tried to get clarification on, but you haven't been willing to try to clarify.


I disagree.  I think over the years I've given it my best shot.  





> As for what I've said, you've confused yourself on a few of those points. Not surprising, since you seem to read me less for comprehension these days.


  If you think that's true, then you're either reading more into my points than is there, or you're misunderstanding my points.  There is nothing sneaky going on here.  No hidden agenda.  It's not style-centric.  Heck, it's not even martial arts specific.  How does a person learn to do anything?  How much experience do you have with real world violence of any kind?  I'm guessing not a lot, if any.  How much experience do you have with Aikido?  I'm guessing quite a lot.   





> As for the crap about SD, where did that even come into this thread? I've made no mention of it. We were talking about competition. You are STILL trying to make this about my training model, rather than your own statements. Your whole approach to this topic confounds any attempt I make to gain understanding.


It's intrinsic to the point.  Honestly, this is exhibit A.  If you don't see how self defense orientation relates to the point, I can't help you.  I honestly can't.  This type of statement from you is exactly what I mean when I say that every thread starts from scratch.  It's not 10 or 20 different points in 10 or 20 different threads.  It's a single, consistent, coherent point that applies not just to self defense, but to literally (in the non-figurative sense of the word) every activity people learn from cradle to grave.  

In every thread I tie my posts back to the larger point.  I did so in this thread.  And I provided a clear example, with video.  And I provided analogies.  And I explained it in a few different ways.  I tried a little humor.  I tried calling back to other threads.  I simplify the language and you say I'm condescending.  I stop doing that and you accuse me of being confused (which is ironic). 

You say you want to understand.  I'll take you at your word.  But this is exactly what leads me to say that I don't think you are going to get it... and I wonder if you can.  After the thousands of words we've exchanged on the subject, what I'm telling you is I'm out of ideas.  I think the only thing that would make it clear to you is if you got into a real fight where there are real, physical consequences of failure, and I truly don't want that to happen to you.  I'm not being facetious when I say I hope you never have to test your skills, because I believe you would probably get hurt.  But that kind of revelatory experience is the only thing that could possibly open your eyes at this point, to where you'd say, "Oh ****.  I am NOT very good at this."


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 18, 2020)

Steve said:


> Good points. How constructive the sparring will be is entirely dependent upon how much experience the students have, how much experience their training partners have, and how much experience their coaches have?
> 
> Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.


I agree with this, but I don't think it really answers my question, i.e.



Tony Dismukes said:


> My question to you is, when two practitioners in the gym are both sparring with full intent on winning (rather than just having fun or exploring a certain aspect of their game), how is that not competition just because an official tournament has not been declared?



Let's say the two sparring partners in question have a reasonably solid foundation of training and competition experience from experienced coaches at a gym which regularly send competitors to tournaments. They decide to go at it full out with full intent on winning the same way they would at a tournament. In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament (aside from incidentals like paying admission fees, waiting around half the day for the match, depending on a possibly incompetent referee, etc)?

Or let's go another direction. Suppose the students are newbies at a gym with crappy instructors. They decide to go full out in their sparring in preparation for a tournament. (Honestly, newbies tend to do this anyway. They mostly haven't learned to use sparring as a more subtle learning method yet.) Then one goes to the tournament and get matched up with another newbie who also had crappy instructors. In what way is the first match qualitatively different from the second?

(We've previously discussed ways in which sparring and competition _can_ be different and the value which official competition experience can bring. Right now I'm trying to get at your assertion that sparring and competition _must _be different and _can't _count equally as "application.")



Steve said:


> Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.



This brings up another fuzzy aspect of the whole training vs application argument. There are people out there who have been in a lot more street fights (real application experience) than I have who I would still reliably wreck in a street fight. That's because they've only fought other people who suck at street fighting. As you say, they lacked the foundation to learn anything constructive. Of course, there are other people who have only been in street fights and never done much formal training who would wreck me in a street fight. Those individuals have fought a bunch of tough opponents and have various physical and mental attributes (either natural or developed through life experience) which make them dangerous.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 18, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament?


When people talk about there 23-0 undefeated record, they are talking about their official tournament record. and not their personal sparring record.

