# The Need to Be Recognized as Superior



## Nobody Important

I found this article & thought I'd share it. I've heard the background story before, there is some truth to it. The incident with Yip Chun, Si Kwok and the grandsons of Yiu Choi & Yuen Kay San is also true, verifying the back story. This post isn't meant to be offensive towards anyone, rather to highlight a growing blight within the Wing Chun community, the need to be recognized as superior.

*Yuen Kay San was THE top Wing Chun Sifu!*
For all those who have been misled by marketing and been disrespectful to Sijo Yuen Kay San and Sifu Sum Num.

Yip Man's son, Yip Chun, and movie producer, Si Kwok Lam, apologized to Yuen Kay San's grandson for disrespect:

YOUTUBE 
And the Yuen and Yiu families voicing their displeasure about the movie (with actual interviews):

FLASH 

Profound respect from Si Kwok Lam, director of the movie “Ip Man” and Yip Chun, Yip Man’s son, is offered over insulting Yuen Kay San and lying about Yip Man being senior in Wing Chun to Yuen Kay San. Yuen Kay San was the top Wing Chun sifu alive throughout his lifetime. When he passed away this mantle fell on his sole disciple, Sifu Sum Num.
It’s unfortunate that this apology couldn't happen before Sum Num, who had been grossly misrepresented in Leung Ting’s Book “Roots and Branches of Wing Chun” similarly, passed away. If a reader reverses the names “Yip Man” and “Yuen Kay San” in Leung Ting’s stories they will be much closer to the truth!

Movie producer Si Kwok Lam and Yip Chun, who co-produced the movie "Ip Man", which glorified Yip Man with an incredibly fictitious heroic life, apologized six times and "served tea" to Yuen Kay San's grandson, Yuen Jo Tong, (left in the Youtube picture, wearing glasses) for misrepresenting, and being disrespectful to, the legendary death duel champion during the 1920-1950s, Yuen Kay San. During a news conference in China, Si Kwok Lam and Yip Chun admitted in front of witnesses and acknowledged documents that showed that Yuen Kay San, not Yip Man, had represented the Wing Chun family and answered all the public death duel challenges in Futsan in those years, and admitted that he is senior to Yip Man in the Wing Chun family tree.

Mr. Si Kwok Lam (a student of Yip Chun and the movie producer of the Ip Man 3 movie) apologized and served tea to Yuen Jo Tong for misrepresenting his grandfather, Yuen Kay San’s reputation and status in Wing Chun history. (In the movie, Yuen Kay San was portrayed as Yip Man’s younger gung fu brother, not as skillfull as Yip Man)[9]. As is well known to any Wing Chun practitioner on the Mainland, this is ludicrous and laughable!

Yiu Wing Ken (Yiu Choi’s grandson) explains that, in the old days in Futsan, Yuen Kay San, his grandfather Yiu Choi, and Yip Man were called the "Three Heroes of Wing Chun" and were often mentioned together. Yuen Kay San student, Leung Jan Sing, also provided an ancestral document indicating that Yuen Kay San studied with Fung Siu Ching, who learnt Wimng Chun on the Red Boats, while Yip Man and others studied under Yuen Kay San himself. This record was actually made public in the 1970's but had not been publicly disseminated in the West. Yip Man was not Yuen’s official student, having only learnt a little from him. Yuen Kay San taught Yip Man all the chi sau Yip knew - but this was not all that Yuen Kay San knew. In the order of seniority on the family tree, Yuen Kay San ranked at the first level, that is, he was unarguably the top Wing Chun man during his lifetime, with Yip Man being listed the last. It would be normal, therefore, as he did, for Yip Man to ask Yuen Kay San for instruction.
Yip Chun also misrepresented the facts of Leung Jan’s biography and reports on his life from several independent sources in claiming to have known Leung Bik whom he portrayed in the movie. He did not know Leung Bik. No Leung Bik ever taught Yip Man. Yip Man was taught by Ng Chung So. Leung Bik was a romantic fiction derived to promote Hong Kong Wing Chun in the early days. Yip obtained superior skills to his class-mates in Futsan by learning from Yuen Kay San. In fact, Yip’s father at one stage, asked his friend,Yuen Kay San’s father to teach Yip Man some Wing Chun. Yip Man had been disrespectful to Yuen Kay San several times, so he was reluctant - but agreed to his father’s request begrudgingly. Below is the original Chinese quoted from the original article in the Dayoo Newspaper of Guangzhou:

还原历史： “咏春三雄”齐名 姚永强介绍，当年在佛山，他的爷爷姚才与叶问、阮奇山并称“咏春三雄”，三人齐名，武功不相上下。阮奇山 的徒孙梁湛声还提供了祖传的记录，记录上写明， 阮奇山师从冯少青，而叶问与其他多个咏春武者一同在阮奇山的门下。“这本记录是上世纪70年代 留下的， 这也不能说叶问是他的徒弟，但论资历，阮奇山排第 一，叶问最后，叶问向他请教很正常。


^ "冼国林向阮祖棠斟茶道 (Si Kwok Lam serves tea to Yuen Jo Tong)". Yang Sing National Newspaper (China). 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
^ "还原历史： (Restore History)". Dayoo Newspaper (Guangzhou, China). 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-18


----------



## anerlich

So ... we have to apologize for screenplays now?

I wrote a moderately irreverent piece of fiction about Yip Man, and another about Jee Sim and Wong Wa Bo. Awaiting the b*tchkrieg from those offended. If anyone ever finds them.

Imagine if some of the direct descendants ever stumbled across posts on these and other Wing Chun forums ... we'd all be serving tea to them until doomsday and beyond.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Yuen Kay San student, Leung Jan Sing, also provided an ancestral document indicating that Yuen Kay San studied with Fung Siu Ching, who learnt Wimng Chun on the Red Boats, *while Yip Man and others studied under Yuen Kay San himself.* This record was actually made public in the 1970's but had not been publicly disseminated in the West.



Wow! Hadn't heard this before. Interesting. Thanks for posting NI


----------



## anerlich

"a growing blight within the Wing Chun community, the need to be recognized as superior."

This particular blight is not "growing". It's been going on since at least the 1970s and probably for centuries before.


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Wow! Hadn't heard this before. Interesting. Thanks for posting NI



This has been pretty widely talked about for several years now.  There is no questioning the fact that YKS was older than Ip Man and was at least one generation up on Ip Man in the Wing Chun family tree and therefore his senior.    YKS learned from Fok Bo Chuen, who was Leung Jan's classmate.  Leung Jan was Ip Man's Si Gung (grand Si Gung if you consider Ng Chun So as really being the guy that taught him most of the system).   It is also widely known that YKS, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi were friends and hung out together.  So if you were "hanging out" with someone that was older than you and one generation up the Wing Chun family tree from you and also had quite a reputation for their skills.......would you not try to train with them and learn as much as possible? 

Leung Ting's book "Roots and Branches" has been shown to be very inaccurate in a number instances over the years.  Its pretty clear that any "history" he put in that book was very self-serving and meant to promote his organization.  I've heard from more than one source that most of the stories told about Ip Man while he was in mainland china were actually stories of Yuen Kay Shan. 

Now all of this is not to denigrate Ip Man's own skills or innovations with the system.  Its just setting some of the, what did Joy call it?...."pseudo-history".....straight.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> This has been pretty widely talked about for several years now.  There is no questioning the fact that YKS was older than Ip Man and was at least one generation up on Ip Man in the Wing Chun family tree and therefore his senior.    YKS learned from Fok Bo Chuen, who was Leung Jan's classmate.  Leung Jan was Ip Man's Si Gung (grand Si Gung if you consider Ng Chun So as really being the guy that taught him most of the system).   It is also widely known that YKS, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi were friends and hung out together.  So if you were "hanging out" with someone that was older than you and one generation up the Wing Chun family tree from you and also had quite a reputation for their skills.......would you not try to train with them and learn as much as possible?
> 
> Leung Ting's book "Roots and Branches" has been shown to be very inaccurate in a number instances over the years.  Its pretty clear that any "history" he put in that book was very self-serving and meant to promote his organization.  I've heard from more than one source that most of the stories told about Ip Man while he was in mainland china were actually stories of Yuen Kay Shan.
> 
> Now all of this is not to denigrate Ip Man's own skills or innovations with the system.  Its just setting some of the, what did Joy call it?...."pseudo-history".....straight.



Thx KPM. Yes, I'd heard this before but had not heard about the 'document'. 
I'm betting YM learned a thing or two from YKS and YC


----------



## geezer

It would be a stubborn and stupid man indeed who would not take advantage of and learn from such contacts. Heck I learn openly from my si-dei ...and have even learned from my students. And from people outside WC. 

Now if teaching is your business, the _stories you tell_ would be a different thing altogether. Yip man had good stories. So did my old sifu. KPM knows what I'm talkin' about. But whether all the stories were true or not, Those guys had some good gung-fu.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> It would be a stubborn and stupid man indeed who would not take advantage of and learn from such contacts. Heck I learn openly from my si-dei ...and have even learned from my students. And from people outside WC.
> 
> Now if teaching is your business, the _stories you tell_ would be a different thing altogether. Yip man had good stories. So did my old sifu. KPM knows what I'm talkin' about. But whether all the stories were true or not, Those guys had some good gung-fu.


I agree. I get the whole promote your school thing too. What I don't get, & the point of this thread, is the rampant act of throwing others under the bus to promote yourself. I see this alot, mostly from descendants of Yip Man's line. I'm curious as to how this came to be.


----------



## wckf92

It was prevalent on "that other forum" too...


----------



## wtxs

Nobody Important said:


> I agree. I get the whole promote your school thing too. What I don't get, & the point of this thread, is the rampant act of throwing others under the bus to promote yourself. I see this alot, mostly from descendants of Yip Man's line. I'm curious as to how this came to be.



Hot damn ... I feel WW III coming on.

Hey wifie, can you pick me up some more beer and popcorn?


----------



## geezer

Nobody Important said:


> I agree. I get the whole promote your school thing too. What I don't get, & the point of this thread, is the rampant act of throwing others under the bus to promote yourself. I see this alot, mostly from descendants of Yip Man's line. *I'm curious as to how this came to be*.



^^^^ ...er _...human nature? _ I mean look at the nasty political campaign we (in the US) just went though.  Anyway, people are what they are. Meanwhile, I gotta get back to work... What are the odds this thread will be locked before I get back on?


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> look at the nasty political campaign we (in the US) just went though.



Who did you vote for?


----------



## drop bear

Nobody Important said:


> I agree. I get the whole promote your school thing too. What I don't get, & the point of this thread, is the rampant act of throwing others under the bus to promote yourself. I see this alot, mostly from descendants of Yip Man's line. I'm curious as to how this came to be.



There is no real goal to work towards so they squabble


----------



## Nobody Important

drop bear said:


> There is no real goal to work towards so they squabble


You know there is probably quite a bit of truth to that.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> ^^^^ ...er _...human nature? _ I mean look at the nasty political campaign we (in the US) just went though.  Anyway, people are what they are. Meanwhile, I gotta get back to work... What are the odds this thread will be locked before I get back on?


Yeah that's true, to an extent anyways. If we had more political parties and less money involved, I don't think it would have been as bad. That being said, outside a couple of nuts I don't see non-Yip Man branches of Wing Chun condemning Yip Man branches as illegitimate. Always seems to be the other way around. At what point did this happen? When Yip Man was alive the Wing Chun community was much more open & accepting.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Given that just about nothing else in the Ip Man movies is historically accurate or particularly realistic in any way, it would be surprising if the presentation of lineage seniority was correct.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> There is no real goal to work towards so they squabble



In other words, if there was an agreed upon format for competing and testing the results of WC training, people could compare actual achievement instead of squabbling endlessly over minutia and meaningless claims of seniority, supposed (but unprovable) superiority, and so forth.

----Yeah, that's about right.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> I agree. I get the whole promote your school thing too. What I don't get, & the point of this thread, is the rampant act of throwing others under the bus to promote yourself. I see this alot, mostly from descendants of Yip Man's line. I'm curious as to how this came to be.



I think its largely a function of numbers and percentages.  With Bruce Lee's help Ip Man's Wing Chun has become THE Wing Chun worldwide.  People practicing it outnumber any mainland branch easily by 1000 times.  Ip Man lineage has far more people trying to actually earn a living teaching martial arts than any mainland lineage.  So there is far more marketing pressure coming from the Ip Man lineages, far more people percentage-wise to that are willing to "throw someone else under the bus", etc.  Essentially with so many more people doing Ip Man Wing Chun than any other version, that means Ip Man lineage is that much more likely to have a higher number of egotistical idiots.   Its just a numbers thing.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> I think its largely a function of numbers and percentages.  With Bruce Lee's help Ip Man's Wing Chun has become THE Wing Chun worldwide.  People practicing it outnumber any mainland branch easily by 1000 times.  Ip Man lineage has far more people trying to actually earn a living teaching martial arts than any mainland lineage.  So there is far more marketing pressure coming from the Ip Man lineages, far more people percentage-wise to that are willing to "throw someone else under the bus", etc.  Essentially with so many more people doing Ip Man Wing Chun than any other version, that means Ip Man lineage is that much more likely to have a higher number of egotistical idiots.   Its just a numbers thing.


Good assessment. I've had the privilege of meeting reps from several lines coming from Yip Man. Some we're very open, nice, knowledgeable & confident. Some we're close minded, overconfident & arrogant and others were clueless. The clueless ones undoubtedly were due to poor instruction and quick promotion.

 That being said, no matter what I think of them, if their training is legitimate, I honor it and don't dismiss their lineage or methods as illegitimate. I may be an a$$ sometimes online, but not usually unprovoked. In person I always extend Mo Duk even when I vehemently disagree, doesn't mean I won't disagree though.


----------



## LFJ

Wasn't there a Wing Chun axiom;

"_Do not speak of senior and junior. The one who attains the skill first is the senior._"

Too much focus on chronology instead of skill.

When I was 14 I knocked the teeth out of a guy who had been training longer than I had been alive.

Plenty of people with 20, 30, or 40+ years experience still can't fight.

I will serve them tea when they serve me my @$$.


----------



## KPM

Chinese martial arts have always been based upon a "family system."   If you were in an MMA gym that attitude would be very acceptable.  But in CMA circles, people acknowledge their elders, regardless of skill.  This is considered good manners and proper etiquette.   Seniority often had as much to do about promoting and representing the system as it did about whether or not you could "knock someone's teeth out."    Do you think Cus D'Amato could knock Mike Tyson's teeth out?  I doubt it!  Yet Tyson respected him for what he could teach. 

But it seems you actually know very little about this kind of respect.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But it seems you actually know very little about this kind of respect.



I know about it, just don't respect it, because it often leads to lousy trainers being put on a pedestal for nothing more than name and position in a family. Fact is most TCMA "masters" in China can't fight at all.

Not every trainer is of the caliber of Cus D'Amato and he never made anyone kowtow to him. Anyone calling another man his disciple has delusions of grandeur.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> I will serve them tea when they serve me my @$$.



I don't really like tea anyway.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I know about it, just don't respect it, because it often leads to lousy trainers being put on a pedestal for nothing more than name and position in a family. Fact is most TCMA "masters" in China can't fight at all.
> 
> Not every trainer is of the caliber of Cus D'Amato and he never made anyone kowtow to him. Anyone calling another man his disciple has delusions of grandeur.



So WSLVT lineage doesn't teach Mo Duk?  That's a shame.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So WSLVT lineage doesn't teach Mo Duk?  That's a shame.



It doesn't teach to respect BS for BS' sake, if that's what you mean.

It's not a religion otherwise either.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It doesn't teach to respect BS for BS' sake, if that's what you mean.
> 
> It's not a religion otherwise either.



Again, you obviously don't truly understand what Mo Duk means.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Again, you obviously don't truly understand what Mo Duk means.



Nor do I care. I don't need to get my "morality" from a silly martial art culture.


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> Who did you vote for?



Now you are trolling.  I would have to say no matter who/whom we voted for, you would likely say we had made the wrong choice ... lets get back on the OP subject.


----------



## Steve

wtxs said:


> Now you are trolling.  I would have to say no matter who/whom we voted for, you would likely say we had made the wrong choice ... lets get back on the OP subject.


It's whom.  And really, it should read, "... for whom we voted."


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Nor do I care. I don't need to get my "morality" from a silly martial art culture.



That explains a lot!


----------



## wtxs

Steve said:


> It's whom.  And really, it should read, "... for whom we voted."



Forgive the grammar, just responding to Guy's "who".  I did include the "whom" since you don't just select/elect only a new president ... are we good?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I know about it, just don't respect it, because it often leads to lousy trainers being put on a pedestal ...Anyone calling another man his disciple has delusions of grandeur.



Whoa... you mean Philip Bayer never became a disciple of WSL, ...or WSL of YM? 

....Personally I find there can be a balance of tradition and pragmatism. Treat your teachers with due respect, no more no less. Ant if they don't merit your respect for whatever reason, find a new teacher.


BTW did you_ literally _knock that guys teeth out, and did he deserve it? ...No gumshields aka mouthguards in that school, I'm guessing?


----------



## geezer

wtxs said:


> Now you are trolling.  I would have to say no matter who/whom we voted for, you would likely say we had made the wrong choice ... lets get back on the OP subject.




Actually, I think Guy was making a _joke_. He does have that kind of a sense of humor. We Yanks can be a bit literal sometimes.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Chinese martial arts have always been based upon a "family system."   If you were in an MMA gym that attitude would be very acceptable.  But in CMA circles, people acknowledge their elders, regardless of skill.  This is considered good manners and proper etiquette.   Seniority often had as much to do about promoting and representing the system as it did about whether or not you could "knock someone's teeth out."    Do you think Cus D'Amato could knock Mike Tyson's teeth out?  I doubt it!  Yet Tyson respected him for what he could teach.
> 
> But it seems you actually know very little about this kind of respect.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The important thing on a good DISCUSSION list is civility even in the midst of differences of opinions and perspectives.


----------



## Steve

wtxs said:


> Forgive the grammar, just responding to Guy's "who".  I did include the "whom" since you don't just select/elect only a new president ... are we good?


I was just trying to be a smart *** to lighten things up.   People don't talk that way, and I wouldn't expect you to write with perfect grammar.  It's all good.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Nor do I care. I don't need to get my "morality" from a silly martial art culture.



Well I think we can all understand why you would take this stance but the way you dismiss it borders on bigotry because what you are talking about isn't a "martial arts culture" thing. The idea of respecting your elders in Martial Arts is simply an extension of filial piety which permeates both Confucian thought Chinese Culture overall.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Well I think we can all understand why you would take this stance but the way you dismiss it borders on bigotry because what you are talking about isn't a "martial arts culture" thing. The idea of respecting your elders in Martial Arts is simply an extension of filial piety which permeates both Confucian thought Chinese Culture overall.



So, I'm a borderline bigot because I don't practice or respect your religion? 

I'm not at all intolerant of people who hold beliefs that I find silly. Kowtow to your heart's content. 

But respecting someone merely because of name or position is not a moral obligation or even morally virtuous. It's simply not a moral issue.

So, don't try to suggest to me that I somehow lack morality if I don't kowtow to people I don't think worthy of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> So, I'm a borderline bigot because I don't practice or respect your religion?
> 
> I'm not at all intolerant of people who hold beliefs that I find silly. Kowtow to your heart's content.
> 
> But respecting someone merely because of name or position is not a moral obligation or even morally virtuous. It's simply not a moral issue.
> 
> So, don't try to suggest to me that I somehow lack morality if I don't kowtow to people I don't think worthy of it.


It's not about morality - it's about etiquette. That's a cultural quirk, and most Eastern-based martial arts carry parts of that culture. When we step into a group, it's generally accepted that we take on their etiquette, as well.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> It's not about morality - it's about etiquette. That's a cultural quirk, and most Eastern-based martial arts carry parts of that culture. When we step into a group, it's generally accepted that we take on their etiquette, as well.



The Chinese term is martial "morality", and obviously requiring kowtowing to someone based on authority and treating this as a moral obligation for practitioners of a martial art is entering the realm of religion. This is far beyond simply defining ethical use of martial skill.

I shall not be accused of lacking morals or being a borderline bigot if I choose not to partake or accept these religious beliefs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The Chinese term is martial "morality", and obviously requiring kowtowing to someone based on authority and treating this as a moral obligation for practitioners of a martial art is entering the realm of religion. This is far beyond simply defining ethical use of martial skill.
> 
> I shall not be accused of lacking morals or being a borderline bigot if I choose not to partake or accept these religious beliefs.


I'm not discussing the semantics of the term used - which gets us into the realm of translation inaccuracy. I'm talking about the actual issue - it's simply a matter of etiquette, not morals. Perhaps in Chinese culture, those two are intertwined. Within the larger MA community, they generally are not. I know plenty of people with poor morals and great adherence to etiquette, so I prefer not to confuse the two.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> So, I'm a borderline bigot because I don't practice or respect your religion?
> 
> I'm not at all intolerant of people who hold beliefs that I find silly. Kowtow to your heart's content.
> 
> But respecting someone merely because of name or position is not a moral obligation or even morally virtuous. It's simply not a moral issue.
> 
> So, don't try to suggest to me that I somehow lack morality if I don't kowtow to people I don't think worthy of it.


No you can disagree with things but when you disagree with prejoritives you start walking the fine line between honest disagreement and bigotry.  Saying simply "I don't agree with showing respect to people who haven't earned the respect, regardless if they are my elder or not" is different than actually insulting said cultural tradition.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

Well, consider this...

Another part of Chinese "etiquette" is the idea of saving face. You've all heard of it, right?

There was a news story I read in China (one of many like it), where a mother allowed her child to piss freely on the floor of a supermarket in the fruit section.

The mother was told she should take the child to the restroom by an older female employee. The mother of course started shouting and scolding the woman, causing a pretty big scene and shocking the woman so badly she had a freaking heart attack.

The manager came over, and what do you think he did to fix the situation? Did he call the police to have the crazy customer removed from the store? Of course not! He had to "save face", and ended up apologizing profusely to the nutjob and giving her fruit free of charge!

This "face saving" is also considered etiquette. I think it is one of the stupidest concepts ever that leads to ridiculous acts like this. An employee had a heart attack for crying out loud, and that lady gets free fruit for letting her kid piss all over the floor and almost killing your employee?

I don't respect it at all. I think it's retarded. Am I a bigot?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Well, consider this...
> 
> Another part of Chinese "etiquette" is the idea of saving face. You've all heard of it, right?
> 
> There was a news story I read in China (one of many like it), where a mother allowed her child to piss freely on the floor of a supermarket in the fruit section.
> 
> The mother was told she should take the child to the restroom by an older female employee. The mother of course started shouting and scolding the woman, causing a pretty big scene and shocking the woman so badly she had a freaking heart attack.
> 
> The manager came over, and what do you think he did to fix the situation? Did he call the police to have the crazy customer removed from the store? Of course not! He had to "save face", and ended up apologizing profusely to the nutjob and giving her fruit free of charge!
> 
> This "face saving" is also considered etiquette. I think it is one of the stupidest concepts ever that leads to ridiculous acts like this. An employee had a heart attack for crying out loud, and that lady gets free fruit for letting her kid piss all over the floor and almost killing your employee?
> 
> I don't respect it at all. I think it's retarded. Am I a bigot?


So, since some people mis-apply a principle, you consider the entire cultural etiquette to be damned? That's twisted logic.


----------



## LFJ

You might be surprised, but more often than not I see it applied in some twisted ways.

Personally, I think martial morality should only be concerned with the ethical use of martial skill, and not have anything to do with requiring people to be put on pedestals for nothing more than name or authoritative position over you. Even if we're only talking etiquette. It allows a lot of BS in TCMAs to go unquestioned. That's how charlatans are empowered and beginners taken advantage of. Could even be dangerous. They sometimes teach suicidal knife defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> You might be surprised, but more often than not I see it applied in some twisted ways.
> 
> Personally, I think martial morality should only be concerned with the ethical use of martial skill, and not have anything to do with requiring people to be put on pedestals for nothing more than name or authoritative position over you. Even if we're only talking etiquette. It allows a lot of BS in TCMAs to go unquestioned. That's how charlatans are empowered and beginners taken advantage of. Could even be dangerous. They sometimes teach suicidal knife defense.


I don't think any of that (including putting someone on a pedastal as unquestionable) has to do with respect. You're still throwing out the entire concept of etiquette because some people are abusing portions of it.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I don't think any of that (including putting someone on a pedastal as unquestionable) has to do with respect. You're still throwing out the entire concept of etiquette because some people are abusing portions of it.



What I'm throwing out is expected or forced respect as part of etiquette. I'm throwing out the idea that one is martially immoral if they don't respect someone for insufficient reason, or don't respect and accept the tradition of doing so.

Is it showing impropriety to not serve tea and kowtow to someone just for their name and position? Then I shall be improper.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> What I'm throwing out is expected or forced respect as part of etiquette. I'm throwing out the idea that one is martially immoral if they don't respect someone for insufficient reason, or don't respect and accept the tradition of doing so.
> 
> Is it showing impropriety to not serve tea and kowtow to someone just for their name and position? Then I shall be improper.


You're fighting me awfully hard on a concept I haven't put forward.


----------



## LFJ

But others have. Anyway, you all kowtow to your hearts' content. I'm only here for the punches.  (Ethically applied of course. )


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> But others have. Anyway, you all kowtow to your hearts' content. I'm only here for the punches.  (Ethically applied of course. )


And so, you reply to me as if I said the same thing? That's an unproductive way to discuss the matter.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> What I'm throwing out is expected or forced respect as part of etiquette. I'm throwing out the idea that one is martially immoral if they don't respect someone for insufficient reason, or don't respect and accept the tradition of doing so.
> 
> Is it showing impropriety to not serve tea and kowtow to someone just for their name and position? Then I shall be improper.


I don't think anyone is saying your idea is outright wrong.  We are simply saying that we disagree because
A. Showing respect is more about etiquette than anything.
B. That it is a product of a overall cultural tradition, not limited to Martial Arts.
C. That there is a way to voice such an attitude without demeaning said culture.


----------



## LFJ

Thinking it's a silly and destructive thing to bring into martial arts isn't a judgement of the entire culture.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Thinking it's a silly and destructive thing to bring into martial arts isn't a judgement of the entire culture.



Maybe not, but etiquette is what it is. Don't have to agree with it, but should at least follow it to certain extent. If I went to Japan, I would find all the bowing a little silly, but I would still do it due to it being a cultural thing, as with their MA.


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> Maybe not, but etiquette is what it is. Don't have to agree with it, but should at least follow it to certain extent. If I went to Japan, I would find all the bowing a little silly, but I would still do it due to it being a cultural thing, as with their MA.



Sure, I would too.

I'm just talking serving tea and publicly kowtowing to people who feel entitled and are demanding you give them face. Although they are the ones trying to look superior, forcing artificial subservience to save face is actually very beta behavior.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Sure, I would too.
> 
> I'm just talking serving tea and publicly kowtowing to people who feel entitled and are demanding you give them face. Although they are the ones trying to look superior, forcing artificial subservience to save face is actually very beta behavior.


Based on my experience (and my experience, only), that represents the same small proportion of people that you find taking that attitude in any culture. Lack of tea ceremony, bowing, and ancestor worship doesn't prevent that same entitlement and demand of unearned respect from appearing in US culture.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Based on my experience (and my experience, only), that represents the same small proportion of people that you find taking that attitude in any culture. Lack of tea ceremony, bowing, and ancestor worship doesn't prevent that same entitlement and demand of unearned respect from appearing in US culture.



True.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Sure, I would too.
> 
> I'm just talking serving tea and publicly kowtowing to people who feel entitled and are demanding you give them face. Although they are the ones trying to look superior, forcing artificial subservience to save face is actually very beta behavior.


You've just described half of America, the entitlement part anyways.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> You've just described half of America, the entitlement part anyways.


And the entire statement accurately describes older styles of management in the US.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> No you can disagree with things but when you disagree with prejoritives you start walking the fine line between honest disagreement and bigotry.  Saying simply "I don't agree with showing respect to people who haven't earned the respect, regardless if they are my elder or not" is different than actually insulting said cultural tradition.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Australian cultural tradition.


Making jokes at another's expense or "taking the piss" is common in Australian society and is often a bonding process. However, it is frowned upon and considered cowardly to make jokes in the absence of the subject. Contrary to many other countries, Australians will generally wait until the subject is present before making derogatory jokes. For example, when an Australian meets a New Zealander on holiday, they may ask if they brought velcro gloves in order to get a better grip on those Australian sheep.[7] (See point below re New Zealanders' thoughts on sheep jokes.
Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand - Wikipedia

If you dont like it you are racist.


----------



## anerlich

I don't see any reason to treat any instructor as a demigod. Nor do I feel a need to serve him tea when I've been teaching classes for him, helping him paint, clean and move premises, running the occasional errand, doing unpaid IT work, and being supportive in many other ways. Which is not to say I feel exploited, friends do stuff like that for each other.

My first instructor in the 1970's was not into the whole Sifu / disciple thing and was happy for me to call him "Dave" from day 1. He did other weird stuff like going out of his way to try to be friendly to other instructors and have students cross train, helping newly arrived instructors in town get set up, etc.

BJJ is proof that you don't have to take the cultural trappings along with the martial art to keep it real. Though what there is of Brazilian culture in BJJ isn't necessarily better overall than the Japanese culture that preceded it IMO.

I do believe in basic etiquette. I bow when I step onto the training space, I see it as a mental switch to get serious. Either a bow before sparring standup WC, or slap and fist bump in BJJ, set the mood and keep the proceedings respectful. I like the BJJ handshake with everyone at the end of class as well, basically saying "what happened on the mat stays on the mat."

No instructor really wants to be surrounded by a$$-kissers, do they?


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> Another part of Chinese "etiquette" is the idea of saving face. You've all heard of it, right?



I am an Anglo Australian and my last job had me working under a Chinese boss with all Chinese coworkers in my department. The boss's boss was also Chinese, though he had a better understanding of Australian mores and customs because he had lived here way longer, and I found him way easier to deal with, than my immediate boss.

A lot of the decisions made in that department, the other guys' attitude to the boss compared to mine, and other goings on, regularly blindsided and mystified me. Though my cultural ignorance was at least as much to blame for that as anything any of those people did.


----------



## dudewingchun

I do think its a bit odd that some people think that because they are a 'sifu" they are above normal people.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> I don't see any reason to treat any instructor as a demigod. Nor do I feel a need to serve him tea when I've been teaching classes for him, helping him paint, clean and move premises, running the occasional errand, doing unpaid IT work, and being supportive in many other ways. Which is not to say I feel exploited, friends do stuff like that for each other.
> 
> My first instructor in the 1970's was not into the whole Sifu / disciple thing and was happy for me to call him "Dave" from day 1. He did other weird stuff like going out of his way to try to be friendly to other instructors and have students cross train, helping newly arrived instructors in town get set up, etc.
> 
> BJJ is proof that you don't have to take the cultural trappings along with the martial art to keep it real. Though what there is of Brazilian culture in BJJ isn't necessarily better overall than the Japanese culture that preceded it IMO.
> 
> I do believe in basic etiquette. I bow when I step onto the training space, I see it as a mental switch to get serious. Either a bow before sparring standup WC, or slap and fist bump in BJJ, set the mood and keep the proceedings respectful. I like the BJJ handshake with everyone at the end of class as well, basically saying "what happened on the mat stays on the mat."
> 
> No instructor really wants to be surrounded by a$$-kissers, do they?



I can agree with all of this.

My first kung fu instructor was Korean, so training was much more formal than Chinese. Bowing before entering the training space. Stopping class to bow to the instructors if they entered the room. Bowing before and after sparring each partner. Bowing before and after class, and ending with a formal handshake line before dispersing.

I liked the formal handshake at the end, because everyone had to do it, and it had a way of, as you say, leaving it on the mat. Sparring got rough at times and some of us hated each other like nemeses, during class. Formally shaking hands settled it, because you couldn't just slap hands and look away. We were in line, one by one, shaking with a slight bow all Korean-like, then bang arms inside and out, (which admittedly was our last chance to one-up the other guy by hitting harder, though. )


----------



## guy b.

anerlich said:


> I don't see any reason to treat any instructor as a demigod. Nor do I feel a need to serve him tea when I've been teaching classes for him, helping him paint, clean and move premises, running the occasional errand, doing unpaid IT work, and being supportive in many other ways. Which is not to say I feel exploited, friends do stuff like that for each other.
> 
> My first instructor in the 1970's was not into the whole Sifu / disciple thing and was happy for me to call him "Dave" from day 1. He did other weird stuff like going out of his way to try to be friendly to other instructors and have students cross train, helping newly arrived instructors in town get set up, etc.
> 
> BJJ is proof that you don't have to take the cultural trappings along with the martial art to keep it real. Though what there is of Brazilian culture in BJJ isn't necessarily better overall than the Japanese culture that preceded it IMO.
> 
> I do believe in basic etiquette. I bow when I step onto the training space, I see it as a mental switch to get serious. Either a bow before sparring standup WC, or slap and fist bump in BJJ, set the mood and keep the proceedings respectful. I like the BJJ handshake with everyone at the end of class as well, basically saying "what happened on the mat stays on the mat."
> 
> No instructor really wants to be surrounded by a$$-kissers, do they?



Yes shaking hands after training is a good idea and helps to resolve tension. Actively seeking to defuse tension and grudges is a good idea. 

Agree that cultural trappings are unnecessary and have potential to be actively harmful when abused by an insecure person. This can apply just as easily to Brazilian as to Chinese and Japanese culture. 

Genuine respect, friendship and so on grows naturally and is much more meaningful.


----------



## KPM

I agree with what has been said about the formalities of "kowtowing", tea ceremonies, walking on eggshells around the instructor, etc.   I don't require my students to call me "Sifu" because we are in the US.  But I call my teacher "Sifu" because he is Chinese and lives in Hong Kong.  However, when training with him he doesn't demand all of the ceremonial kind of stuff either.   But I  still show him a level of respect because he is my teacher.  I am younger and stronger than he is and have pretty extensive training in other martial arts other than his.   So it is quite doubtful that he could "knock my teeth out."  But I still respect him for his experience and what he can teach me.  I defer to him as the guy in charge when it comes to his system.  This is no different than the respect that boxer gives to his senior trainer, a wrestler gives to his coach, or a gymnast gives to his or her coach.  Could the average adult coach do what their pre-teen girls do out on the gymnastics floor?  Probably not!  But they are the father/mother figure expected to guide and take care of their athletes and are given the appropriate respect.  To me, that is the core of any "Mo Duk", not doing tea ceremonies and bowing when someone enters the room and things like that.

I am also a senior military officer.  One of the things taught in the military is that you respect the rank even if you don't respect the person that has it.  You can despise someone senior to you but you still act respectful and render a salute when in uniform because they outrank you.   If this was not true you would have good order and discipline breaking down at critical moments.  This can be taken too far as well.  People have abused their rank in various ways.  And you can refuse to obey an order if you don't think it is a "lawful order."  But you better have a darn good reason!!!  It can't just be because you don't like the person giving the order!

So to me, "Mo Duk" is being respectful to someone in a position that is higher than yours.  This is something seen in multiple social circles and multiple cultures. I think it is even more important in martial arts because it is far too easy for some "young stud" to decide they are indestructible and start acting like a total prick around everyone but their immediate peers.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Australian cultural tradition.
> 
> 
> Making jokes at another's expense or "taking the piss" is common in Australian society and is often a bonding process. However, it is frowned upon and considered cowardly to make jokes in the absence of the subject. Contrary to many other countries, Australians will generally wait until the subject is present before making derogatory jokes. For example, when an Australian meets a New Zealander on holiday, they may ask if they brought velcro gloves in order to get a better grip on those Australian sheep.[7] (See point below re New Zealanders' thoughts on sheep jokes.
> Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand - Wikipedia
> 
> If you dont like it you are racist.



Your thing there though is regarding bonding and typically when the target is there.  That is different than globally disparaging a culture.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> I don't see any reason to treat any instructor as a demigod. Nor do I feel a need to serve him tea when I've been teaching classes for him, helping him paint, clean and move premises, running the occasional errand, doing unpaid IT work, and being supportive in many other ways. Which is not to say I feel exploited, friends do stuff like that for each other.
> 
> My first instructor in the 1970's was not into the whole Sifu / disciple thing and was happy for me to call him "Dave" from day 1. He did other weird stuff like going out of his way to try to be friendly to other instructors and have students cross train, helping newly arrived instructors in town get set up, etc.
> 
> BJJ is proof that you don't have to take the cultural trappings along with the martial art to keep it real. Though what there is of Brazilian culture in BJJ isn't necessarily better overall than the Japanese culture that preceded it IMO.
> 
> I do believe in basic etiquette. I bow when I step onto the training space, I see it as a mental switch to get serious. Either a bow before sparring standup WC, or slap and fist bump in BJJ, set the mood and keep the proceedings respectful. I like the BJJ handshake with everyone at the end of class as well, basically saying "what happened on the mat stays on the mat."
> 
> No instructor really wants to be surrounded by a$$-kissers, do they?


Many arts bring in parts of the etiquette of the orgin country, and that can cause problems. For instance, the tea ceremony thing. To Westerners, that just doesn't make sense to us. From the Chinese (and even Japanese) cultural perspective, though, it has a specific meaning, and is acceptable to them because of that cultural background. 

Some Americans even have a problem with the formal, kneeling bow used in most Japanese arts. It feels subservient to them, though to the Japanese it's just a formal ritual. Re-framing those rituals can help people find a new framework that helps them. For instance, I teach my students to use the moment of bowing in as a miniature meditation to get their minds clear for learning - one of the steps toward better mindfulness during their training.

As for the "demi-god" aspect, I think this is another misapplied cultural import. I'll speak from the Japanese lineage, since that's where I know it, but I suspect it's similar in the Chinese arts. Traditionally, there has been an in-born level of deference and respect in Japan for those more senior in any given area (age, experience, etc.). That translated to a fairly strict etiquette that is easy for people from that culture to follow. When it was brought to Westerners, it appears that a significant number of students misunderstood it, and turned it into an unquestionable authority as they became instructors. This serves nobody - neither instructor nor students benefit from this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> No instructor really wants to be surrounded by a$$-kissers, do they?


In my experience, some do. I believe it to be about personal insecurities.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Juany118 said:


> Well I think we can all understand why you would take this stance but the way you dismiss it borders on bigotry because what you are talking about isn't a "martial arts culture" thing. The idea of respecting your elders in Martial Arts is simply an extension of filial piety which permeates both Confucian thought Chinese Culture overall.


It's not just Chinese or Confucian philosophy. It's characteristic of many traditional cultures the world over which teach a very hierarchical worldview:

Parent > child
Elder > younger
Teacher > student
Master > apprentice
Senior student > junior student
Man > woman
Nobility > commoner
etc, etc

Ideally, these philosophies try to teach a somewhat balanced view where duties (protection, care, instruction)are owed from the "higher" person in each pairing towards the "lower" person to match the respect and obedience owed from the "lower" to the "higher." In practice, the demands tend to end up much more one-sided and frequently the relationships produced by this sort of worldview end up being exploitive and/or abusive towards the person on the low end of the ladder.

Even if both parties in the relationship do live up to the ideals of the traditional worldview, with one side providing guidance and the other side providing respect and obedience, I personally find such constraints to be somewhat distorting of the reality and basic humanity of the participants. Our identities and our relationships are much more complex than anything which can be reduced to a one-dimensional hierarchy.

My personal approach is to give respect to everyone as a matter of course. I give additional respect to those who earn it (through their character, their attitude, their abilities, their accomplishments, etc), but only in the domain where they've earned it. I don't expect obedience* from anyone.

*(In class, I do expect anyone who wants to participate to work on whatever tasks/drills/activities the instructor presents. This applies even if I am taking the class and the instructor is junior to me in rank or experience or ability. That's not a matter of hierarchy, it's just what distinguishes a class from an open mat.)


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's not just Chinese or Confucian philosophy. It's characteristic of many traditional cultures the world over which teach a very hierarchical worldview:
> 
> Parent > child
> Elder > younger
> Teacher > student
> Master > apprentice
> Senior student > junior student
> Man > woman
> Nobility > commoner
> etc, etc
> 
> Ideally, these philosophies try to teach a somewhat balanced view where duties (protection, care, instruction)are owed from the "higher" person in each pairing towards the "lower" person to match the respect and obedience owed from the "lower" to the "higher." In practice, the demands tend to end up much more one-sided and frequently the relationships produced by this sort of worldview end up being exploitive and/or abusive towards the person on the low end of the ladder.
> 
> Even if both parties in the relationship do live up to the ideals of the traditional worldview, with one side providing guidance and the other side providing respect and obedience, I personally find such constraints to be somewhat distorting of the reality and basic humanity of the participants. Our identities and our relationships are much more complex than anything which can be reduced to a one-dimensional hierarchy.
> 
> My personal approach is to give respect to everyone as a matter of course. I give additional respect to those who earn it (through their character, their attitude, their abilities, their accomplishments, etc), but only in the domain where they've earned it. I don't expect obedience* from anyone.
> 
> *(In class, I do expect anyone who wants to participate to work on whatever tasks/drills/activities the instructor presents. This applies even if I am taking the class and the instructor is junior to me in rank or experience or ability. That's not a matter of hierarchy, it's just what distinguishes a class from an open mat.)


Agreed, I was just trying to address the original claim that it was a Chinese Martial Art Tradition and not a Chinese Cultural Tradition.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> ...globally disparaging a culture.





Juany118 said:


> ...the original claim that it was a Chinese Martial Art Tradition and not a Chinese Cultural Tradition.



I haven't seen either in this thread. What are you talking about?


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Actually, I think Guy was making a _joke_. He does have that kind of a sense of humor. We Yanks can be a bit literal sometimes.



Seems like nearly all times? I do agree that the British sense of humour doesn't seem to work very well with lots of other nationalities. Americans and Germans especially bad for some reason.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I haven't seen either in this thread. What are you talking about?





Spoiler



<br /><br />Nor do I care. I don't need to get my "morality" from a silly martial art culture.