Could someone with undefeated record ever lost in sparring? It's possible. One may be sick one day and lost in sparring. But if one loses in official tournament when he is in good shape, he will have no excuse for it. This is why the official tournament record is so import.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I agree with this, but I don't think it really answers my question, i.e.
> 
> Let's say the two sparring partners in question have *a reasonably solid foundation of training and competition experience* from experienced coaches at a gym which regularly send competitors to tournaments. They decide to go at it full out with full intent on winning the same way they would at a tournament. In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament (aside from incidentals like paying admission fees, waiting around half the day for the match, depending on a possibly incompetent referee, etc)?


Couple of ways, but first, just want to emphasize the part I bolded above.  Learning any skill set, not just MA, involves a natural cycle of training and then applying, training some more, than applying some more.  It's an intuitive part of everything.  The foundation you mention that is based on experience is crucial to making gains beyond a basic comprehension level.

To answer your question, though, outside of the obvious differences, the most crucial one is context.  As you allude to above, sparring like you mention is valuable, but would be particularly valuable AFTER some period of application.  





> Or let's go another direction. Suppose the students are newbies at a gym with crappy instructors. They decide to go full out in their sparring in preparation for a tournament. (Honestly, newbies tend to do this anyway. They mostly haven't learned to use sparring as a more subtle learning method yet.) Then one goes to the tournament and get matched up with another newbie who also had crappy instructors. In what way is the first match qualitatively different from the second?


Unconstructive application doesn't invalidate application.  Once again, I think this is something that only makes any superficial kind of sense because it's MA.  Let's say you have a poor golfing instructor who trains a golf student poorly, and that golf student can't hit the ball.  Congratulations, you've got bad training that leads to poor application.

So, two takeaways.  First, poor training and application doesn't invalidate application.  Second, without application (even poor) how would you even diagnose the quality of the training?





> (We've previously discussed ways in which sparring and competition _can_ be different and the value which official competition experience can bring. Right now I'm trying to get at your assertion that sparring and competition _must _be different and _can't _count equally as "application.")


See above.


> This brings up another fuzzy aspect of the whole training vs application argument. There are people out there who have been in a lot more street fights (real application experience) than I have who I would still reliably wreck in a street fight. That's because they've only fought other people who suck at street fighting. As you say, they lacked the foundation to learn anything constructive. Of course, there are other people who have only been in street fights and never done much formal training who would wreck me in a street fight. Those individuals have fought a bunch of tough opponents and have various physical and mental attributes (either natural or developed through life experience) which make them dangerous.


Sure.  So, again, this is along the same lines as above where poor application doesn't negate the intrinsic need for application.  I've mentioned before that a person CAN develop real world skill without any training.  A person who has good training and relevant experience can learn skills more reliably without the gaps that someone who is self taught will surely have.  Any person's ceiling is going to be unique to that person.  The training smooths out the gullies, fills in the gaps, and reinforces the right habits while mitigating the wrong ones.

Training alongside application will also allow people to move beyond just application.  So, let's consider our golfers.   A person who decides to teach himself golf may eventually (given some amount of time and perseverance) hit the ball.  What the swing looks like is anyone's guess.  But without any instruction, this person will eventually plateau.  They will get to a point there they will progress no further.  This could be due to a limitation of their aptitude or natural ability, but it's surely going to be a function of their just not knowing what they don't know.  You can't solve a problem you don't know exists.   And, interestingly, the same thing happens with training only.  People will get to a certain point and then plateau.

I said earlier that my point isn't style vs style.  I'll say now it's not training vs not training.  If you think I'm discounting the critical role that good training has in the learning process, I've done a bad job of explaining my points.  What I'm saying is that training alone is an incredibly inefficient and unreliable way to develop skill.  In particular, complex skill sets like fighting.  And that folks who don't have the experience shouldn't profess to be experts.  You can be an expert in ninjutsu and a complete novice at fighting.  You can be an expert in BJJ and a complete novice at MMA (even though BJJ is a significant element of many MMA practitioner's training).

Think back to every thread that has existed on this forum, from WC, Ninjutsu, and Aikido stylists who themselves point out that their concepts and techniques are notably absent from even very experienced practitioners when in a real altercation.  Think of Royce Gracie vs Matt Hughes, when he really genuinely didn't realize that he lacked the striking and wrestling experience to hang.  He didn't know what he didn't know, and lacked the experience to realize that the context for which he had trained was different than the context in which he was going to be applying his skills.