So we have someone that doesn't understand it was Chinese Culture simply also existing in a Chinese MA and disparaging said Chinese Cultural Tradition.  You even went on later trying to justify it using examples of other Chinese Cultural traditions, such as face saving, to justify this statement.  I can provide those quotes if need be as well.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## anerlich

Oftentimes the cultural traditions get misappropriated, unintentionally or intentionally, when grafted into another culture.

Some Anglos put on the airs and graces of a "Sifu", adopt Chinese artifacts and even styles of dress, when in fact no Chinese person ever actually acted or looked like that. They adopt their idea of Chinese culture, rather than Chinese culture., trying to live in a China that never existed. This may manifest itself in demanding a level of deference to the person concerned, and ways of conduct, which exist nowhere in either the appropriated or the native culture.

When I did do the compulsory Asian MA travel experience, I found the way people actually lived and trained there bore little resemblance to the ways the Gwailo instructor I was studying (Xingyi/Bagua) at the time conducted himself and ran his kwoon. I didn't stay at that Kwoon very much longer after I got back.


----------



## anerlich

This thread was going pretty well until we got into the "he said / she said / no I didn't / yes you did / you're a d1ck / no you are" stuff. IMO.


----------



## guy b

anerlich said:


> Oftentimes the cultural traditions get misappropriated, unintentionally or intentionally, when grafted into another culture.
> 
> Some Anglos put on the airs and graces of a "Sifu", adopt Chinese artifacts and even styles of dress, when in fact no Chinese person ever actually acted or looked like that. They adopt their idea of Chinese culture, rather than Chinese culture., trying to live in a China that never existed. This may manifest itself in demanding a level of deference to the person concerned, and ways of conduct, which exist nowhere in either the appropriated or the native culture.



Exactly.


----------



## guy b

anerlich said:


> This thread was going pretty well until we got into the "he said / she said / no I didn't / yes you did / you're a d1ck / no you are" stuff. IMO.



Agree


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> This thread was going pretty well until we got into the "he said / she said / no I didn't / yes you did / you're a d1ck / no you are" stuff. IMO.


I agree, I would just say 2 things.  First, I will admit to being anal retentive when it comes to the specific wording of posts.  The basis of my interactions for 12 hours a day is recording what people say and then using those words to either assist them or charge them and it's something I don't have an easy time shutting off as my wife often reminds me.  

Finally, about two pages (or more) that a number of us responded to could have been avoided by one simple statement...

"Okay using a belittling term to describe a cultural tradition was a bit off.  I simply believe that someone who claims to be worthy of respect in a learned skill needs to earn that respect."

Or

"Okay maybe it makes sense in a school that exists in that culture but is that cultural tradition really relevant in a school in Munich, Paris, London or New York?"

Those of us that responded then would have simply said "okay that's cool" because I am fairly certain we all have that tradition(s) from another culture that we don't agree with or "get".  

/Shrug.





Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Oftentimes the cultural traditions get misappropriated, unintentionally or intentionally, when grafted into another culture.
> 
> Some Anglos put on the airs and graces of a "Sifu", adopt Chinese artifacts and even styles of dress, when in fact no Chinese person ever actually acted or looked like that. They adopt their idea of Chinese culture, rather than Chinese culture., trying to live in a China that never existed. This may manifest itself in demanding a level of deference to the person concerned, and ways of conduct, which exist nowhere in either the appropriated or the native culture.
> 
> When I did do the compulsory Asian MA travel experience, I found the way people actually lived and trained there bore little resemblance to the ways the Gwailo instructor I was studying (Xingyi/Bagua) at the time conducted himself and ran his kwoon. I didn't stay at that Kwoon very much longer after I got back.


This is very true.  I don't have a personal experience but my best friend was born in Hong Kong and her Grand Father was a CMA practitioner there until they emigrated in the 70's.  When I first started studying MA years ago her Grand Father told me "if you look at Kung Fu schools and the students and Sifu are wearing "uniforms" that look like the clothes from a Wuxia movie, run away.  We wore pants and t-shirts at school, MAYBE the Head of the School wore traditional clothing, but if he did it was because he grew up wearing that clothing, it has very little to do with Kung Fu."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM

I too have had experience with a western instructor that tried to "out-Chinese" the Chinese.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I too have had experience with a western instructor that tried to "out-Chinese" the Chinese.



If you think it's bad now... look back at the late 70s during the kung fu craze inspired by Bruce Lee movies, the television series _Kung-Fu,_ and Shaw Brothers films. China itself was largely unknown and inaccessible behind the "bamboo curtain", and Western ideas about CMA were heavily influenced by wuxia stories and Western fantasies about mysterious Chinese masters with a lot of  early "New Age" thinking mixed in.

...at least that's what I ran into when I first started training in a mostly phony system that turned out to be pretty much a form of Hawaiian Kenpo with a lot of phony baloney Chinese trappings masquerading as Northern Shaolin. 

Compared to _that_, the first  Anglo WC instructor I studied with ...although not very good, seemed as authentic as heck!


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Your thing there though is regarding bonding and typically when the target is there.  That is different than globally disparaging a culture.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



You cannot take offence to me mocking you because it is a cultural aspect and if you do you are a racist.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> I too have had experience with a western instructor that tried to "out-Chinese" the Chinese.



Wapanese.  Is the term for guys to try to do that in Japan.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You cannot take offence to me mocking you because it is a cultural aspect and if you do you are a racist.


A few things,. The following taken from your quote.  

First your "tradition" is about targeting a specific person and not an entire culture.  An example of this in another context is you can call a black man convicted of a crime a criminal BUT to call all black people criminals would be bigotry in action.

Second it is, according to your quote, often about bonding which implicitly means people trying to come together for a positive end and that simply mutual acceptance between the individuals in question. 

These alone change the context a lot but finally when you are purposefully performing an admittedly anti-social act against another it isn't wrong to call them out on it vs demeaning something that isnt inherently antisocial simply because you don't agree with it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So we have someone that doesn't understand it was Chinese Culture simply also existing in a Chinese MA and disparaging said Chinese Cultural Tradition.



Because I called it a silly martial art culture? It _is_ a martial art culture, hence the term "_martial_ morality".

That doesn't mean it didn't come from a broader culture.

And as I said, thinking it's a silly and destructive thing to bring into the martial arts is not a judgement of the entire culture.

So, your "globally disparaging" accusation is also false.



> You even went on later trying to justify it using examples of other Chinese Cultural traditions, such as face saving, to justify this statement.  I can provide those quotes if need be as well.



If need be? Oh, why, thank you.

No, I made it very clear that "face" is one of the most retarded concepts I've ever heard and leads to the most ridiculous behavior, and I'm not apologizing. You think the store manager in that example did the right thing?

It's relevant here because forcing tea ceremonies and public kowtowing is part of saving face.

In any case, I'm talking about specific aspects of a culture, not globally disparaging anything.



Juany118 said:


> It is pointed out that the base opinion in the statement is perfectly valid but the method was bordering on being demeaning of a specific culture.



So, you agree but your conclusion is false, and your accusation went from "borderline" to a full blown charge.



Juany118 said:


> I agree, I would just say 2 things.  First, I will admit to being anal retentive when it comes to the specific wording of posts.  The basis of my interactions for 12 hours a day is recording what people say and then using those words to either assist them or charge them and it's something I don't have an easy time shutting off as my wife often reminds me.



You'd think with all that training you'd be a little better with accuracy and not bringing up b.s. charges, but I guess that's your job. Gotta make that quota, and we can tell, you obviously can't shut it off here.



> Finally, about two pages (or more) that a number of us responded to could have been avoided by one simple statement...
> 
> "Okay using a belittling term to describe a cultural tradition was a bit off.  I simply believe that someone who claims to be worthy of respect in a learned skill needs to earn that respect."



I don't think it was a bit off. I think it was right on. It's both silly and destructive.



> Or
> 
> "Okay maybe it makes sense in a school that exists in that culture but is that cultural tradition really relevant in a school in Munich, Paris, London or New York?"



It is equally silly and destructive in Hong Kong or Mainland China.


----------



## guy b

It would be great if people wouldn't try to police behaviour on the forum, especially when not very good at it. Tends to ruin discussions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> A few things,. The following taken from your quote.
> 
> First your "tradition" is about targeting a specific person and not an entire culture.  An example of this in another context is you can call a black man convicted of a crime a criminal BUT to call all black people criminals would be bigotry in action.
> 
> Second it is, according to your quote, often about bonding which implicitly means people trying to come together for a positive end and that simply mutual acceptance between the individuals in question.
> 
> These alone change the context a lot but finally when you are purposefully performing an admittedly anti-social act against another it isn't wrong to call them out on it vs demeaning something that isnt inherently antisocial simply because you don't agree with it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Oh, crap. You said "context"!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> No, I made it very clear that "face" is one of the most retarded concepts I've ever heard and leads to the most ridiculous behavior, and I'm not apologizing. You think the store manager in that example did the right thing?


Actually, the concept is sound, and is part of effective leadership and/or negotiation in many cultures. The example you gave is one of it being applied ridiculously badly.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the concept is sound, and is part of effective leadership and/or negotiation in many cultures. The example you gave is one of it being applied ridiculously badly.



Exactly.  In the west we use multiple terms to describe what the Chinese call "face".  In the west we associate "face" with only pride and things that begin with "self...", however in many eastern cultures, including China, it encompasses; not only self-respect, personal pride, prestige, and social standing, but honor, the respect others hold for you, the expectations of others, how your moral character is viewed and more.  In essence "face" is how those around you perceive you in almost every way, not just how you view yourself, we simply use multiple terms to explain it in the west.

The problem is, in either culture, as often happens with people, sometimes people are selfish and only focus on the parts of "face" that focus on the "self..." bit.  However those outliers can't be used to indict an entire system.


----------



## BigMotor

It is a human failing, and it is all over the World and in every facet of living: someone always wants to be superior and someone want to be pre-eminent.

What is not everywhere is: who is it that will teach what they know?  And who will cease arguing points that are as fine as dust?  And who will submit themselves to valid criticism, and correct themselves?

Now there friends is the truly superior man and fighter, the one that will humble himself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  In the west we use multiple terms to describe what the Chinese call "face".  In the west we associate "face" with only pride and things that begin with "self...", however in many eastern cultures, including China, it encompasses; not only self-respect, personal pride, prestige, and social standing, but honor, the respect others hold for you, the expectations of others, how your moral character is viewed and more.  In essence "face" is how those around you perceive you in almost every way, not just how you view yourself, we simply use multiple terms to explain it in the west.
> 
> The problem is, in either culture, as often happens with people, sometimes people are selfish and only focus on the parts of "face" that focus on the "self..." bit.  However those outliers can't be used to indict an entire system.


Agreed.

For others reading this, my point about "saving face" existing elsewhere, think of a negotiation, for instance. If one party comes into negotiations with a lot of passion (which they have expressed to others), they are unlikely to accept much compromise. If they are given something they can show as a "win" from the negotiations, they are much more likely to accept some compromise. That's the same concept as "saving face." People who are embarrassed tend to become unyielding and angry. If you let them recover their dignity ("save face"), they are much easier to work with.

The same goes for when someone makes an error, or need to learn something new, and so many other situations.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> People who are embarrassed tend to become unyielding and angry. If you let them recover their dignity ("save face"), they are much easier to work with.
> 
> The same goes when someone needs to learn something new.



Ironically very appropriate to some members of this forum. Recent events allowed some face saving and did defuse some tension.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> Ironically very appropriate to some members of this forum. Recent events allowed some face saving and did defuse some tension.



Probably a good idea to keep this in mind in future discussions. It definitely makes for more pleasant and productive discussions.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Probably a good idea to keep this in mind in future discussions. It definitely makes for more pleasant and productive discussions.



I guess where it becomes difficult is when people require the face save be perpetuated, rather than just feeling relieved and forgetting about it, or even (if they can get it together enough) saying thanks in a low key way.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> This is very true.  I don't have a personal experience but my best friend was born in Hong Kong and her Grand Father was a CMA practitioner there until they emigrated in the 70's.  When I first started studying MA years ago her Grand Father told me "if you look at Kung Fu schools and the students and Sifu are wearing "uniforms" that look like the clothes from a Wuxia movie, run away.  We wore pants and t-shirts at school, MAYBE the Head of the School wore traditional clothing, but if he did it was because he grew up wearing that clothing, it has very little to do with Kung Fu."
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Yeah, well, in the 80s I trained at a school that had those Chinese jackets with the woven "frog" buttons that ripped if anyone grabbed them.

Plus the cloth slippers with plastic soles that were slippery as hell on polished wood floors and would stretch to the point they got so loose that you occasionally launched one across the room when attempting a kick.

Authentic? Maybe. Practical? Not in the slightest.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Yeah, well, in the 80s I trained at a school that had those Chinese jackets with the woven "frog" buttons that ripped if anyone grabbed them.
> 
> Plus the cloth slippers with plastic soles that were slippery as hell on polished wood floors and would stretch to the point they got so loose that you occasionally launched one across the room when attempting a kick.
> 
> Authentic? Maybe. Practical? Not in the slightest.




I put the laugh because I pictured the slipper flying across the room.


----------



## KPM

I've done the slipper flying across the room!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> I've done the slipper flying across the room!


I've done that many times at home, with actual slippers. Took out a lamp that way once.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> Yeah, well, in the 80s I trained at a school that had those Chinese jackets with the woven "frog" buttons that ripped if anyone grabbed them.
> 
> Plus the cloth slippers with plastic soles that were slippery as hell on polished wood floors and would stretch to the point they got so loose that you occasionally launched one across the room when attempting a kick.
> 
> Authentic? Maybe. Practical? Not in the slightest.


I'd always wondered about the durability of that costume. The Japanese dogi serves well mostly because of its durabilility (even a fairly light Karate gi will hold up for a while in standing grappling). How much time did you have to spend repairing those things?


----------



## anerlich

Not a lot because the style didn't have a lot of grabbing. Most tears were accidental.

Japanese gis were built with a purpose in mind. AFAIK the Chinese jacket was just regular street wear.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I'd always wondered about the durability of that costume. The Japanese dogi serves well mostly because of its durabilility (even a fairly light Karate gi will hold up for a while in standing grappling). How much time did you have to spend repairing those things?



@anerlich has it right imo.  In my experience CMA grappling/Chin Na is largely limited to taking control of the body itself.  The idea of grabbing clothing and using it for leverage etc. really isn't there so the idea of clothing designed to be grabbed never really cane up.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> @anerlich has it right imo.  In my experience CMA grappling/Chin Na is largely limited to taking control of the body itself.  The idea of grabbing clothing and using it for leverage etc. really isn't there so the idea of clothing designed to be grabbed never really cane up.


What about in shiu jao?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> @anerlich has it right imo.  In my experience CMA grappling/Chin Na is largely limited to taking control of the body itself.  The idea of grabbing clothing and using it for leverage etc. really isn't there so the idea of clothing designed to be grabbed never really cane up.



Shuai jiao?

I think that if people are wearing clothes then grappling will usually involve clothes to some extent. Would be silly to ignore clothes since they function as big handles. Also very useful for choking people and tying up limbs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> @anerlich has it right imo.  In my experience CMA grappling/Chin Na is largely limited to taking control of the body itself.  The idea of grabbing clothing and using it for leverage etc. really isn't there so the idea of clothing designed to be grabbed never really cane up.


We don't do a lot of clothing grabbing for grappling, either - mostly because we're self-defense oriented, and our attackers rarely are kind enough to don a dogi before attacking. We do use the clothing in attacks, though, and it can take a bit of a beating there. If we used the gi like Judo and BJJ do, we'd have to all use heavier dogi (which I personally prefer, but are more expensive).


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> What about in shiu jao?


Sorry I should have clarified Shuai jiao is a sport (I think it may be the oldest documented "court sport" in China, I am talking combat/real fighting arts.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

@gpseymour,
How is a jacket, hoody or shirt any different than a Gi?  I mean, it might not stand job to the rigors of training, but I could use a t-shirt to choke you once and I'm sure even a light jacket would hold up to a throw.

It would seem to me that if you're training for "self defense", ignoring obvious advantages like the grips and opportunities to choke and control the bad guy that clothing affords.  That sounds pretty short sighted.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Sorry I should have clarified Shuai jiao is a sport (I think it may be the oldest documented "court sport" in China, I am talking combat/real fighting arts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Yeah.  That's not at all what you said.   And I wasn't aware that shiu jao didn't qualify as a real fighting art.   Do they know that?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Yeah.  That's not at all what you said.   And I wasn't aware that shiu jao didn't qualify as a real fighting art.   Do they know that?



Maybe I should have said "specific" vs real, bad turn of phrase.

I look at it like say the difference between Pankration and Greco-Roman wrestling.  Can both be used to fight effectively?  Absolutely, but the later has a competition focus side with little modification, where as true Pankration is about crippling people, unless you modify it.  So I think it kinda flows into the other discussion we have going on.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Maybe so, but I don't understand what the distinction has to do with no grip fighting or grabbing in CMA.  What I mean is whether it's a real fighting art like wing chun (??) or a whatever you're talking about, it's a CMA that relies heavily on grip fighting and grabbing fabric.  Where does this idea that it needs to be about crippling people come in?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> How is a jacket, hoody or shirt any different than a Gi?  I mean, it might not stand job to the rigors of training, but I could use a t-shirt to choke you once and I'm sure even a light jacket would hold up to a throw.


A t-shirt won't provide the kind of leverage a gi will. The t-shirt will stretch a lot under the weight of dragging a person into a throw, where a gi will not. And, of course, what if the person isn't wearing a shirt (a real possibility in the Southern US during the Summer).


----------



## Steve

This is how the United States Shuai Chiao organization describes the art.  United States Shuai-chiao Association


> Modern Shuaijiao (also spelled Shuai-chiao) is the culmination of the ancient, crude, practical and effective combat grappling method of the battlefield - that has evolved into a sophisticated and efficient no non-sense approach to combat.  Its training method of using punches, kicks and joint-locks in the context of throwing can conform to all martial arts styles. Its philosophy share the same principle of Tai-chi Yin and Yang, the traditional cosmic law of China.  Shuai-chiao's techniques are the culmination of tested grappling experience in the best environment - the battlefield. Today, it is still a part of military and police training as well as a national sport in China and Taiwan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Maybe so, but I don't understand what the distinction has to do with no grip fighting or grabbing in CMA.  What I mean is whether it's a real fighting art like wing chun (??) or a whatever you're talking about, it's a CMA that relies heavily on grip fighting and grabbing fabric.  Where does this idea that it needs to be about crippling people come in?


I think he just wasn't including Shiu Jao in his original comment, because he views it as a competition-focused rather than a fight-focused style. It's not so much about the crippling-ness of the style (reducing those techniques is a natural effect of preparing for most competitions). If Shiu Jao is among the exceptions (grabbing cloth), then his original post still has validity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This is how the United States Shuai Chiao organization describes the art.  United States Shuai-chiao Association


I'd like to see some of that. I feel a YouTube search coming on.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> A t-shirt won't provide the kind of leverage a gi will. The t-shirt will stretch a lot under the weight of dragging a person into a throw, where a gi will not. And, of course, what if the person isn't wearing a shirt (a real possibility in the Southern US during the Summer).


If the person is wearing a t-shirt, it might not work for a throw, but it would work just fine for a choke. 

And if the person isn't wearing a shirt, then you wouldn't be able to use a shirt.  That seems... pretty obvious.  You'd probably want to also train for the contingency that the grips aren't going to be there. 

Seriously.  Aren't you the guy who went through a list of about 10 different scenarios where you're training with one arm, blindfolded, on uneven ground, etc?  But the idea of training with grips and without is a serious conundrum?  Come on, man.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think he just wasn't including Shiu Jao in his original comment, because he views it as a competition-focused rather than a fight-focused style. It's not so much about the crippling-ness of the style (reducing those techniques is a natural effect of preparing for most competitions). If Shiu Jao is among the exceptions (grabbing cloth), then his original post still has validity.


I think competition focused is MORE fight focused than otherwise.  And entire style isn't an exception.  Is it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If the person is wearing a t-shirt, it might not work for a throw, but it would work just fine for a choke.
> 
> And if the person isn't wearing a shirt, then you wouldn't be able to use a shirt.  That seems... pretty obvious.  You'd probably want to also train for the contingency that the grips aren't going to be there.
> 
> Seriously.  Aren't you the guy who went through a list of about 10 different scenarios where you're training with one arm, blindfolded, on uneven ground, etc?  But the idea of training with grips and without is a serious conundrum?  Come on, man.


I didn't say anything about not using grips. We just don't tend to grip clothing much. It's part of how we work, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal.

Yes, a t-shirt should work nicely for a choke. We just don't have that type of choke in NGA (I have it from Judo)...I wonder why those aren't in the common NGA curriculum. Offhand, I can't think of any reason they wouldn't fit with the basic principles of the art. Some thinkin' to do, now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think competition focused is MORE fight focused than otherwise.  And entire style isn't an exception.  Is it?


I don't know anything about the style, so I can't speak to that. I'm just going off what Juany posted.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'd like to see some of that. I feel a YouTube search coming on.


It's a pretty cool grappling style, from what I've seen.  I've never trained in it, but I believe that @Kung Fu Wang  does.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I didn't say anything about not using grips. We just don't tend to grip clothing much. It's part of how we work, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal.
> 
> Yes, a t-shirt should work nicely for a choke. We just don't have that type of choke in NGA (I have it from Judo)...I wonder why those aren't in the common NGA curriculum. Offhand, I can't think of any reason they wouldn't fit with the basic principles of the art. Some thinkin' to do, now.


It's not a big deal, but it's a funny inconsistency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's a pretty cool grappling style, from what I've seen.  I've never trained in it, but I believe that @Kung Fu Wang  does.


Hopefully he'll show up and share some thoughts about it, then. I'm fascinated by grappling styles that don't share a recent ancestry with NGA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's not a big deal, but it's a funny inconsistency.


Not really an inconsistency, from my viewpoint. We don't do chokes of any sort. I'm not sure why Morita didn't include those in the art, and I can't think of any reason they should be either included or excluded. Wind chokes are dangerous enough that we probably wouldn't include them in basic curriculum (philosophical principle), but the blood chokes would fit, and they are consistent with the physical principles and positions we use.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> I don't know anything about the style, so I can't speak to that. I'm just going off what Juany posted.



Why argue so passionately to salvage some tortured validity from Juany's original post? Looks pretty obvious that he just forgot about the existence of SC. No biggie


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Sorry I should have clarified Shuai jiao is a sport (I think it may be the oldest documented "court sport" in China, I am talking combat/real fighting arts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



The most unrealistic thing about any grappling method that doesn't incorporate cloth grabbing is that people actually do wear clothes and that simply grabbing them renders much of what you do when they are not wearing clothes unworkable. This is why judo and SC don't look like wrestling, and why trying to wrestle in a judo match is very low %


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think he just wasn't including Shiu Jao in his original comment, because he views it as a competition-focused rather than a fight-focused style. It's not so much about the crippling-ness of the style (reducing those techniques is a natural effect of preparing for most competitions). If Shiu Jao is among the exceptions (grabbing cloth), then his original post still has validity.


This is pretty much what I was thinking.  Thank you for explaining it better.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> This is how the United States Shuai Chiao organization describes the art.  United States Shuai-chiao Association



 That is how they explain it, and that is indeed it's initial origin BUT like Greco-Roman evolved from Pankration modern Shuai Jiao became a "court sport" around 2000 years ago.  If someone decided to try and resurrect the original good for them, but since that wrestling style has almost as many variations as Kung-fu does, anyone who says "this is Shuai Jiao" will make me skeptical.  Also remember Kendo associations will describe themselves in a similar manner but there is a BIG difference between Kendo and Kenjutsu.  That again isn't to say that it isn't effective and can't be used to kill/cripple, all martial arts come from such origins.  The difference is one needs thought to not be trying to hurt/cripple the other needs thought to do so.

Just realized a better example (in the Asian context) modern Shuai Jiao that I have seen is akin to the relationship between Judo and traditional Jujutsu.  Judo can be taken a step further and cripple/maim BUT that isn't the raison d'être.


----------



## guy b

Here is wrestling focused ex MMA fighter Leigh Remedios in a BJJ comp. Clothing effectively negates his wrestling based standup grappling, and Remedios a much better MMA guy and wrestler than opponent is at BJJ


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Why argue so passionately to salvage some tortured validity from Juany's original post? Looks pretty obvious that he just forgot about the existence of SC. No biggie


Maybe, maybe not.  I just look at it like a sport art and, while perhaps a touch anal retentive when I think Martial Art I instinctively think "war" arts because that is the whole point of the word "martial".  I will thus often not consider Judo (even though I know it can be effective), Kendo, even Western Boxing because of this admitted "blind spot".  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> This is pretty much what I was thinking.  Thank you for explaining it better.


Hey if Tony Dismukes can so often clarify what I said, I may as well provide that service for others!


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> That is how they explain it, and that is indeed it's initial origin BUT like Greco-Roman evolved from Pankration modern Shuai Jiao became a "court sport" around 2000 years ago.  If someone decided to try and resurrect the original good for them, but since that wrestling style has almost as many variations as Kung-fu does, anyone who says "this is Shuai Jiao" will make me skeptical.  Also remember Kendo associations will describe themselves in a similar manner but there is a BIG difference between Kendo and Kenjutsu.  That again isn't to say that it isn't effective and can't be used to kill/cripple, all martial arts come from such origins.  The difference is one needs thought to not be trying to hurt/cripple the other needs thought to do so.
> 
> Just realized a better example (in the Asian context) modern Shuai Jiao that I have seen is akin to the relationship between Judo and traditional Jujutsu.  Judo can be taken a step further and cripple/maim BUT that isn't the raison d'être.


This is so backwards, I don't even know how to respond.  You're saying a typical judoka will be less likely to cripple or maim than a typical jujutsuka?    That's absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  I just look at it like a sport art and, while perhaps a touch anal retentive when I think Martial Art I instinctively think "war" arts because that is the whole point of the word "martial".  I will thus often not consider Judo (even though I know it can be effective), Kendo, even Western Boxing because of this admitted "blind spot".
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


someone has a blind spot, but I don't think it's guy b, or judo, or even western boxing, in this case.  If martial is the operative word, I think you've got things completely reversed in your head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> someone has a blind spot, but I don't think it's guy b, or judo, or even western boxing, in this case.  If martial is the operative word, I think you've got things completely reversed in your head.


I think he was saying the blind spot was his.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think he was saying the blind spot was his.


Lol.  Then I agree.  That's a massive blindspot.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> This is so backwards, I don't even know how to respond.  You're saying a typical judoka will be less likely to cripple or maim than a typical jujutsuka?    That's absolutely ridiculous.


Well I look at things beyond the propoganada of the art and look at Japanese History.  The period during which Judo was created was a period when many a "jitsu" became "do" because of the influence of the Meji Restoration which specifically were trying to reduce the "war" element of martial arts in their effort to "modernize".  Someone actually posted a link to this history on these forums I will try to seek out but here is a quote from a different source...



> The origin of Japan's martial arts is vague, and what we know of it, is more legend than truth. However, the takenouchi-ryu martial art system founded in 1532 is considered the beginning of Japan's jujitsu forms. The system's founder taught jujitsu in a structured and methodical manner.
> 
> For the next several hundred years, the martial arts were refined by Samurai who made a lifetime study of some twenty or thirty martial arts. Of these arts only one was based on weaponless self defense -- jujitsu. By the mid-1800's more than 700 different jujitsu systems existed. The most popular were takenouchi-ryu, jikishin-ryu, kyushinryu, yoshin-ryu, mirua-ryu, sekiguchi-ryu, kito-ryu, and tenshin-shinyo-ryu; the last two were instrumental in Judo's development.
> 
> It was during this time that Japanese politics disintegrated into disarray. Commodore Perry's visit to Japan in the mid-1850's also changed Japanese civilization by opening up a new world to them. In 1868 Imperial rule was restored (Meiji Restoration) and the decline of the Samurai class started along with a rapid decline in all martial arts. Although the government did not officially ban the martial arts, people were not encouraged to learn or practice them since the state was considered more important than the individual. Jujitsu literally fell into disuse. What was once the glory of the samurai was now looked down on and many well established jujitsu schools began to disappear.
> 
> If the budo concept was to survive the Meiji Restoration, it had to change and become a tool to cultivate an individual and make him a better person for the good of all. As a result budo found a home in physical education and sport.
> 
> Sport provided teamwork which was good for all and also developed the individual. It was a complete physical education; not just a game. Although self defense techniques were included in the training, emphasis was on using the techniques in a holistic manner. Dr. Jigoro Kano is credited with jujitsu's survival of the Meiji Restoration. He took jujitsu and adapted it to the times. His new methodology was called Judo.
> 
> In 1882, Dr. Jigoro Kano (The Father of Judo) made a comprehensive study of these ancient self defense forms and integrated the best of these forms into a sport which is known as Kodokan Judo.



Its that difference in intent... Created for war vs sport that makes a difference in my mind due to wearing a uniform for 25+ years now and in seeing such a difference maybe I have a blind spot other lack /shrug 

The link elsewhere on the forums spoke directly to the the transition in Japanese culture from jutsu to do in various martial arts and how the change was in part to suppress a warrior/samurai culture.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## lansao

I always really liked something that my Sifu said often. He would say that our Wing Chun is "different not better" than other variants. Being introduced to the art by him in a coffee shop meeting, and focusing on practicing the art, I didn't really appreciate why he said it so often. That is, until I got more exposure to the broader community and some of the infighting that takes place between lineages and even between Sifus of the same lineage.

I think it is natural that, in a world where actual fighting is rare enough (outside of pro/mma, prison, war, and high school), we question the validity of what we have learned and our competence in executing it in times of need. I don't think it's good or bad, but that it is to be expected. This questioning often manifests as insecurity and a need to prove the validity that is illegal to express via direct combat, and so instead words are used.

Often, in these exchanges of words, we leverage lineage and the degree to which we stick to tradition, or who has co-signed our skill, as a proxy for our good credit as a competent fighter. The one problem I see with all of this conversation is that it is conversation, and not training. The time spent debating is time that could be spent training and so when I hear "different not better" now, I appreciate it's ability to disarm and side-step all together that debate so that we can get back to work.

~ Alan, Wing Chun Student


----------



## Juany118

lansao said:


> I always really liked something that my Sifu said often. He would say that our Wing Chun is "different not better" than other variants. Being introduced to the art by him in a coffee shop meeting, and focusing on practicing the art, I didn't really appreciate why he said it so often. That is, until I got more exposure to the broader community and some of the infighting that takes place between lineages and even between Sifus of the same lineage.
> 
> I think it is natural that, in a world where actual fighting is rare enough (outside of pro/mma, prison, war, and high school), we question the validity of what we have learned and our competence in executing it in times of need. I don't think it's good or bad, but that it is to be expected. This questioning often manifests as insecurity and a need to prove the validity that is illegal to express via direct combat, and so instead words are used.
> 
> Often, in these exchanges of words, we leverage lineage and the degree to which we stick to tradition, or who has co-signed our skill, as a proxy for our good credit as a competent fighter. The one problem I see with all of this conversation is that it is conversation, and not training. The time spent debating is time that could be spent training and so when I hear "different not better" now, I appreciate it's ability to disarm and side-step all together that debate so that we can get back to work.
> 
> ~ Alan, Wing Chun Student



Welcome Alan!!!


I could give two gosh darns about linegae.  My only dividing line is what is the purpose of the art in the mind of the creator.  Perhaps I have an odd perspective.  My first Eastern MA was Aikido.  The O'Sensei himself said it was supposed to be an art without harm, an art of peace.  I studied that art AND a variation that crossed a line to someone and HURT.  I understand the difference, maybe because I have also studied history.  So I can see how Aikido is intended to not cripple but with modification it can.  Same with Judo.  I thus look at the original intent of an art and that is how I define it.

I also currently study Wing Chun (Ip Man via William Cheung) so I totally understand the Lineage issue, I just don't think its relevant to the specific point being made.  

I don't think any is better, I see all the arts as tools.  As an example I can, and have, used a hammer to start a hole in dry wall that is supposed to be with a "proper tool" according to my brother the contractor.  I am like my brother when it comes to fighting/martial arts.  Basically one art (not lineage) is designed to accomplish a goal from the ground up.  Others get there but require additional tools or modifications to close the deal.  I admit to a failing however in that I, at times, will make a big deal between an art designed for a ring/competition mat and designed for the street/combat due to my experience which is unique to myself.

I try to avoid it but we all at some point fall prey to personal experience


----------



## geezer

lansao said:


> I always really liked something that my Sifu said often. He would say that our Wing Chun is "different not better" than other variants. Being introduced to the art by him in a coffee shop meeting, and focusing on practicing the art, I didn't really appreciate why he said it so often. That is, until I got more exposure to the broader community and some of the infighting that takes place between lineages and even between Sifus of the same lineage....
> 
> ~ Alan, Wing Chun Student



Hi Alan. _Welcome_ to MT. I hope you can ignore some of the bickering and hang around to post again. I like the humbleness of that "different, not better" attitude. Naturally, we all like what we ourselves do ...which is why we do it. But on an open and "friendly" forum like this, we have to refrain from being arrogant. I believe that one can be discerning and have good judgement without being _overtly judgmental_. Most of the posters here can live with that premise.


----------



## lansao

geezer said:


> Hi Alan. _Welcome_ to MT. I hope you can ignore some of the bickering and hang around to post again. I like the humbleness of that "different, not better" attitude. Naturally, we all like what we ourselves do ...which is why we do it. But on an open and "friendly" forum like this, we have to refrain from being arrogant. I believe that one can be discerning and have good judgement without being _overtly judgmental_. Most of the posters here can live with that premise.


Thank you!


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Well I look at things beyond the propoganada of the art and look at Japanese History.  The period during which Judo was created was a period when many a "jitsu" became "do" because of the influence of the Meji Restoration which specifically were trying to reduce the "war" element of martial arts in their effort to "modernize".  Someone actually posted a link to this history on these forums I will try to seek out but here is a quote from a different source...
> 
> 
> 
> Its that difference in intent... Created for war vs sport that makes a difference in my mind due to wearing a uniform for 25+ years now and in seeing such a difference maybe I have a blind spot other lack /shrug
> 
> The link elsewhere on the forums spoke directly to the the transition in Japanese culture from jutsu to do in various martial arts and how the change was in part to suppress a warrior/samurai culture.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


I look at things the way they are now, regardless of intent.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b said:


> This is why judo and SC don't look like wrestling, and why trying to wrestle in a judo match is very low %


Agree!

This is why "single leg" and "double legs" are not used very much in SC or Judo tournament.

In one SC tournament, my opponent was a wrestler. After I had obtained a right upper collar grip on him, he tried to shot in. I stepped back and used my right upper collar grip to pull him all the way down to the ground. Both the 1st round and the 2nd round were finished in less than 7 seconds. That was the easiest championship match that I ever had.

In no jacket wrestling, if my opponent shoots in toward my leg/legs, I will have less time to put my hand on top of his neck, his leg shooting can be much more effective.

In jacket wrestling, your opponent's push (such as leg shooting) can be your pull, and your opponent's pull can be your push. This will not be the case in the no-jacket wrestling.


----------



## anerlich

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why "single leg" and "double legs" are not used very much in SC or Judo tournament.



That and the fact that they are illegal in Olympic judo.


----------



## anerlich

lansao said:


> The one problem I see with all of this conversation is that it is conversation, and not training.



Difficult to do much else on an internet forum.


----------



## lansao

anerlich said:


> Difficult to do much else on an internet forum.


Now that's a good point. I'll just go scratch my head on that for a bit! 

  

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> The one problem I see with all of this conversation is that it is conversation, and not training. The time spent debating is time that could be spent training...



I find it pretty arrogant when people come on a forum and reprimand people for "talking too much" and "not training", as if because someone frequently posts on a forum it means they don't train enough or at all.

That may or may not be true, but, no one can train 24/7. Some people like to come home after training and watch TV, or surf the web during downtime at work. Others are more addicted to their MA and still think about it before and after training, and enjoy discussing it in times of rest, _in addition_ to the hours per week spent training.

The real problem I see with conversations like the one that just went down about SC, is that some people google info more than they speak from their own knowledge and experience and aren't honest and humble enough to admit when they say something stupid.


----------



## dudewingchun

We should just all meet up and have a brawl to see who has the best stuff. Simplest way to solve all these problems


----------



## guy b

anerlich said:


> That and the fact that they are illegal in Olympic judo.



The idea is that it makes for scrappy judo. I think this is stupid, and it just limits the usefulness and adaptability of mainstream judo. Wearing the jackets and pants is enough of an advantage against wrestling.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Well I look at things beyond the propoganada of the art and look at Japanese History.  The period during which Judo was created was a period when many a "jitsu" became "do" because of the influence of the Meji Restoration which specifically were trying to reduce the "war" element of martial arts in their effort to "modernize".  Someone actually posted a link to this history on these forums I will try to seek out but here is a quote from a different source...
> 
> 
> 
> Its that difference in intent... Created for war vs sport that makes a difference in my mind due to wearing a uniform for 25+ years now and in seeing such a difference maybe I have a blind spot other lack /shrug
> 
> The link elsewhere on the forums spoke directly to the the transition in Japanese culture from jutsu to do in various martial arts and how the change was in part to suppress a warrior/samurai culture.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



It is the training method of Japanese ju jitsu that makes it incredibly ineffective compared to judo/BJJ. Intent pretty much irrelevant when comparing these two approaches in terms of effectiveness.


----------



## guy b

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In jacket wrestling, your opponent's push (such as leg shooting) can be your pull, and your opponent's pull can be your push. This will not be the case in the no-jacket wrestling.



Good point


----------



## Buka

Hadn't read any of this thread until today, found it interesting.

As to the respect and saving face thing (in my opinion, anyway) I suppose we could discuss the social aspects and ramifications all day, but there is a tactical side to that as well. Especially in street life, crime milieus, dealing with folks who don't have the same social interactions that we do, with drunks (sometimes but not usually) and with psychotics, again, sometimes but not always, and with regular people who have temporally gone over the edge. And also with some predators. 

Respect, feigned or not, -  and/or allowing someone to save face, be it orchestrated by you or not, can sometimes make life a whole lot easier and tactically superior. Unless you just want to butt heads. In which case, eventually, you'll butt against the wrong bull. You might still win, but it's going to suck.

As to the clothing thing, unless someone is fighting me naked (and, strangely, it wouldn't be the first time) there's a good chance I'll utilize his clothing if we get into a grapple, be it ground or standing.

As to everything else, I think a lot of Martial Artists tend to overcomplicate things. You either know how to fight or you don't. It doesn't matter what your brand is.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> I find it pretty arrogant when people come on a forum and reprimand people for "talking too much" and "not training", as if because someone frequently posts on a forum it means they don't train enough or at all.
> 
> That may or may not be true, but, no one can train 24/7. Some people like to come home after training and watch TV, or surf the web during downtime at work. Others are more addicted to their MA and still think about it before and after training, and enjoy discussing it in times of rest, _in addition_ to the hours per week spent training.
> 
> The real problem I see with conversations like the one that just went down about SC, is that some people google info more than they speak from their own knowledge and experience and *aren't honest and humble enough to admit when they say something stupid*.



I for one am never afraid to admit that, don't think that is about being humble though, just honesty. A person can still be humble, but still lie.


----------



## Transk53

Buka said:


> Hadn't read any of this thread until today, found it interesting.
> 
> As to the respect and saving face thing (in my opinion, anyway) I suppose we could discuss the social aspects and ramifications all day, but there is a tactical side to that as well. Especially in street life, crime milieus, dealing with folks who don't have the same social interactions that we do, with drunks (sometimes but not usually) and with psychotics, again, sometimes but not always, and with regular people who have temporally gone over the edge. And also with some predators.
> 
> Respect, feigned or not, -  and/or allowing someone to save face, be it orchestrated by you or not, can sometimes make life a whole lot easier and tactically superior. Unless you just want to butt heads. In which case, eventually, you'll butt against the wrong bull. You might still win, but it's going to suck.
> 
> As to the clothing thing, unless someone is fighting me naked (and, strangely, it wouldn't be the first time) there's a good chance I'll utilize his clothing if we get into a grapple, be it ground or standing.
> 
> As to everything else, I think a lot of Martial Artists tend to overcomplicate things. *You either know how to fight or you don't. *It doesn't matter what your brand is.



Yes, and I have always been of the opinion that it is inbuilt, you can train someone to fight, but that does not mean that they are going to actually fight, and actually know how to on a fundamental level.


----------



## Buka

Transk53 said:


> Yes, and I have always been of the opinion that it is inbuilt, you can train someone to fight, but that does not mean that they are going to actually fight, and actually know how to on a fundamental level.



I've found that it is sometimes inbuilt as well, but in many other instances it isn't. I've found that when some people change from what they were, into what they are becoming - their very core beliefs, especially in themselves, changes drastically. Takes a whole lot of work, though. But that very work - is part of what changes them.


----------



## anerlich

guy b said:


> The idea is that it makes for scrappy judo. I think this is stupid, and it just limits the usefulness and adaptability of mainstream judo. Wearing the jackets and pants is enough of an advantage against wrestling.



Many, including me, agree.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> I find it pretty arrogant when people come on a forum and reprimand people for "talking too much" and "not training", as if because someone frequently posts on a forum it means they don't train enough or at all.
> 
> That may or may not be true, but, no one can train 24/7. Some people like to come home after training and watch TV, or surf the web during downtime at work. Others are more addicted to their MA and still think about it before and after training, and enjoy discussing it in times of rest, _in addition_ to the hours per week spent training.
> 
> The real problem I see with conversations like the one that just went down about SC, is that some people google info more than they speak from their own knowledge and experience and aren't honest and humble enough to admit when they say something stupid.



Ah, I woke up to this reply and after rereading my post you're right, it's pretty arrogant. Apologies for the offense. I'm going to edit it out to avoid offending future readers and appreciate your calling it out.

Edit: It looks like I can't edit it out! Oh well, I'll survive the embarrassment. Thank you again.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> Ah, I woke up to this reply and after rereading my post you're right, it's pretty arrogant. Apologies for the offense. I'm going to edit it out to avoid offending future readers and appreciate your calling it out.
> 
> Edit: It looks like I can't edit it out! Oh well, I'll survive the embarrassment. Thank you again.
> 
> ~ Alan



No worries. I wasn't even really directing that at you. You weren't being condescending, but the "talk less, train more" line isn't always appropriate. Just making the point.