So, to bring this back to the hypothesis I proposed regarding three groups, I think there's no question that a person who trains AND applies skills will progress faster than someone who trains only.  So, could a person who trains only ever become competent?  That question is at the root of the study I proposed.  I wouldn't expect so after one or three years, and think that even at five years the skill level would be questionable.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

Just to add to the above, "application" is an expansive term, and not exclusive.  While I can't think of a safe and effective way for people who aren't professionally violent to apply fighting skills outside of competition, there may be something out there.  And competition, as with any kind of application, is going to have a lot of influence over the skills being developed.  So, a chi sao competitor will develop those related skills.  And if that's the only venue for application, other skills might atrophy.  

Look at TKD.  We hear from TKD stylists that some Olympic competitors drop their hands and develop other bad habits because they compete.  If someone is angling to become an elite level competitor, sure, maybe they want to focus on just that.  However, if they wanted to build a more well rounded skill set, they could simply apply their skills in different venues.  Kickboxing under various rulesets, even MMA.  Some TKD'ists have done very well in MMA, and I think it's pretty clear that they are better fighters as a result.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> What I quoted. Couldn't it be equally true if you replaced the word "sparring" with "competition"?



Competition is a different training tool designed to explore different dynamics. So if you compete against really bad guys then yeah same as full contact sparring with your brother in your basement.

But competition comes with standards for pretty much that reason.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I agree with this, but I don't think it really answers my question, i.e.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




More risk.

So say as a training tool for self defence you want to replicate the super scary life or death aspect of a fight. You need to increase the risk without making the fight life or death.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> More risk.
> 
> So say as a training tool for self defence you want to replicate the super scary life or death aspect of a fight. You need to increase the risk without making the fight life or death.


This is what I was trying to get at.  I can't think of a different way to get at this than competition, but there may be something out there that is reasonable, accessible to the average person, and not unnecessarily dangerous.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


>


For the record, if your instructor is as experienced as Geoff Thompson, your sparring looks like that, and it's informed by sound technique validated outside of training, maybe we have something to talk about.  He's talking about many of the same things I've been saying, including pressure and transfer of learning.  He's also very experienced using his skills in a violent profession.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Competition is a different training tool designed to explore different dynamics. So if you compete against really bad guys then yeah same as full contact sparring with your brother in your basement.
> 
> But competition comes with standards for pretty much that reason.


I'm confused here. I can't figure how this is a response to what I asked. Couldn't someone lack the foundation to learn from competition?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> More risk.
> 
> So say as a training tool for self defence you want to replicate the super scary life or death aspect of a fight. You need to increase the risk without making the fight life or death.


This is what I think folks don't struggle with enough in the SD-oriented world. You need to know where your compromise lies. The safer the class, the less intense the situations you can test yourself in (and get used to). Most of us don't want to risk big injury, and a lot of folks don't want to risk painful injuries (even if they're ones that will heal well).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> This is what I was trying to get at.  I can't think of a different way to get at this than competition, but there may be something out there that is reasonable, accessible to the average person, and not unnecessarily dangerous.


Animal day at the gym sounds riskier (and potentially scarier) than most competition, to me. Competition has other benefits.


----------



## Saheim (Oct 31, 2020)

Highlander said:


> Questions for some of you non chunners out there. Why are you on this forum? Not meaning this is a rude way. Just a sincere question. While some of you seem to actually want to help the threads by giving a new insight from a different prospective. Some of you seem to just want to disrupt the discussion.



That's simple - ENVY!

Non Chunners know we are the superior artists. Deep down, they hate themselves and the arts they train because of how inherently inferior they are (them and the art).  Some times, they will manage to forget about WC and, for a while the pain and self hatred will ease up. Then, out of nowhere,  they will hear an Ip Man ring tone, or accidentally see a preview for a WC movie and it all comes crashing back on to them - that nagging voice telling them they could've have been US. So.... they slip in here to peak around and dream of a life that will never be (for them)

We all know there are 2 types of people: Chunners and everyone else

Or at least, that is why I figured they did


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 31, 2020)

Saheim said:


> That's simple - ENVY!
> 
> Non Chunners know we are the superior artists. Deep down, they hate themselves and the arts they train because of how inherently inferior they are (them and the art).  Some times, they will manage to forget about WC and, for a while the pain and self hatred will ease up. Then, out of nowhere,  they will hear an Ip Man ring tone, or accidentally see a preview for a WC movie and it all comes crashing back on to them - that nagging voice telling them they could've have been US. So.... they slip in here to peak around and dream of a life that will never be (for them)
> 
> ...



Not going to lie, Yip Man was an awesome movie.


----------