There have been some who've occasionally come on obviously waving the condescending finger at more frequent posters they personally know next to nothing about.

Coincidentally, the last guy I remember doing that on this forum was also someone by the name of Alan, well-known in the Wing Chun community, and who ironically/hypocritically is himself quite an active poster on Facebook forums.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I look at things the way they are now, regardless of intent.


The thing is I see looking at the origin as "safer".  Why?  Because in my experience most instructors teach based on the most recent origin of an art.  Yes there are exceptions to the rule but they call TMAs "traditional" for a reason.  The instructor who teaches an art as a "combat" art when it was designed as a "sport" is usually the exception that proves the rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> The thing is I see looking at the origin as "safer".  Why?  Because in my experience most instructors teach based on the most recent origin of an art.  Yes there are exceptions to the rule but they call TMAs "traditional" for a reason.  The instructor who teaches an art as a "combat" art when it was designed as a "sport" is usually the exception that proves the rules.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The thing is I see looking at the origin as "safer".  Why?  Because in my experience most instructors teach based on the most recent origin of an art.  Yes there are exceptions to the rule but they call TMAs "traditional" for a reason.  The instructor who teaches an art as a "combat" art when it was designed as a "sport" is usually the exception that proves the rules.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.





Steve said:


> *Traditional* to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.



That would be one extreme of the spectrum. Like some of the super traditional _Koryu_ of Japan. The other extreme might be what? RBSD? Most MA and even combat sports fall somewhere in between. Even competitive arts develop "traditions" and sometimes impractical rule sets. But granted that their _objective_ is winning within that rule set, I'd have to agree that they must be more adaptable. That's why I'd like to see an agreed upon way to competitively test WC. Then we wouldn't have to argue so much!

...or maybe we'd just argue about the rule-set. Yeah, that sounds about right.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.



And I agree entirely with this.  The thing is, in my experience, how something is trained is tied to the purpose of the art as it is designed.  So if an art was designed to operate as a sport and with a "rule set" the training tends to reflect this.  As an example most judo training I have experienced uses a lot of techniques that rely on grabbing the judogi and that can be impractical in terms of real world effectiveness.  Why is this?  Because the training has a strong focus on the sporting aspect the rules of which include that uniform.  This isn't to say that there aren't teachers who teach "outside the box" but again I believe these instructors are the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?


I hope I did this in my second response to Steve, if not I can elaborate more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> That would be one extreme of the spectrum. Like some of the super traditional _Koryu_ of Japan. The other extreme might be what? RBSD? Most MA and even combat sports fall somewhere in between. Even competitive arts develop "traditions" and sometimes impractical rule sets. But granted that their _objective_ is winning within that rule set, I'd have to agree that they must be more adaptable. That's why I'd like to see an agreed upon way to competitively test WC. Then we wouldn't have to argue so much!
> 
> ...or maybe we'd just argue about the rule-set. Yeah, that sounds about right.


I think you're misunderstanding.   Traditional doesn't necessarily indicate that efficacy is unimportant.   Only that, if there is a conflict between how to train and whether it is effecticw, efficacy will lose.  ,


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> The entire point of the change from Jujutsu to Judo, according to the creator himself was to
> 
> 
> And I agree entirely with this.  The thing is, in my experience, how something is trained is tied to the purpose of the art as it is designed.  So if an art was designed to operate as a sport and with a "rule set" the training tends to reflect this.  As an example most judo training I have experienced uses a lot of techniques that rely on grabbing the judogi and that can be impractical in terms of real world effectiveness.  Why is this?  Because the training has a strong focus on the sporting aspect the rules of which include that uniform.  This isn't to say that there aren't teachers who teach "outside the box" but again I believe these instructors are the exception that proves the rule.


Everyone has some kind of internal mechanism by which they make decisions.  Things are prioritized based upon some kind of inherently subjective metric, whether consciously or not.  We do it all the time.

So, as I said to geezer, when something is traditional, that suggests to me that the person is choosing tradition over other things.  IT doesn't mean that those other things are unimportant... just that they are less important.

When I read your post above, it sounds a lot like intent is more important to you than results.  What you intend to gain when you train is more important than what you are actually gaining.  And that's fine.  This isn't a value judgment.   But to be clear, it's less about whether judo is a sport or not than it is about your internal metric for evaluating training, emphasizing intent over any thing else.


----------



## Steve

Just to add, the idea of the change wasn't (as I understand it) to make the training less capable of crippling or maiming.  Rather, it was to create a way to amp up the intensity of training without unnecessarily crippling or maiming your training partners.  This is a subtle, but IMO meaningful shift in the perceived intent.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Everyone has some kind of internal mechanism by which they make decisions.  Things are prioritized based upon some kind of inherently subjective metric, whether consciously or not.  We do it all the time.
> 
> So, as I said to geezer, when something is traditional, that suggests to me that the person is choosing tradition over other things.  IT doesn't mean that those other things are unimportant... just that they are less important.
> 
> When I read your post above, it sounds a lot like intent is more important to you than results.  What you intend to gain when you train is more important than what you are actually gaining.  And that's fine.  This isn't a value judgment.   But to be clear, it's less about whether judo is a sport or not than it is about your internal metric for evaluating training, emphasizing intent over any thing else.


No results are vitally important to me personally I am simply saying that in my experience the intent of an art very often influences how the art is taught.  I don't agree with this, only making an observation.  This issue is why it took me a little over a year to find my current school.  In the end, in my area, I found only two schools that taught in a manner that I believed took into account real world effectiveness in the training regime.  One was a Krav Maga school the other the WC/Kali school I ended up joining.  

The others either focused on the sporting aspect too much, did weed through the "this is flashy but not street practical" stuff or didn't address the fact that in the vast majority of self defense situations you are not going to be dealing with someone who uses the same style you do.  The last 2 aren't limited to MA with a sport focus/aspect btw.  As an example with the last point just training WC against WC means (at least to the Lineages in my area) that you are likely to have issues with people who use "round" attacks as an example.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Traditional to me means that how you train and what you train is more important to you than whether yiur training works or makes practical sense.


For most of us, I think "traditional" simply means we tend to use methods and rituals that have been in the art for some period of time. I've always considered NGA a "traditional" art (though some would call it too young for that), because we choose some training methods in part because they are how the art has traditionally been taught. It's a pretty subjective definition, and fairly vague. I'm not sure how useful it is in actual discussion, because it'd be easy to end up with conflicting uses of it. Vagueness aside, I've always examined NGA and looked for what did and didn't work, adjusting to improve what I do. I still use traditional methods for much of the training, because I haven't found an alternative that I prefer signficantly.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> So if an art was designed to operate as a sport and with a "rule set" the training tends to reflect this.  As an example most judo training I have experienced uses a lot of techniques that rely on grabbing the judogi and that can be impractical in terms of real world effectiveness.  Why is this?  Because the training has a strong focus on the sporting aspect the rules of which include that uniform.  This isn't to say that there aren't teachers who teach "outside the box" but again I believe these instructors are the exception that proves the rule.



People wear clothes. If you train in clothes then not only do you learn clothed specific methods (e.g. grips, grip breaks, grip fighting), which can be used to easily control inexperienced opposition, but you also need to make the non clothed specific methods (e.g leg shoots, arm drags) work wearing clothes, which tends to be much more difficult. Methods of grappling trained not wearing clothes tend to fall down when clothes are worn, even against inexperienced opposition. Grabbing cloth is a severely underestimated form of grappling defence.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> People wear clothes. If you train in clothes then not only do you learn clothed specific methods (e.g. grips, grip breaks, grip fighting), which can be used to easily control inexperienced opposition, but you also need to make the non clothed specific methods (e.g leg shoots, arm drags) work wearing clothes, which tends to be much more difficult. Methods of grappling trained not wearing clothes tend to fall down when clothes are worn, even against inexperienced opposition. Grabbing cloth is a severely underestimated form of grappling defence.


The thing is this.  Grabbing the jacket of a judogi is A LOT different than say a typical shirt or a jacket (especially if zippered/buttoned).  I have ripped the shirts off people more than once at work, I have never seen a judogi literally rip when grabbed.  So it's not the fact clothing is or isn't worn that is the issue it's the specific nature of the clothes in question.  Because of this issue more than a few BJJ schools in my area have actually started having their "uniform" simply be a school t-shirt to better reflect real world dynamics.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> The thing is this.  Grabbing the jacket of a judogi is A LOT different than say a typical shirt or a jacket (especially if zippered/buttoned).  I have ripped the shirts off people more than once at work, I have never seen a judogi literally rip when grabbed.  So it's not the fact clothing is worn that is the issue it's the specific nature of the clothes in question.  As for "inexperienced" look at any of the Olympic medal matches.  They are far from inexperienced and the "goto" techniques used typically involve grabbing the judogi.  Because of this issue more than a few BJJ schools in my area have actually started having their "uniform" simply be a school t-shirt.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


There's a distinct difference in many techniques between a version that uses clothing as part of the leverage and a version that doesn't. In most cases, it's a fairly easy adaptation if you've trained for it. My personal preference is to train with sturdy clothing most of the time, but not use it most of the time (except in counters, where it's a great liability to work with). Then, every now and then, we do some "street clothes" training, where we get to experiment with how those change both technique and counters, whether directly (as a point of leverage) or indirectly (how it affects movement).


----------



## Transk53

Buka said:


> I've found that it is sometimes inbuilt as well, but in many other instances it isn't. I've found that when some people change from what they were, into what they are becoming - their very core beliefs, especially in themselves, changes drastically. Takes a whole lot of work, though. But that very work - is part of what changes them.



Yeah, don't disagree, especially with the military I guess. Don't know though, maybe there is some sliding scale when it comes being balls against the wall. Many will still shirk conflict, if core beliefs include regressive natured action. I do believe that fighting is not just a drilled mind set, with training in whatever context, moreover a instinctive thing that simply just autos the brain into aggressive behaviours, in the extreme without situational remorse. Don't think that can be trained, just personal morals dictate whether a piece of meat is standing in front you!


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Grabbing the jacket of a judogi is A LOT different than say a typical shirt or a jacket (especially if zippered/buttoned). I have ripped the shirts off people more than once at work, I have never seen a judogi literally rip when grabbed. So it's not the fact clothing is or isn't worn that is the issue it's the specific nature of the clothes in question. Because of this issue more than a few BJJ schools in my area have actually started having their "uniform" simply be a school t-shirt to better reflect real world dynamics.



Actually it is actually pretty easy to use different types clothing if you know the basic ideas. Very difficult to adapt from naked to clothed, totally different ballgame. Learning an unclothed grappling method is therefore very impractical in terms of applicability to actual fighting since people mostly wear clothes. 

Difficult to believe that the Chinese would miss this fact when most of the traditional grappling methods of the world use some kind of clothing, from belts to jacket to jacket and pants.

Are you sure you aren't talking about some kind of "self defence" type of add on to your wing chun, i.e. historical anti grappling, rather than a real grappling (i.e. wrestling) method?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> My personal preference is to train with sturdy clothing most of the time, but not use it most of the time (except in counters, where it's a great liability to work with).



Why would you not want to learn to use clothing in an offensive way? Do you live in a place where most people go around in beachware most of the time?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Actually it is actually pretty easy to use different types clothing if you know the basic ideas. Very difficult to adapt from naked to clothed, totally different ballgame. Learning an unclothed grappling method is therefore very impractical in terms of applicability to actual fighting since people mostly wear clothes; much more of a sports based abstraction.
> 
> Difficult to believe that the Chinese would miss this fact: most of the traditional grappling methods of the world use some kind of clothing, from belts to jacket to jacket and pants.
> 
> Are you sure you aren't talking about some kind of "self defence" type of add on to your wing chun, i.e. historical anti grappling, rather than a real grappling (i.e. wrestling) method?


First my WC has true/extensive chin na and take downs.  They arent as extensive as a dedicated grappling arts and revolve largely around limb and head/neck control.

Also I am not saying that using clothing isn't effective, it certainly can be.  The problem is that training exclusively with overbuilt martial arts uniforms like judogi doesnt prepare you for the different things that can happen with typical street clothes, such as literally ripping the shirt off a fully resisting subject.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> Why would you not want to learn to use clothing in an offensive way? Do you live in a place where most people go around in beachware most of the time?



For once I have to agree with clothing bit.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> For most of us, I think "traditional" simply means we tend to use methods and rituals that have been in the art for some period of time. I've always considered NGA a "traditional" art (though some would call it too young for that), because we choose some training methods in part because they are how the art has traditionally been taught. It's a pretty subjective definition, and fairly vague. I'm not sure how useful it is in actual discussion, because it'd be easy to end up with conflicting uses of it. Vagueness aside, I've always examined NGA and looked for what did and didn't work, adjusting to improve what I do. I still use traditional methods for much of the training, because I haven't found an alternative that I prefer signficantly.


For what it's worth, I'm not overly concerned with how people define the term "TMA" on an intellectual level.  There have been several threads on the subject, and while interesting, you're right.  It's very subjective.

What is more consistent is how people _apply_ the term.  Similar to my comment about what people intend to gain from their training vs what people actually gain from their training, there could very well be a disconnect between how someone defines Traditional Martial Arts and how someone actually demonstrates the term.  Words vs actions.

I can't think of an exception here in all the years I've been reading posts where my criteria for defining the term doesn't hold up.  It's less about how the term TMA is defined than it is about how we all view our training and where we often run into conflict.  I don't value the tradition as highly as I do other things, and so certain arts that reflect this are more compatible. 

I want to be clear that this is all on a spectrum.  It's not intended to be totally binary, where if you like this attribute, you will like this style.  It's about how we value (and how strongly we value) different aspects of martial arts.   Some common things that people value are tradition, efficacy, ease to learn, accessibility for various physical or mental impairments, cost, wow factor/flashiness, health and fitness, or availability.  I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top of my head.

So, the point is that if you're in a self identified "traditional" art, that will be at the top of the hierarchy, and if there is conflict between tradition and another attribute, the default will be to stick with tradition.  Any deviation from this will be the exception to that rule.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> First my WC has true/extensive chin na and take downs.  They arent as extensive as a dedicated grappling arts and revolve largely around limb and head/neck control.
> 
> Also I am not saying that using clothing isn't effective, it certainly can be.  The problem is that training exclusively with overbuilt martial arts uniforms like judogi doesnt prepare you for the different things that can happen with typical street clothes, such as literally ripping the shirt off a fully resisting subject.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Why would you train exclusively with a judogi if self defense is your goal?  Conversely, why would you train exclusively without the clothing?  How does that prepare you any better or the different things that can happen with typical street clothes? 

And when does a person who is training for self defense need to know how to do anything with a "fully resisting subject?"  Isn't that more a cop thing than a self defense thing?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Why would you train exclusively with a judogi if self defense is your goal?  Conversely, why would you train exclusively without the clothing?  How does that prepare you any better or the different things that can happen with typical street clothes?
> 
> And when does a person who is training for self defense need to know how to do anything with a "fully resisting subject?"  Isn't that more a cop thing than a self defense thing?



That is my entire point, most Judo schools you go to A. Say they teach self defense and B. Train almost exclusively in "uniformed."

As far as a fully resisting subject if you are in a fight that other person, whether you are a cop or not will be fully resisting, whether it be trying to avoid your punch, getting grabbed/taken down etc.  The only difference between cop and non-cop is that, for the cop, 95% of the time the violence you are dealing with once you go hands on is given violence intended to escape, if you are defending yourself the violence is intended to permit the subject to remain and continue to attack.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, I'm not overly concerned with how people define the term "TMA" on an intellectual level.  There have been several threads on the subject, and while interesting, you're right.  It's very subjective.
> 
> What is more consistent is how people _apply_ the term.  Similar to my comment about what people intend to gain from their training vs what people actually gain from their training, there could very well be a disconnect between how someone defines Traditional Martial Arts and how someone actually demonstrates the term.  Words vs actions.
> 
> I can't think of an exception here in all the years I've been reading posts where my criteria for defining the term doesn't hold up.  It's less about how the term TMA is defined than it is about how we all view our training and where we often run into conflict.  I don't value the tradition as highly as I do other things, and so certain arts that reflect this are more compatible.
> 
> I want to be clear that this is all on a spectrum.  It's not intended to be totally binary, where if you like this attribute, you will like this style.  It's about how we value (and how strongly we value) different aspects of martial arts.   Some common things that people value are tradition, efficacy, ease to learn, accessibility for various physical or mental impairments, cost, wow factor/flashiness, health and fitness, or availability.  I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top of my head.
> 
> So, the point is that if you're in a self identified "traditional" art, that will be at the top of the hierarchy, and if there is conflict between tradition and another attribute, the default will be to stick with tradition.  Any deviation from this will be the exception to that rule.


As is often the case, I think we differ in a way that may only matter intellectually. How the individual defines "traditional" will affect what "tradition" is is that they value. So, if we combine the essence of my definition with the essence of your observation, they are actually pretty compatible. If someone defines the "tradition" as being the lineage and the way the techniques are done, they're likely to hold that as having higher value than other aspects. For me, "traditional" tends to be more a cultural thing, in that "traditional" martial arts (by my definition) tend to observe some of the cultural rituals from the arts origin, and enjoy some of the ritual found in traditional training techniques, where those techniques are considered effective. So, for me, I have actually wrought some changes on how I deliver the art, added to (and in some senses removed from) what I was taught. However, I've held onto some practices that have alternatives, but the alternatives don't seem to have significant additional value for me, so all else being roughly equal I prefer to keep the tradition, but when there's something I don't think is effective (like the traditional first-aid training, for instance), I replace it (with modern first-aid certification).

I think that's in line with your observation, given how I personally define "traditional". I'm not sure how much anyone (you included) would/should care - just an intellectual rambling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Why would you train exclusively with a judogi if self defense is your goal?  Conversely, why would you train exclusively without the clothing?  How does that prepare you any better or the different things that can happen with typical street clothes?
> 
> And when does a person who is training for self defense need to know how to do anything with a "fully resisting subject?"  Isn't that more a cop thing than a self defense thing?


I'll warrant that a cop sees more "fully resisting" subjects (since they have to detain them and the subject knows it), than someone doing SD. But if I'm going for a lock, I wouldn't expect the person NOT to resist unless I manage to slip perfectly into the gaps.


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> I think you're misunderstanding.   Traditional doesn't necessarily indicate that efficacy is unimportant.   Only that, if there is a conflict between how to train and whether it is effective, efficacy will lose.



OK ...got it. In that case, I guess I'm not all that "traditional".


----------



## geezer

_Guy_ when I was a kid ages ago, we used to go to wrestling practice wearing gym shorts, T-shirts and tennis shoes. Soon I got knee pads and wrestling shoes (special order back then), but we still wore shorts and T-shirts except for matches. And living in Arizona, that's pretty close to what most people wear, casually at least, day to day.

I'm not sure where this idea that you can only wrestle naked comes from. Maybe they wrestle differently where you live?


----------



## wckf92

Holy topic drift Batman!


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> _Guy_ when I was a kid ages ago, we used to go to wrestling practice wearing gym shorts, T-shirts and tennis shoes. Soon I got knee pads and wrestling shoes (special order back then), but we still wore shorts and T-shirts except for matches. And living in Arizona, that's pretty close to what most people wear, casually at least, day to day.
> 
> I'm not sure where this idea that you can only wrestle naked comes from. Maybe they wrestle differently where you live?


I think we somehow got out signals crossed.  He thinks I am saying you need to wrestle naked when I am just saying for grappling to be street effective you need to take into account the often more fragile nature of street clothes vs judogi and the like.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The problem is that training exclusively with overbuilt martial arts uniforms like judogi doesnt prepare you for the different things that can happen with typical street clothes, such as literally ripping the shirt off a fully resisting subject.



Not true at all. Judo and BJJ gis are strong in order that they can be used repeatedly without breaking, not so that the practitioner becomes reliant upon the strength of them. A person in a t-shirt and shorts still presents multiple handles that can be used against them, as well as having a handy garotte around their neck (much more effective for choking than a thick inflexible gi). In fact ripping weak clothing and bunching it is in some ways better than a purpose made gi in that it is painful and restricts movement much more effectively. Weak clothes can be ripped intentionally and used to rag someone around while restricting arm movement and ability to respond. 

The other great thing about training in clothing is that methods which don't use the clothing (wrestling takedowns and controls, various submissions), need to be made to work with the clothing on, which is much more difficult. In this way applying them while not wearing bulky clothing becomes much easier. 

A third way in which clothing helps is that it encourages a different way of using the body, encourages better hips, more use of legs, less likely to be square and double weighted. Wrestlers in gis are in many ways very easy to throw in a gi because they generally lack the hips and leg usage. Interestingly wrestlers with this usually come from countries like Georgia, Khazakstan and other ex soviet republics, where they have jacket wrestling folk styles. 

Lastly training in a jacket produces an understanding of grips, grip fighting and grip breaking that is impossible to get in any other way. With this knowledge it is remarkably easy to stall, frustrate and beat larger, stronger, more athletic and more skilled no-gi wrestlers. Hard to understand why someone wouldn't want to learn to use this knowledge offensively, to understand how to break and overcome cloth gripping defence (which people do naturally when in a defensive grappling situation), and to understand how to use grips to frustrate and win against better opposition defensively?

To sum up, training in the gi is essential as it provides several benefits not available without gi. Most serious grapplers train both gi and no gi, which is the most sensible and comprehensive approach, gaining the benefits of the gi and maintaining familiarity with no gi.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> _Guy_ when I was a kid ages ago, we used to go to wrestling practice wearing gym shorts, T-shirts and tennis shoes. Soon I got knee pads and wrestling shoes (special order back then), but we still wore shorts and T-shirts except for matches. And living in Arizona, that's pretty close to what most people wear, casually at least, day to day.
> 
> I'm not sure where this idea that you can only wrestle naked comes from. Maybe they wrestle differently where you live?



Wrestling doesn't utilise cloth grips. In this way it is not a clothed grappling method. Of course (I hope) you are not actually wrestling naked.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Not true at all. Judo and BJJ gis are strong in order that they can be used repeatedly without breaking, not so that the practitioner becomes reliant upon the strength of them. A person in a t-shirt and shorts still presents multiple handles that can be used against them, as well as having a handy garotte around their neck (much more effective for choking than a thick inflexible gi). In fact ripping weak clothing and bunching it is in some ways better than a purpose made gi in that it is painful and restricts movement much more effectively. Weak clothes can be ripped intentionally and used to rag someone around while restricting arm movement and ability to respond.
> 
> The other great thing about training in clothing is that methods which don't use the clothing (wrestling takedowns and controls, various submissions), need to be made to work with the clothing on, which is much more difficult. In this way applying them while not wearing bulky clothing becomes much easier.
> 
> A third way in which clothing helps is that it encourages a different way of using the body, encourages better hips, more use of legs, less likely to be square and double weighted. Wrestlers in gis are in many ways very easy to throw in a gi because they generally lack the hips and leg usage. Interestingly wrestlers with this usually come from countries like Georgia, Khazakstan and other ex soviet republics, where they have jacket wrestling folk styles.
> 
> Lastly training in a jacket produces an understanding of grips, grip fighting and grip breaking that is impossible to get in any other way. With this knowledge it is remarkably easy to stall, frustrate and beat larger, stronger, more athletic and more skilled no-gi wrestlers. Hard to understand why someone wouldn't want to learn to use this knowledge offensively, to understand how to break and overcome cloth gripping defence (which people do naturally when in a defensive grappling situation), and to understand how to use grips to frustrate and win against better opposition defensively?
> 
> To sum up, training in the gi is essential as it provides several benefits not available without gi. Most serious grapplers train both gi and no gi, which is the most sensible and comprehensive approach, gaining the benefits of the gi and maintaining familiarity with no gi.


Again, I am not saying that clothing isn't a benefit to grappling, where you keep getting that idea is beyond me.  As for the durability of the judogi I know why it is made the way it is and a consequence of that is that it won't rip/tear.  I assume you have never actually had to grapple in anger and/or have the shirt of the resisting opponent rip, rather quickly, to the point that the person was free and that said shirt was now only useful as a garrote, which being lethal force would be a HUGE no no in the vast majority of self defense circumstances.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> That is my entire point, most Judo schools you go to A. Say they teach self defense and B. Train almost exclusively in "uniformed."
> 
> As far as a fully resisting subject if you are in a fight that other person, whether you are a cop or not will be fully resisting, whether it be trying to avoid your punch, getting grabbed/taken down etc.  The only difference between cop and non-cop is that, for the cop, 95% of the time the violence you are dealing with once you go hands on is given violence intended to escape, if you are defending yourself the violence is intended to permit the subject to remain and continue to attack.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


I'm distrustful of anyone who claims to teach self defense.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'll warrant that a cop sees more "fully resisting" subjects (since they have to detain them and the subject knows it), than someone doing SD. But if I'm going for a lock, I wouldn't expect the person NOT to resist unless I manage to slip perfectly into the gaps.


i is agree but that's not going to port to a non cop in a meaningful way.   I don't routinely chase bad guys with my gun and taser.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> As is often the case, I think we differ in a way that may only matter intellectually. How the individual defines "traditional" will affect what "tradition" is is that they value. So, if we combine the essence of my definition with the essence of your observation, they are actually pretty compatible. If someone defines the "tradition" as being the lineage and the way the techniques are done, they're likely to hold that as having higher value than other aspects. For me, "traditional" tends to be more a cultural thing, in that "traditional" martial arts (by my definition) tend to observe some of the cultural rituals from the arts origin, and enjoy some of the ritual found in traditional training techniques, where those techniques are considered effective. So, for me, I have actually wrought some changes on how I deliver the art, added to (and in some senses removed from) what I was taught. However, I've held onto some practices that have alternatives, but the alternatives don't seem to have significant additional value for me, so all else being roughly equal I prefer to keep the tradition, but when there's something I don't think is effective (like the traditional first-aid training, for instance), I replace it (with modern first-aid certification).
> 
> I think that's in line with your observation, given how I personally define "traditional". I'm not sure how much anyone (you included) would/should care - just an intellectual rambling.


I think it matters only in that it helps identify where the conflict is coming from.  Tma is from mars and mma is from Venus.   Or some such.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Again, I am not saying that clothing isn't a benefit to grappling, where you keep getting that idea is beyond me.  As for the durability of the judogi I know why it is made the way it is and a consequence of that is that it won't rip/tear.  I assume you have never actually had to grapple in anger and/or have the shirt of the resisting opponent rip, rather quickly, to the point that the person was free and that said shirt was now only useful as a garrote, which being lethal force would be a HUGE no no in the vast majority of self defense circumstances.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


I've dumped an idiot on his butt using his jacket without a problem.   

I'm curious why you think people only wear t-shirts.   Here in the Seattle area, people wear jackets almost year round.   Maybe its not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it seem.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I'm distrustful of anyone who claims to teach self defense.


I agree, that is why I only ever consider schools that let you "try before you buy."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I've dumped an idiot on his butt using his jacket without a problem.
> 
> I'm curious why you think people only wear t-shirts.   Here in the Seattle area, people wear jackets almost year round.   Maybe its not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it seem.


Well I am not even just talking t-shirts.  I once had my bell rung trying to do a takedown on a guy that weighed a bit over 200 lbs.  The sleeves of his hoodie ripped and I found my head bouncing off the street.  Yes a heavy coat or jacket and you are probably fine but "regular" shirts in general, not just t-shirts, hoodies etc are surprisingly fragile in a real fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> i is agree but that's not going to port to a non cop in a meaningful way.   I don't routinely chase bad guys with my gun and taser.


Agreed. That was my point - I think I missed your original point.


----------



## Steve

Alright.  I think we've hit this one hard enough.  Let's get back to why you guys think there's a need to be recognized as superior in wing chun.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> Wrestling doesn't utilise cloth grips. In this way it is not a clothed grappling method. Of course (I hope) you are not actually wrestling naked.



Western civilization learned many wonderful things from the ancient Greeks. But personally, I am also glad that _wrestling naked_ wasn't one of the traditions we adopted!


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Alright.  I think we've hit this one hard enough.  Let's get back to why you guys think there's a need to be recognized as superior in wing chun.


I don't think any of us said it was "necessary" only that if it is done it is based on a cultural tradition to show respect to one's elders and/or teachers.  Some of us think that's a good thing, others are likely indifferent, some clearly disagree but I don't recall anyone saying it is something that MUST be done.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Alright.  I think we've hit this one hard enough.  Let's get back to why you guys think there's a need to be recognized as superior in wing chun.


Wait, is that why those words keep showing up at the top of my screen??


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> I don't think any of us said it was "necessary" only that if it is done it is based on a cultural tradition to show respect to one's elders and/or teachers.  Some of us think that's a good thing, others are likely indifferent, some clearly disagree but I don't recall anyone saying it is something that MUST be done.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


My general opinion is that if you're training in a school where you don't actually, genuinely respect your instructors, you're in the wrong school.  But that's all I'll really say on that subject, because I admittedly don't understand the intricacies of Chinese culture.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> My general opinion is that if you're training in a school where you don't actually, genuinely respect your instructors, you're in the wrong school.  But that's all I'll really say on that subject, because I admittedly don't understand the intricacies of Chinese culture.



I would definitely agree on your first point.  Why would anyone study under someone they don't see as superior.  I would also argue that the respect should go up the chain so to speak.  Ergo I respect my Sifu, his Sifu and then his Sifu, Sigung William Cheung as my Sifu wouldn't be the teacher he is without them.

That sort of helps to explain part of the general tradition as it is based in large part on filial piety.  In essence my Sifu is my Wing Chun father, his Sifu my Grandfather, then Sigung Cheung my Great Grandfather.  

Speaking of Sigung Cheung, in 2017 he will be coming to visit us.  If people are interested when I get the dates and location(s) I will post em.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> My general opinion is that if you're training in a school where you don't actually, genuinely respect your instructors, you're in the wrong school.  But that's all I'll really say on that subject, because I admittedly don't understand the intricacies of Chinese culture.


Let me add one other reason.  There is a school in the town I work.  I have never studied under the Sifu but when I stop in while on duty I show him respect.  Why?  If his school was about turning a profit of any sort (he takes a loss some months) he would have closed the doors a few years ago.  He keeps the school going because the town is economically depressed and the school not only keeps the kids off the street at night but teaches them discipline and helps instill the confidence needed so the kids can keep themselves out of trouble.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Western civilization learned many wonderful things from the ancient Greeks. But personally, I am also glad that _wrestling naked_ wasn't one of the traditions we adopted!


It depends on with whom I am wrestling.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Again, I am not saying that clothing isn't a benefit to grappling, where you keep getting that idea is beyond me.



I am arguing against the idea that training in a gi is not advantageous for real fighting. On the contrary, it is better. In real life people wear clothes.



> I assume you have never actually had to grapple in anger and/or have the shirt of the resisting opponent rip



You assume wrong.



> to the point that the person was free and that said shirt was now only useful as a garrote, which being lethal force would be a HUGE no no in the vast majority of self defense circumstances.



Choking someone out doesn't result in death if you know what you are doing. In fact it is a remarkably low damage and safe way of stopping an aggressive encounter. It can easily be done against an untrained person with them looking like the aggressor.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> You assume wrong


Then I don't see why you appear to be down playing the issues of using shirts and the like as a "tool" for takedowns on the street because they all too often rip easily and if you use them to "garrote" someone as you put it you are treading on dangerous ground legally.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

T shirts can be used very easily against another person in grappling. They can provide an anchor point for an untrained person to stiff arm against someone trying to grapple, making unclothed grappling methods much harder to pull off and much lower %

If you grab the whole back and bunch it over the near side arm it provides a good grip which also immobilises that arm, excellent entry to a really hard forward throw with one arm out of the way, and hard to break your fall with a wrapped arm. 

If you grab the back with one or both hands you can pull it over and down on the head, obstructing vision, impeding arms, and providing an excellent handle to snap down and grab the waistband, which can then be used for a KO backwards throw like osotogari, or a powerful forwards hip throw

Choking someone out is very friendly, legally speaking, in my experience. It doesn't look like you did anything much. Drunk friend sleeping it off- who cares? A person with grappling experience will not kill anyone doing this, unless they are old and infirm, in which case why are you choking them out?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

anerlich said:


> That and the fact that they are illegal in Olympic judo.


I believe the idea to "let your hand to do your leg job" is not popular in Judo. In another Judo forum, someone asked what the Judo name for the following throwing technique. So far nobody has come up a name for it.

In SC, it's called "手别 (Shou Bie) - hand block" that you use your hand to block your opponent's leg in stead of to use your leg to block your opponent's leg.






More "hand attack leg" SC throws.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> T shirts can be used very easily against another person in grappling. They can provide an anchor point for an untrained person to stiff arm against someone trying to grapple, making unclothed grappling methods much harder to pull off and much lower %
> 
> If you grab the whole back and bunch it over the near side arm it provides a good grip which also immobilises that arm, excellent entry to a really hard forward throw with one arm out of the way, and hard to break your fall with a wrapped arm.
> 
> If you grab the back with one or both hands you can pull it over and down on the head, obstructing vision, impeding arms, and providing an excellent handle to snap down and grab the waistband, which can then be used for a KO backwards throw like osotogari, or a powerful forwards hip throw
> 
> Choking someone out is very friendly, legally speaking, in my experience. It doesn't look like you did anything much. Drunk friend sleeping it off- who cares? A person with grappling experience will not kill anyone doing this, unless they are old and infirm, in which case why are you choking them out?



Well choking people out isn't actually legally friendly unless you can justify that it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.  You are best served saving that for a situation where you are justified in using a deadly weapon.  As for the rest, again, I acknowledge there are uses BUT you gloss over or ignore the disadvantages with things like (paraphrase) "oh if you do rip the shirt use it as a garrote" which is, again, a bad idea from a legal perspective as described above.

Remember there is a BIG difference between a carotid restraint and how a garrote functions.  The wind pipe can be easily crushed in the use of a garrote, where as a properly used carotid restraint simply robs the brain of blood flow and doesn't endanger the airway.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Well choking people out isn't actually legally friendly unless you can justify that it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.  You are best served saving that for a situation where you are justified in using a deadly weapon.  As for the rest, again, I acknowledge there are uses BUT you gloss over or ignore the disadvantages with things like (paraphrase) "oh if you do rip the shirt use it as a garrote" which is, again, a bad idea from a legal perspective as described above.
> 
> Remember there is a BIG difference between a carotid restraint and how a garrote functions.  The wind pipe can be easily crushed in the use of a garrote, where as a properly used carotid restraint simply robs the brain of blood flow and doesn't endanger the airway.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Legally it looks much better to choke an aggressive person out than to punch them repeatedly in the face, especially when played back on CCTV.

I didn't say that you should use the shirt to choke if it rips. I did say that a t-shirt is excellent for chokes, because it is. You can rip a t-shirt intentionally if you like and use to tie up, or you can grab and bunch in places where ripping is unlikely, like the armpit or the whole of the back.

As for the chokes advice? Thanks, I am ok. A "choke" in BJJ is a choke or a strangle. Obviously anyone with any clue is strangling, not crushing windpipes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the idea to "let your hand to do your leg job" is not popular in Judo. In another Judo forum, someone asked what the Judo name for the following throwing technique. So far nobody has come up a name for it.
> 
> In SC, it's called "手别 (Shou Bie) - hand block" that you use your hand to block your opponent's leg in stead of to use your leg to block your opponent's leg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More "hand attack leg" SC throws.


That first one looks similar to a throw we have late in the NGA curriculum. I think that's the first time I've run into it outside that art. Cool to see it!


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Legally it looks much better to choke an aggressive person out than to punch them repeatedly in the face, especially when played back on CCTV.
> 
> I didn't say that you should use the shirt to choke if it rips. I did say that a t-shirt is excellent for chokes, because it is. You can rip a t-shirt intentionally if you like and use to tie up, or you can grab and bunch in places where ripping is unlikely, like the armpit or the whole of the back.
> 
> Lol at your chokes advice. Thanks, I am ok with applying blood chokes.



U used the term garrote, that is a tool for choking.  Now if you said "you can use it to restrain someone that's different but that requires additional specialized training if you wish to do so against an actively resisting subject.

 I am also not questioning your skill in the use of a choke hold, I am saying that a choke hold is often seen as Lethal Force in the US depending on the jurisdiction.  Even if it is not seen as Lethal Force in a particular jurisdiction you still have to be able to show that compromising an airway was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.  As discretion is the better part of valor in my opinion and one should only resort to a choke hold as a last resort for your own legal protection. This may not be an issue where you live but it is an issue where I live.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> U used the term garrote, that is a tool for choking.



Or strangling.



Juany118 said:


> Now if you said "you can use it to restrain someone that's different but that requires additional specialized training if you wish to do so against an actively resisting subject.



I was taking about strangling someone until they lose consciousness in the case of a violent attack. Seems quite reasonable to me. Strangling and choking are both called choking in BJJ.



Juany118 said:


> Even if it is not seen as Lethal Force in a particular jurisdiction you still have to be able to show that compromising an airway was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.



Compromising an airway?

I think you are confused.

Gently "choking" (i.e. strangling) someone out doesn't look like anything on CCTV and most people won't even know what they are looking at. Punching someone in the face definitely looks like a violent assault.


----------



## guy b

We appear to have gone from judo is no good because it wasn't designed for warfare and not lethal enough (I reminded you that judo much more effective than trad ju jitsu due to training method), to judo no good because it uses uniforms and useless without them (I reminded you that people wear clothes and the techniques are actually very applicable to normal and even minimal garb), to judo no good because you will crush someone's windpipe and end up in jail (I reminded you anyone with a clue will be doing blood not air choke, duh, and that battering someone to the ground using your fists also doesn't look too good from a legal perspective).

It sems that you will argue about absolutely anything, even stuff you know nothing about, and never admit when you are wrong, which is often? I'm going to bed now, enough time wasted.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Or strangling.
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about strangling someone until they lose consciousness in the case of a violent attack. Seems quite reasonable to me. Strangling and choking are both called choking in BJJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Compromising an airway?
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Gently "choking" (i.e. strangling) someone out doesn't look like anything on CCTV and most people won't even know what they are looking at. Punching someone in the face definitely looks like a violent assault.


If you choke someone by definition, even if only temporarily, you have compromised the airway.  If the airway wasn't compromised they would not have been robbed of oxygen, hence they would not have blacked out.  

As for the last in essence what you are saying is "it doesn't matter if it's lethal force I can pull it off without it looking like much."

Imo that is a dangerous attitude to have.  Secondly if you are having a straight up fight with a resisting subject and somehow manage to put a "gentle" chokehold on said resisting subject clearly your limb is in a position where the airway is blocked and when they pass out... Yeah it's pretty obvious you applied a choke hold.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> We appear to have gone from judo is no good because it wasn't designed for warfare and not lethal enough (I reminded you that judo much more effective than trad ju jitsu due to training method), to judo no good because it uses uniforms and useless without them (I reminded you that people wear clothes and the techniques are actually very applicable to normal and even minimal garb), to judo no good because you will crush someone's windpipe and end up in jail (I reminded you anyone with a clue will be doing blood not air choke, duh, and that battering someone to the ground using your fists also doesn't look too good from a legal perspective).
> 
> It sems that you will argue about absolutely anything, even stuff you know nothing about, and never admit when you are wrong, which is often? I'm going to bed now, enough time wasted.


No what we had was a conversation that went over, step by step, my issues.  It was noted in this thread, and another, the issue with "sport arts" that are created by the particular rule set.  The uniform is part of that ruleset.  There was little more than clarification.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> We appear to have gone from judo is no good because it wasn't designed for warfare and not lethal enough (I reminded you that judo much more effective than trad ju jitsu due to training method), to judo no good because it uses uniforms and useless without them (I reminded you that people wear clothes and the techniques are actually very applicable to normal and even minimal garb), to judo no good because you will crush someone's windpipe and end up in jail (I reminded you anyone with a clue will be doing blood not air choke, duh, and that battering someone to the ground using your fists also doesn't look too good from a legal perspective, and that you are in a fight so you have to do what you have to do).
> 
> It sems that you will argue about absolutely anything, even stuff you know nothing about, and never admit when you are wrong, which is often? I'm going to bed now, enough time wasted.



Rubbish.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> I'm distrustful of anyone who claims to teach self defense.



Uh oh. When people ask me what I teach, I usually say "self defense". But, you know what, I wouldn't trust me, either. I'm a shady kind of guy.



Steve said:


> I think it matters only in that it helps identify where the conflict is coming from.  Tma is from mars and mma is from Venus.   Or some such.



TMA are from Mars and MMA are from Venus, but McDojos are from Uranus.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> If you choke someone by definition, even if only temporarily, you have compromised the airway. If the airway wasn't compromised they would not have been robbed of oxygen, hence they would not have blacked out.



In BJJ both strangles and chokes are called "chokes". Strangling does not compromise an airway.



Juany118 said:


> Imo that is a dangerous attitude to have. Secondly if you are having a straight up fight with a resisting subject and somehow manage to put a "gentle" chokehold on said resisting subject clearly your limb is in a position where the airway is blocked and when they pass out... Yeah it's pretty obvious you applied a choke hold.



Against someone with no clue what they are doing it is quite easy to choke (i.e. strangle) using the collar without it looking like much and possible to do it very quickly. It isn't deadly force because no irreversible damage happens, they merely lose consciousness. No windpipe crushed, no hyoid bone broken.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> No what we had was a conversation that went over, step by step, my issues. It was noted in this thread, and another, the issue with "sport arts" that are created by the particular rule set. The uniform is part of that ruleset. There was little more than clarification



Your "issues" appear to be based on nothing more than ignorance of grappling. When this is pointed out you just move to a different issue. You appear to lack the ability to admit you didn't know something or that you might have been misinformed.


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Rubbish.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Uh oh. When people ask me what I teach, I usually say "self defense". But, you know what, I wouldn't trust me, either. I'm a shady kind of guy.
> 
> 
> 
> TMA are from Mars and MMA are from Venus, but McDojos are from Uranus.


What does Captain Kirk and toilet paper have in common?   They both orbit Uranus looking for klingons.   

And you don't teach self defense.   You teach people to become killers.


----------



## Flying Crane

guy b said:


> In BJJ both strangles and chokes are called "chokes". Strangling does not compromise an airway.
> 
> 
> 
> Against someone with no clue what they are doing it is quite easy to choke (i.e. strangle) using the collar without it looking like much and possible to do it very quickly. It isn't deadly force because no irreversible damage happens, they merely lose consciousness. No windpiple crushed, no hyoid bone broken.


I'm not sure why I'm even jumping in here, but the loss of consciousness is due to the carotid being pinched, and stopping or at least diminishing the blood flow to the brain.  Block it off for too long, and there most definitely is permanent damage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> And you don't teach self defense.   You teach people to become killers.


You can teach "sport" which is neither self-defense nor killing.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> In BJJ both strangles and chokes are called "chokes". Strangling does not compromise an airway.
> 
> 
> 
> Against someone with no clue what they are doing it is quite easy to choke (i.e. strangle) using the collar without it looking like much and possible to do it very quickly. It isn't deadly force because no irreversible damage happens, they merely lose consciousness. No windpiple crushed, no hyoid bone broken.


I mostly agree, with the exception that, any strangulation involving the carotid artery runs the risk of carotid sinus reflex, which will result in death if one doesn't know how to reopen the carotid. I agree that strangulation involving the airway is potentially more dangerous. Another factor is with cutting off the blood supply to the brain the recipient is likely unaware anything is happening until too late. Airway chokes are immediately noticed and generally cause the recipient to spaz out because they can't breathe, plus there is greater risk to compromising the integrity of the airway.


----------



## Buka

I think other aspects of "clothing" should be taken into consideration. One aspect is heavy winter clothing, which a decent part of the USA wears regularly for months at a time. I'm not talking about using that clothing against the wearer, I'm talking about how it changes the way you move when wearing it. You don't run the same, punch the same, kick the same or even grapple the same. Nothing you can't adjust to, but doing so in an hour of need might not be the best way to go. If you wear something, you should know how it affects your movement.

As for defense - I won't wear a necktie, unless it's a clip on. And most of my life I've lived in hooded sweatshirts (I'm always cold) but take the string out of the hood. Maybe it's over thinking the whole thing, but I go to the school of Stymie.


----------



## guy b

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not sure why I'm even jumping in here, but the loss of consciousness is due to the carotid being pinched, and stopping or at least diminishing the blood flow to the brain



Thanks for your, uh...help?



> Block it off for too long, and there most definitely is permanent damage.



Yes if you keep on strangling people indefinitely then they can die. It happens.


----------



## Juany118

@paitingman I am not saying I agree with the jurisdictions that may consider a choke hold lethal force, only that they do exist and in self defense one must consider the legal issues in your jurisdiction.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not sure why I'm even jumping in here, but the loss of consciousness is due to the carotid being pinched, and stopping or at least diminishing the blood flow to the brain.  Block it off for too long, and there most definitely is permanent damage.



What you describe, at least in my training, is a carotid restraint which is why I mentioned it earlier in a comparison with choke hold/strangulation. A chokehold/strangulation is just that, a compromising of the air way.  Right now the former is still not considered lethal force however there is movement (due to the Gray incident on Staten island) to have all such controls considered lethal force.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I mostly agree, with the exception that, any strangulation involving the carotid artery runs the risk of carotid sinus reflex, which will result in death if one doesn't know how to reopen the carotid. I agree that strangulation involving the airway is potentially more dangerous. Another factor is with cutting off the blood supply to the brain the recipient is likely unaware anything is happening until too late. Airway chokes are immediately noticed and generally cause the recipient to spaz out because they can't breathe, plus there is greater risk to compromising the integrity of the airway.


This was essentially what I was getting at, the last part especially.  There really isn't any "gentle" way to do that.


----------



## paitingman

Juany118 said:


> @paitingman I am not saying I agree with the jurisdictions that may consider a choke hold lethal force, only that they do exist and in self defense one must consider the legal issues in your jurisdiction.



I was mostly disagreeing with your explanation of how chokes work. With many techniques black outs typically occur in under 10 seconds due to lack of oxygen DUE TO LACK OF BLOODFLOW. Typically the AIRways play little to no part in it. 

You seem to be talking about some sort of actual asphyxiation which I agree is very dangerous/questionable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

paitingman said:


> I was mostly disagreeing with your explanation of how chokes work. With many techniques black outs typically occur in under 10 seconds due to lack of oxygen DUE TO LACK OF BLOODFLOW. Typically the AIRways play little to no part in it.
> 
> You seem to be talking about some sort of actual asphyxiation which I agree is very dangerous/questionable.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I said elsewhere my training draws a line between a choke/strangulation and a carotid restraint so I think part of the issue is semantics causing confusion. 

That's not really my point however.  If I was to arrest you in PA for doing either it would be Felony Aggravated Assault, vs Simple assault that you get with other locks and/or strikes.  Depending on the degree of injury the strangulation can be charged as attempted murder which is why I tend to put it up there as lethal force.  That is why I recommend EXTREME caution when using any hold that interferes with oxygen getting to the brain.  If you can't articulate that it was objectively reasonable you can have a serious legal headache.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## anerlich

Wing Chun guys pontificating on chokes and strangulation. And giving legal advice about them. SMH.

A guy spat on former multiple Australian BJJ Champion and UFC fighter Anthony Perosh at a club or somewhere once, way before his MMA career. Anthony double-legged the guy, took him down and put his then 103Kg vertically into a kneeride on the side of the guy's head. He then asked the guy to "APOLOGIZE!" Funnily enough the guy became very apologetic. Fight over. No one injured.


----------



## Steve

Knee on face is a very painful place to be.   I was introduced to that as a white belt by a brown belt who happened to have been a USA alternate Olympic power lifter nicknamed "Crusher."


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> A chokehold/strangulation is just that, a compromising of the air way.



Facepalm


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I think other aspects of "clothing" should be taken into consideration. One aspect is heavy winter clothing, which a decent part of the USA wears regularly for months at a time. I'm not talking about using that clothing against the wearer, I'm talking about how it changes the way you move when wearing it. You don't run the same, punch the same, kick the same or even grapple the same. Nothing you can't adjust to, but doing so in an hour of need might not be the best way to go. If you wear something, you should know how it affects your movement.
> 
> As for defense - I won't wear a necktie, unless it's a clip on. And most of my life I've lived in hooded sweatshirts (I'm always cold) but take the string out of the hood. Maybe it's over thinking the whole thing, but I go to the school of Stymie.


I agree about training at least a bit in different clothing. It doesn't matter if you normally train in a dogi, a pair of compression shorts, or sweats; you should still train from time to time in something else. For me, I actually decided long ago that I'm okay with a real neck tie. It's a risk, for sure, so I try to train with one on from time to time so I can build in the reactions to protect myself around that risk.

I think it's about time for a "street clothes" class. Need to send my students to the thrift shops to find appropriate clothes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> What you describe, at least in my training, is a carotid restraint which is why I mentioned it earlier in a comparison with choke hold/strangulation. A chokehold/strangulation is just that, a compromising of the air way.  Right now the former is still not considered lethal force however there is movement (due to the Gray incident on Staten island) to have all such controls considered lethal force.


I think most folks refer to "blood chokes" and "breath/air chokes" or something similar. I'm not sure if those are scientifically or legally accurate terms, but I hear them a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> Wing Chun guys pontificating on chokes and strangulation. And giving legal advice about them. SMH.
> 
> A guy spat on former multiple Australian BJJ Champion and UFC fighter Anthony Perosh at a club or somewhere once, way before his MMA career. Anthony double-legged the guy, took him down and put his then 103Kg vertically into a kneeride on the side of the guy's head. He then asked the guy to "APOLOGIZE!" Funnily enough the guy became very apologetic. Fight over. No one injured.


The guy giving the legal points isn't giving them as a "Wing Chun guy", but as a police officer. What art he studies (or if he studies one at all) is irrelevant to that information.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> The guy giving the legal points isn't giving them as a "Wing Chun guy", but as a police officer. What art he studies (or if he studies one at all) is irrelevant to that information.



He doesn't know the difference between choking and strangulation, despite it being pointed out several times in black and white on this thread. I think, in light of this, that the info provided is just a bit on the weak side? He also seems to lack any ability to revise his opinions when presented with new information. It all boils down to what google is telling him, yet again, and an unshakeable conviction that he is right, despite demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge.

I know this is an unpopular thing to say, but I would really hate to meet a person with such an inflexible mindset, such massive ego, and such apparent willingness to disregard truth in his job as an LEO. It would be terrifying.

And the police have a great record of applying choke holds to resisting suspects, don't they? Real experts, unlike those stupid BJJ guys.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> The guy giving the legal points isn't giving them as a "Wing Chun guy", but as a police officer. What art he studies (or if he studies one at all) is irrelevant to that information



Also you need to stop being so scrupulously impartial. When one side of an argument is barking mad it just drags you over in that direction.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Wing Chun guys pontificating on chokes and strangulation. And giving legal advice about them. SMH.
> 
> A guy spat on former multiple Australian BJJ Champion and UFC fighter Anthony Perosh at a club or somewhere once, way before his MMA career. Anthony double-legged the guy, took him down and put his then 103Kg vertically into a kneeride on the side of the guy's head. He then asked the guy to "APOLOGIZE!" Funnily enough the guy became very apologetic. Fight over. No one injured.



Well I am a LEO so in terms of my Country and State I think I can give advice on what might get you locked up and why... Just saying.

As for the chokes.  Well I have been trained in them specifically for that job.  I think that may be the difference when it comes to the terminology because choke, strangulation are words I would put in a Criminal Complaint for say a domestic violence incident when I see the bruises from fingers around the victims neck.  However "carotid restraint" certainly sounds better if you are filling out a use of force memo or testifying in court, vs "blood choke" don't ya think? 

Edit:  the reason choke and strangulation can be used in a criminal case interchangeably is because the law focuses more on the "target area" and the fact that regardless of whether you compromise the airway itself or the blood flow to the brain directly, the end effect is the same, you are robbing the brain or oxygen which can cause injury and/or death.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think most folks refer to "blood chokes" and "breath/air chokes" or something similar. I'm not sure if those are scientifically or legally accurate terms, but I hear them a lot.



Yeah, I finally figured that out, the word choke by itself just means strangulation when I see it.  Just about every piece of Appealate case law on "choke holds" refers to the later because unless you are very well trained chances are, against a resisting subject, at best you will end up applying pressure to both the carotid and the airway.

Because of all those cases, and especially because of the Garner case, the terms (and techniques to execute) carotid restraint or sometimes called lateral vascular neck restraint are preferred so there is absolutely NO confusion as to what should be done if you go there.

Thing is a great many Agencies, because in reality even carotid restraints can go sideways, have just said blanket "No" or "only if Lethal Force is Justified" because they are inherently more dangerous.  As an example I once performed a standing arm bar that brought a suspect down BUT dislocated the shoulder and tore soft tissue in the wrist of a resisting subject.  Some would say that went sideways.  Imagine a "choke" of any sort going sideways in a similar manner when it comes to tissue damage.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> He doesn't know the difference between choking and strangulation,



Actually you don't realize that the terms in a BJJ school are not the ones used in a Criminal Case or the power words have to the uninitiated.  As an example NY State actually has a law specifically to address Choking/Strangulation called Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation

How do they define choking?



> applying pressure on the throat or neck of a person, or blocking the nose or mouth, _with intent_ to impede the normal breathing or circulation of blood.



So it doesn't gosh darn matter what you are trying to impede under the law there.  You could say "I wasn't trying to strangle them I was just trying to apply a blood choke" and you still violated this particular statute.  Ultimately this is my point, know your laws before you act.

Due to these statutes, and the perception that 99% of the population has over the word "choke", in my line of work we have particular terms for what WE do and if you do not have the training you don't do certain things period.  This is why I clarified time and again that when I say "choke" I will be referring specifically to strangulation and that a carotid obstruction is a carotid restraint.

But getting back to the law... The NY statute is a perfect example as to why I say be cautious. Unless you can objectively articulate why you did it simply applying pressure with NO effect is a Misdemeanor.



> A  person  is  guilty  of  criminal  obstruction of breathing or blood
> circulation  when,  with  intent to impede the normal breathing or
> circulation of the blood of another person, he or she:
> a. applies pressure on the throat or neck of such person; or
> b. blocks the nose or mouth of such person.




 If it does have even a minor effect....



> A  person  is  guilty of strangulation in the second degree when he or
> she commits the crime of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood
> circulation, as defined in section 121.11 of this article, and _thereby
> causes stupor, loss of consciousness for ANY period of time_, or any
> other physical injury or impairment.



this is a Felony punishable to up to 7 years in Prison.  Also note they use the term strangulation to describe what you claim is NOT strangulation.  Under this particular law choking and strangulation are synonyms.

I get it you like "choke holds" my point is if you don't know the laws where you are, even if you apply it perfectly, you can be screwed.  Some courts may see it as similar to shooting someone over a fist fight.  If you don't apply it perfectly, or the target "zigs" when you thought they were going to "zag" then you will likely be screwed regardless.

*Edit*:  sadly most Martial Arts schools, even those that say they teach self defense, don't have any instruction on how what you are learning can be impacted by law if put into real practice.


----------



## Juany118

Found it kinda funny, and on point, that I just received an email regarding a law that will be effective in 2 weeks.



> *§ 2718.  Strangulation.*
> 
> *(a)  Offense defined.--*A person commits the offense of strangulation if the person knowingly or intentionally impedes the breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by:
> 
> (1)  applying pressure to the throat or neck; or
> 
> (2)  blocking the nose and mouth of the person.


----------



## Buka

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

The phrase from Romeo and Juliet is usually used today to emphasize that the name of something does not affect what it really is. It's just terminology. 

I've been involved with various police departments in multiple states, both on local and Federal levels. Some call an RNC a "carotid restraint", a "lateral neck restraint" " a lateral vascular neck restraint" a "vascular neck restraint" a "cardiovascular restraint" and on and on depending what jurisdiction you're in, and more importantly, who (and when)  wrote up the guide lines concerning the laws of said jurisdiction.  I say "when" because police work is always changing. Twenty years ago slapping on that choke (and you guys know damn well what I'm talking about when I say "choke") could get you fired. That, too, has changed in a lot of places.

Today, you'll find in some departments this terminology - " _it impacts only the circulatory system while at the same time leaving the airway unobstructed and protected during the confrontation." _

And this - _“neck brace principle_" which helps prevent injury to the persons neck by limiting any lateral movement usually associated with high levels of resistance.

And this, on the subject of the offender losing consciousness - _it is a by-product of an offender's high level of resistance, not the intended objective of the officer applying the technique. Officers are taught post-application procedure and protocol for the well-being of the offender._

And as strange as this might sound_, _(my opinion here) one of the reasons the choke is slowly making it's way back into law enforcement isn't because it's awesome (which it is) but it's because the American public is becoming used to seeing it, becoming familiar with it, from watching the UFC and other MMA events on television. They realize nobody's getting killed from it.

Another interesting thing about terminology I found a few years ago while working in a Physical Therapy unit was this - 






The Sleeper Stretch. I thought that was just too cool for school, because as a kid, we only knew a choke as a "sleeper hold".


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> Care to elaborate?



Read the wrong thing. Judo can stil **** though, and in the right hands, lethal enough. Just a different arsenal.


----------



## Juany118

Buka said:


> "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
> 
> The phrase from Romeo and Juliet is usually used today to emphasize that the name of something does not affect what it really is. It's just terminology.
> 
> I've been involved with various police departments in multiple states, both on local and Federal levels. Some call an RNC a "carotid restraint", a "lateral neck restraint" " a lateral vascular neck restraint" a "vascular neck restraint" a "cardiovascular restraint" and on and on depending what jurisdiction you're in, and more importantly, who (and when)  wrote up the guide lines concerning the laws of said jurisdiction.  I say "when" because police work is always changing. Twenty years ago slapping on that choke (and you guys know damn well what I'm talking about when I say "choke") could get you fired. That, too, has changed in a lot of places.
> 
> Today, you'll find in some departments this terminology - " _it impacts only the circulatory system while at the same time leaving the airway unobstructed and protected during the confrontation." _
> 
> And this - _“neck brace principle_" which helps prevent injury to the persons neck by limiting any lateral movement usually associated with high levels of resistance.
> 
> And this, on the subject of the offender losing consciousness - _it is a by-product of an offender's high level of resistance, not the intended objective of the officer applying the technique. Officers are taught post-application procedure and protocol for the well-being of the offender._
> 
> And as strange as this might sound_, _(my opinion here) one of the reasons the choke is slowly making it's way back into law enforcement isn't because it's awesome (which it is) but it's because the American public is becoming used to seeing it, becoming familiar with it, from watching the UFC and other MMA events on television. They realize nobody's getting killed from it.
> 
> Another interesting thing about terminology I found a few years ago while working in a Physical Therapy unit was this -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sleeper Stretch. I thought that was just too cool for school, because as a kid, we only knew a choke as a "sleeper hold".



Pretty much agree.  I also think the familiarity if why States like NY, PA etc are passing specific laws.  It started years ago with Domestic violence victims advocates because usually the grading of an Assault arrest is based on the weapon used or the damage caused and strangulation can leave little overt signs.  Then add in the fact that you have more and more wanna be UFC fighters out there (I have two UFC gyms within a 25 minute drive of my house) and there was even more incentive to directly address the issue on the other end.

I would just add one thing.  I think it becoming more common is a mixed bag, based on the $$$ the Agency is willing to pay.  Those willing to pay for the initial and continuing training see it as a way to limit the use of firearms.  It is not unheard of for the officer who shot someone to say "OC didn't work, the Taser failed, he was so dang high he didn't feel my baton to I had to shoot" or as happened in the mid west recently that whole sequence of events but an officer in a hospital bed say "I didn't shoot because I didn't want to be the next controversy.". So such techniques can help officers, and thus the agency, prevent being the next YouTube sensation.

However it's about the $$$.  Those who aren't willing to spend the $$$$ though, so it is used properly, will either classify it as lethal force (like LAPD) or ban it entirely (NYPD).


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> chances are, against a resisting subject, at best you will end up applying pressure to both the carotid and the airway.



Nope, very easy to apply pressure as required. Granted the police often suffocate people or crush their throats, resulting in horrible death, but that very low level of understanding and execution should not be the standard by which such methods are judged. 



Juany118 said:


> You could say "I wasn't trying to strangle them I was just trying to apply a blood choke" and you still violated this particular statute



If you said that then it would be obvious that you didn't understand the difference between choking and strangling. If a policeman said that then it would be obvious that he also had no clue, which would be quite worrying.



Juany118 said:


> when I say "choke" I will be referring specifically to strangulation and that a carotid obstruction is a carotid restraint.







Juany118 said:


> Found it kinda funny, and on point, that I just received an email regarding a law that will be effective in 2 weeks.



The fact that the people writing the law have as much understanding of the difference between chokes and strangles as you do (i.e. zero) is not something you should feel happy about


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Nope, very easy to apply pressure as required. Granted the police often suffocate people or crush their throats, resulting in horrible death, but that very low level of understanding and execution should not be the standard by which such methods are judged.
> 
> 
> 
> If you said that then it would be obvious that you didn't understand the difference between choking and strangling. If a policeman said that then it would be obvious that he also had no clue, which would be quite worrying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the people writing the law have as much understanding of the difference between chokes and strangles as you do (i.e. zero) is not something you should feel happy about



I am only going to address your last bit because first if you honestly believe that applying a carotid restraint on a fully resisting subject is easy to apply, that is proof you have never experienced it so no sense addressing it further.  Secondly the other things you facepalm over is because I base my language when speaking about how MA techniques are seen by the law on...the law.  They don't apply in your school fine, but I am not talking about, I am talking about the law and there I think is the real problem...you just don't like how you initial point about how it's fine to choke out people is potentially illegal in different places.

The law is written as it is because it tries to avoid gray areas.  As an example if you shoot someone you shot them... The law isn't going to address "oh but he meant to shoot them in the leg" because that invites someone to say "oh I only meant to shoot em in the leg to injure...how did I know it would hit the femur requiring amputation".  The same would apply here.  They don't want to hear "I just wanted to black them out with a 'choke' not "strangle" them and make it so then needed surgery to speak again." 

It is actually as easy to kill with a carotid restraint as it is compromising the airway, arguably easier since people black out more quickly.  The only difference is that it is easier to permanently damage the airway.  Both however can be lethal.  This is why the law is written the way it is.  Two types of "attacks" to the same general area, both of which can result in serious injury or death.  They understand the mechanics.  It's just since the laws being passed undercut your prior argument you need to paint the authors as ignorant.

That last bit really is your raison d'etre.  If someone posts facts contradicting your belief someone else has to be ignorant because you can never be wrong.  On this last point especially it's likely smarter to just say "oh I didn't know some places had laws like that, okay check your local statues."




Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> if you honestly believe that applying a carotid restraint on a fully resisting subject is easy to apply, that is proof you have never experienced it so no sense addressing it further



I have often rendered fully resisting opponents unconscious. In comparison doing the same to a person who doesn't know what they are doing, or what is happening to them is very easy. Obviously though doing so safely and reliably requires a lot of time and effort which police training fails to make up for. Mostly the problem with police restraints is that they are taught in a very basic way without any realistic conception of control, and so all too often law enforcement operatives end up muscling it and hurting or killing people



Juany118 said:


> It is actually as easy to kill with a carotid restraint as it is compromising the airway, arguably easier since people black out more quickly. The only difference is that it is easier to permanently damage the airway. Both however can be lethal.



It is much harder to kill someone by compressing the airway than it is by limiting the blood supply to the brain. But it is much safer to practice limiting the blood supply to the brain than limiting the supply of air, provided you know what you are doing. Recovery from unconsciousness is much more reliable after the limitation is released in the former than the latter.



Juany118 said:


> Both however can be lethal. This is why the law is written the way it is.



You provided evidence that the law in whatever part of the world you live doesn't differentiate between chokes and strangles (air chokes and blood chokes), despite the massive difference between them. This may partially explain your ignorance of the subject, but doesn't make up for all of the wasted time, and I fail to see the relevance.


----------



## Juany118

Nvm


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> I am only going to address your last bit because first if you honestly believe that applying a carotid restraint on a fully resisting subject is easy to apply, that is proof you have never experienced it so no sense addressing it further.



It's not easy, but it's hardly impossible. Between me and the others at my Jiu Jitsu school we've probably done it to each other several hundred times in the last few years. At least. Not just against full resistance, but skilled full resistance. No one was hurt or hospitalised as a result. They regained conscious after a few seconds if they  didn't tap, and jumped straight back in to wrestling again more fired up than before. I got a guy with a RNC this morning at training. Believe me, he was resisting as fully as he possibly could.

People choke/strangle others out in BJJ and MMA competition all the time. And there's no resistance like that of a skilled competitor. I was refereeing at one comp where one poor guy got choked unconscious twice by two different opponents, one by baseball choke, the other by some weird a$$ lapel choke I'd not seen before. He was fine.

People have been applying chokes on each other for over a century at the Kodokan  with no fatalities.

Several instances came up on my Facebook feed in the last few years of women trained in Jiu Jitsu who have successfully strangled would-be rapists unconscious with triangle chokes. Presumably they were prosecuted afterwards for using these deadly techniques :/

I can remember a number of instances where friends of mine have successfully stopped confrontations with rear naked chokes (actually, strangles). None of them were prosecuted, nothing got hurt except pride. IANAL but I'm pretty sure such measures are viewed much more favourably then punching someone in my jurisdiction.

Plenty of people in Sydney doing hard time for punching someone once, them falling down and hitting their head on concrete, and dying as a result.

If you are defending yourself successfully, you are almost certainly going to do stuff to people that would be illegal had they not attacked you. You talk about concern for the law but are practising what a number of people over the years have claimed to be the most deadly martial art in the world, including William Cheung, IIRC. Don't use him as your character reference in court if you hit someone too hard.

Any decent Jiu Jitsu student can tell the difference between an airway choke and a strangle when done to them, and usually when they are doing it to someone else. Mixing the two (blood and airway attacks) is usually the result of poor technique less effective in rendering the person unconscious. Good technique is targeted at a specific result.

Some strangles, like the triangle, are probably impossible to perform as an airway choke. A properly perform rear naked choke is a strangle. An effective RNC will allow the stranglee to keep breathing, but they go unconscious because of the carotid pressure.

The data simply doesn't support your claims, nor does the anecdotal evidence of those who apply such techniques to others regularly, or have the techniques applied to them. Including mine.


----------



## anerlich

gpseymour said:


> The guy giving the legal points isn't giving them as a "Wing Chun guy", but as a police officer. What art he studies (or if he studies one at all) is irrelevant to that information.



The fact that he does Wing Chun rather than a grappling style is relevant to his assertions regarding the differentiations between various choke/strangle techniques and their effects, which I mostly disagree with. From a base of experience using said techniques.

My comments re the law weren't just about him. I am happy to accept his assertions about the law in his jurisdiction. I don't live in the same country, so it's not my particular circus, not my monkeys.


----------



## anerlich

Buka said:


> And as strange as this might sound_, _(my opinion here) one of the reasons the choke is slowly making it's way back into law enforcement isn't because it's awesome (which it is) but it's because the American public is becoming used to seeing it, becoming familiar with it, from watching the UFC and other MMA events on television. They realize nobody's getting killed from it.
> 
> Another interesting thing about terminology I found a few years ago while working in a Physical Therapy unit was this -
> 
> 
> 
> The Sleeper Stretch. I thought that was just too cool for school, because as a kid, we only knew a choke as a "sleeper hold".



Interesting stuff. 

I have an A/C joint separation which gives me pins and needles in the bottom arm if I sleep on that side. Might try that stretch out.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> It's not easy, but it's hardly impossible. Between me and the others at my Jiu Jitsu school we've probably done it to each other several hundred times in the last few years.



I will never deny this.  Been there done that.  My point was only focused on two points.  First, and it pisses off my wife even (I am anal retentive about rules/law), if the law says "it can get your *** in a sling avoid it and in some jurisdictions it does.

Second I was only ever saying "check your local laws". And I am not exaggerating that today I got a legal update via email for my state that says "any hold on the neck if not justified specifically via self defense is a seperate charge tagged onto a "simple" assault.  That was my point.

Check your laws.  If you can go for that neck with no repercussions fine.  But check because there are places where, if you can't explain why you you went there for objective you may be screwed.

Welcome to the USA where 50 different States can come up with 50 different crimes.  Don't mean to seem flippant but it can honestly be that way here.

PS, I study WC AND Kali (FMA) so I also study grappling, you seem to assume since the FMA forum is largely inactive that I only study WC, not true.  Even then my WC via GM William Cheung has Chin Na.  Where this "WC has no grappling" comes from makes my head hurt because I have joints that say otherwise from training.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> I will never deny this.



You implied pretty much the exact opposite.

I'm not in a position to argue about US legalities. Nor in a position to care.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> Been there done that.



If you say so. You've choked someone out at least once every couple of weeks for fifteen years?



Juany118 said:


> Even then my WC via GM William Cheung has Chin Na. Where this "WC has no grappling" comes from makes my head hurt because I have joints that say otherwise from training.



I've been studying that lineage since 1989. William Cheung signed my Gold Sash certificate in 1995. Red Sash in 2011. Whatever your joints and your head say, there's way more to it than that.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> You said pretty much the exact opposite.
> 
> I'm not in a position to argue about US legalities. Nor in a position to care.



On the first point I am not, and never will, talk about in school, training.  We all go to different schools with different attitudes.  I will only speak about application in reality...the person who is saying "you want to actually hurt my/take me to jail.". What happens in a school doesn't come close to that.

As for the last, law in various States of the USA, fine, no worries.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> If you say so. You've choked someone out at least once every couple of weeks for fifteen years?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been studying that lineage since 1989. William Cheung signed my Gold Sash certificate in 1995. Red Sash in 2011. Whatever your joints and your head say, there's way more to it than that.


Then I would suggest the both of us PM each other for reasons I will PM you about became I agree, but I think a personal discussion on our lineage needs some common ground before a public debate occurs.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> On the first point I am not, and never will, talk about in school, training. We all go to different schools with different attitudes. I will only speak about application in reality...the person who is saying "you want to actually hurt my/take me to jail.". What happens in a school doesn't come close to that.



I did mention some real world incidents. Not in a LEO or military context, I concede. Though BJJ seems to be of great interest to many such organisations.

My only interest is civilian self defence.


----------



## Juany118

]


anerlich said:


> I did mention some real world incidents. Not in a LEO or military context, I concede. Though BJJ seems to be of great interest to many such organisations.
> 
> My only interest is civilian self defence.


BJJ is certainly useful, as is the Kali I study along side WC (part of the issue we may have here is I tend to not draw lines between my WC and my Kali but I sent you a video for a little WC grappling to see if that fits with your image).

But my point never was about LE or Civilian application, only "if you study martial arts, check the laws where you live before you do something".  No more, no less.  Basically just "protect yourself physically AND legally.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> The fact that he does Wing Chun rather than a grappling style is relevant to his assertions regarding the differentiations between various choke/strangle techniques and their effects, which I mostly disagree with. From a base of experience using said techniques.
> 
> My comments re the law weren't just about him. I am happy to accept his assertions about the law in his jurisdiction. I don't live in the same country, so it's not my particular circus, not my monkeys.



Those points of law were all I mentioned. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> It's not easy, but it's hardly impossible. Between me and the others at my Jiu Jitsu school we've probably done it to each other several hundred times in the last few years. At least. Not just against full resistance, but skilled full resistance. No one was hurt or hospitalised as a result. They regained conscious after a few seconds if they  didn't tap, and jumped straight back in to wrestling again more fired up than before. I got a guy with a RNC this morning at training. Believe me, he was resisting as fully as he possibly could.
> 
> People choke/strangle others out in BJJ and MMA competition all the time. And there's no resistance like that of a skilled competitor. I was refereeing at one comp where one poor guy got choked unconscious twice by two different opponents, one by baseball choke, the other by some weird a$$ lapel choke I'd not seen before. He was fine.
> 
> People have been applying chokes on each other for over a century at the Kodokan  with no fatalities.
> 
> Several instances came up on my Facebook feed in the last few years of women trained in Jiu Jitsu who have successfully strangled would-be rapists unconscious with triangle chokes. Presumably they were prosecuted afterwards for using these deadly techniques :/
> 
> I can remember a number of instances where friends of mine have successfully stopped confrontations with rear naked chokes (actually, strangles). None of them were prosecuted, nothing got hurt except pride. IANAL but I'm pretty sure such measures are viewed much more favourably then punching someone in my jurisdiction.
> 
> Plenty of people in Sydney doing hard time for punching someone once, them falling down and hitting their head on concrete, and dying as a result.
> 
> If you are defending yourself successfully, you are almost certainly going to do stuff to people that would be illegal had they not attacked you. You talk about concern for the law but are practising what a number of people over the years have claimed to be the most deadly martial art in the world, including William Cheung, IIRC. Don't use him as your character reference in court if you hit someone too hard.
> 
> Any decent Jiu Jitsu student can tell the difference between an airway choke and a strangle when done to them, and usually when they are doing it to someone else. Mixing the two (blood and airway attacks) is usually the result of poor technique less effective in rendering the person unconscious. Good technique is targeted at a specific result.
> 
> Some strangles, like the triangle, are probably impossible to perform as an airway choke. A properly perform rear naked choke is a strangle. An effective RNC will allow the stranglee to keep breathing, but they go unconscious because of the carotid pressure.
> 
> The data simply doesn't support your claims, nor does the anecdotal evidence of those who apply such techniques to others regularly, or have the techniques applied to them. Including mine.



I'm not sure how significant it is from a risk standpoint, but there is a very real difference between applying a choke to a trained partner and someone who doesn't know what you are doing. Resistance Ina BJJ class won't include extreme flailing, unless someone panics, and then you'd probably just let them go. That flailing (due to lack of skill and possibly because they think you're going to really hurt them) can absolutely happen in a defensive situation. 


Gerry Seymour
Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido


----------



## Buka

guy b said:


> Nope, very easy to apply pressure as required. Granted the police often suffocate people or crush their throats, resulting in horrible death, but that very low level of understanding and execution should not be the standard by which such methods are judged.
> 
> 
> 
> If you said that then it would be obvious that you didn't understand the difference between choking and strangling. If a policeman said that then it would be obvious that he also had no clue, which would be quite worrying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the people writing the law have as much understanding of the difference between chokes and strangles as you do (i.e. zero) is not something you should feel happy about



A bit harsh there, bro.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how significant it is from a risk standpoint, but there is a very real difference between applying a choke to a trained partner and someone who doesn't know what you are doing. Resistance Ina BJJ class won't include extreme flailing, unless someone panics, and then you'd probably just let them go. That flailing (due to lack of skill and possibly because they think you're going to really hurt them) can absolutely happen in a defensive situation.



Choke defence in BJJ doesn't include extreme flailing mostly because that isn't a very effective way to defenc chokes.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Those points of law were all I mentioned.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



The problem is I do more than WC, I guess I need to go down everything...again

-Studied and still practice Aikido,
-Studied and still practice Judo
-Studied but no longer practice Ryushinkan
-studied but no longer practice Fencing
-Study and practice WC and Inosanto Kali
-Also a certified instructor in one of the better know LE Combatives systems but everytime I have mentioned such systems at all some trolls have pounced.

The point being simply because I post and mainly comment on WC doesn't mean it's my only experience.  I will never claim to be a "master" of any of the above btw.  I just didn't know I would have to give a personal resume every 4 months to justify my comments.

And sorry if the above sounded snarky, it wasnt focused at any person in particular.


----------



## guy b

edit


----------



## anerlich

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how significant it is from a risk standpoint, but there is a very real difference between applying a choke to a trained partner and someone who doesn't know what you are doing. Resistance Ina BJJ class won't include extreme flailing, unless someone panics, and then you'd probably just let them go. That flailing (due to lack of skill and possibly because they think you're going to really hurt them) can absolutely happen in a defensive situation.
> 
> 
> Gerry Seymour
> Shojin-Ryu, Nihon Goshin Aikido



"Extreme flailing" describes a commonplace defence strategy against chokes employed by just about every big or strong beginner the first month or so they wrestle. They usually just wear themselves out more quickly. Any decent Jiu Jitsu school will teach you to position yourself to avoid elbows and knees, and protect your eyes and other sensitive parts of your anatomy. In the early days of BJJ moving out of Brazil, challenges from opponents of all sizes and skill levels were accepted. Including many exponents of "extreme flailing".

If "extreme flailing" worked better than skilled defence, every instructor of every martial art on the planet would be out of business.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> The problem is I do more than WC, I guess I need to go down everything...again



CV's are not the issue here. You made assertions about the mechanics and utility of chokes and strangles with which I and others disagreed. An argument has to stand on its own, not on the qualifications of the person making it. Without verifiable statistical evidence, we have to argue from viewpoints of anecdotal experience.

You brought up your experience of TWC grappling, which I pointed out I shared. Some d!ck measuring went on, but I don't think I started it.

I believe I gave a fair assessment and critique of your video which you can share if you wish, I won't.

I am happy to accept your knowledge of the law in your area as accurate. My earlier criticism of people giving legal advice on the forum was directed generally, not at you specifically. I have no experience or expertise in such matters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> "Extreme flailing" describes a commonplace defence strategy against chokes employed by just about every big or strong beginner the first month or so they wrestle. They usually just wear themselves out more quickly. Any decent Jiu Jitsu school will teach you to position yourself to avoid elbows and knees, and protect your eyes and other sensitive parts of your anatomy. In the early days of BJJ moving out of Brazil, challenges from opponents of all sizes and skill levels were accepted. Including many exponents of "extreme flailing".
> 
> If "extreme flailing" worked better than skilled defence, every instructor of every martial art on the planet would be out of business.


I wasn't referring to it being a danger to the person doing the choke. It's easy enough to avoid most of that - it's the same positioning you'd need to avoid purposeful use of those same limbs. I was more referring to the danger to the person receiving the blood choke, if they think you're trying to strangle them and start flailing around in panic. Again, I'm not sure if it adds any substantial risk, but it's something to think about when considering chokes (blood and air) for defensive use.


----------



## anerlich

OK, sorry, I get your point now.

Personally, I think that extreme flailing is much more dangerous to the person caught in the context of joint locks rather than chokes. Certainly training safety requires you to be aware of people hurting themselves and give up the hold and move on to something else.

In a defence situation, My safety would come before my assailant's. Though dealing with a badly behaved drunk acquaintance might require a different approach to dealing with a criminal attempting a violent assault.


----------



## Nobody Important

I could be off base here, but, I think the issue surrounding chokes/strangulation is how they are viewed by the law. If I'm not mistaken their use can be looked upon as use of lethal force. This brings up the issues of trained vs. untrained and the incidences that have ended in death, by civilian & LEO employing those types of techniques in situations where use of lethal force isn't warrented, but instead restraint. I'm not a LEO, but have used local police to help instruct defense programs. Laws may have changed since, but last I knew, using chokes & strangulation we're highly frowned upon in situations deemed non life threatening, especially by trained individuals who will be held to a higher standard in a court of law.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> CV's are not the issue here. You made assertions about the mechanics and utility of chokes and strangles with which I and others disagreed. An argument has to stand on its own, not on the qualifications of the person making it. Without verifiable statistical evidence, we have to argue from viewpoints of anecdotal experience.
> 
> You brought up your experience of TWC grappling, which I pointed out I shared. Some d!ck measuring went on, but I don't think I started it.
> 
> I believe I gave a fair assessment and critique of your video which you can share if you wish, I won't.
> 
> I am happy to accept your knowledge of the law in your area as accurate. My earlier criticism of people giving legal advice on the forum was directed generally, not at you specifically. I have no experience or expertise in such matters.



I agree with you gave a fair assessment of the video.  I guess I was just remembering another thread where others, not you, said WC has no grappling. it was wrong of me to project in such a manner.

However my description of the technique simply boiled down to a few things.  Maybe if I explain them as bullet points it will make more sense.

-part of the issue was semantics.  From my training I just don't refer to it as a choke, so when I saw choke I was thinking "air choke." That seemed to be the source of most of the issue.
-When I speak about applying a proper carotid restraint being hard I mean to include the whole process of getting there as well with a fully resisting suspect, not simply the application of the restraint itself.  I at least, one on one, find it far easier to set up arm and even leg restraints.

- when I refer to it being dangerous I meant it a few ways.  First is because you have to be damn careful not to take it to far and in a real self defense situation it can be hard to stop short of "red lines.". If you cross a red line with this maneuver (vs joint locks) you can cause death and or TBI.  Second if that guy zigs instead of zags and/or you screw up it can go REALLY sideways.  it's not that the technique is a guaranteed killer its user error and also what @gpseymour explained better than I could regarding he actions of the "target" making it go sideways.

- legally it can put even civilians on iffy ground due to new legislation.  If you black someone out using the technique and the investigators determine a hold like that wasn't justified by the level of force you are confronting you can face not only more serious but additional charges in some jurisdictions.

Because of th I just don't recommend it short of lethal force. This is one of the reasons many LE Agencies have it on the same level as lethal force or ban its use out right.

If you disagree with the above, cool, no biggie, it's just my experience and mileage there varies BUT regardless I suggest people look to the laws of their jurisdiction before using such techniques due to changing laws.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't referring to it being a danger to the person doing the choke. It's easy enough to avoid most of that - it's the same positioning you'd need to avoid purposeful use of those same limbs. I was more referring to the danger to the person receiving the blood choke, if they think you're trying to strangle them and start flailing around in panic. Again, I'm not sure if it adds any substantial risk, but it's something to think about when considering chokes (blood and air) for defensive use.




People generally dont flail when they get choked unconscious in the streetz.

Freeze up more than anything.

Tryangle choke with added eye gouge defence.






kangaroos choking each other out.





even cutting off the windpipe from the front where in theory they have both hands free. People generally dont do anything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> People generally dont flail when they get choked unconscious in the streetz.
> 
> Freeze up more than anything.
> 
> Tryangle choke with added eye gouge defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kangaroos choking each other out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even cutting off the windpipe from the front where in theory they have both hands free. People generally dont do anything.


Interesting. I wonder what drives that response. Any idea if that's pretty universal, or just the most common response?


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. I wonder what drives that response. Any idea if that's pretty universal, or just the most common response?


Well part of that response (and it can happen) is instinct.  When your head/neck is controlled your body kinda says "don't break your own neck".  The problem is the only times I have felt the need to apply such a restraint (my PD's policy has that as a "red zone" so it's a last resort thing to begin with for the reasons I noted) is when they are so damn high on something that the instinct simply didn't kick in and they kept flailing making things VERY dicey.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. I wonder what drives that response. Any idea if that's pretty universal, or just the most common response?



I think it is pretty universal. Saves oxygen a bit or something.

Or a dominance thing like with dogs.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well part of that response (and it can happen) is instinct.  When your head/neck is controlled your body kinda says "don't break your own neck".  The problem is the only times I have felt the need to apply such a restraint (my PD's policy has that as a "red zone" so it's a last resort thing to begin with for the reasons I noted) is when they are so damn high on something that the instinct simply didn't kick in and they kept flailing making things VERY dicey.



I have still shut down guys via the wind pipe who were on drugs.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> I have still shut down guys via the wind pipe who were on drugs.


Oh it's doable, just saying they tend to be the ones who keep flailing and dont instinctively lock up so you have to be careful to not cause unintended injury.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## anerlich

A few informed opinions I have heard have it that they go out quicker under the influence of drugs. Have not done experiments myself.


----------



## Transk53

anerlich said:


> A few informed opinions I have heard have it that they go out quicker under the influence of drugs. Have not done experiments myself.



Mark Kerr The Smashing Machine. A good place to start!


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> A few informed opinions I have heard have it that they go out quicker under the influence of drugs. Have not done experiments myself.


If you apply the hold they can indeed drop faster depending on what they are on.  The problem is that they tend to flail about more even when the hold is engaged until they "go under".  That increases the risk of injury, even if they drop more quickly and so I think this is something to be aware of because if spinal trauma results and one can't articulate that the risk of that injury wasn't objectively reasonable based on what you faced, then the technique used may be seen as "overkill" legally and you have headaches. 

Again, not saying "don't do it" rather simply "be prepared" that a person may not react to a hold on the street, the way your opponent does on the mat or in the ring.    

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------

