# So an interesting thing happened to me today...



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

I recently got into a debate with a celebrity "Kung Fu Expert" who doesn't believe in the effectiveness of Traditional Martial Arts he has competed in MMA events and studied TMA and done TV Shows for major TV networks.   For someone who has studied so much about Martial Arts, one would think he would be more humble and more open to learning.  Which brings me to my recent enlightenment about Kung Fu in respect to my new perspective of it and the problem of it being effective.  One word.  ARROGANCE

I'm starting to think that too many TMA people make the assumption that just because they know a lot of things that they know everything. I was told that my by this person that my opinion of martial art had no value because I have never competed as a Professional Fight or MMA fight.  And that kung fu has no grappling.  On top of that he has a Degree in Martial Arts and since I do not have one.  I do not know what I'm talking about.  Yep.  It turns out that they offer Martial Arts Degrees in China.  The concept is completely crazy to me unless it's a Degree that is based on the History of Martial arts and not one's actual ability to use the stuff.

If this guy is a representation of what martial arts has become in China then TMA as a valid fighting system will soon be dead in China.  The government would have succeeded in killing off martial arts as a fighting system in their country. There will only be pockets of valid fighting martial arts in small villages.  If this is what the MMA vs Tai Chi guy is upset about then I can see why he's so pissed off.

Nothing is so disappointing as a TMA martial artist who studies martial arts and never tries to use any of the techniques that he spent a large portion of his life and time in free sparring or sports fighting.  I watch his professional fight videos and not a bit of martial arts was done outside the basic kicks, punches found in TMA.   

Much respect to all those who actually try to use the techniques they train.  Help keep your art alive and don't abandon it, especially if you do a TMA.  Don't contribute to the perception that Martial Arts is only good for health and that TMA is useless.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> And that kung fu has no grappling.


Kung Fu has grappling and it's called "Chinese wrestling".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Kung Fu has grappling and it's called "Chinese wrestling".


You would think someone who has a Degree in Martial arts would know this.  Below is a statement he made to me in response and this is when it truly became clear at just how big of an impact China's government has had on the direction of Martial Arts as only being good for health and not for fighting.   It makes me wonder just how much Martial arts are they really learning?  Are they just learning forms for performances or do they actually understand how to apply martial arts techniques, beyond Sanda.   

"the Kung Fu guys trained sperately from san da because they would stand no bloody chance at all in a fight and both the kung fu and san da guys admit that the wrestlers would destroy them and when they would all cross train together in MMA, the shake out was exactly as described above. Shanghai University of Sport Wu Shu Department, class of 2016."


----------



## MA_Student (Aug 29, 2017)

If that's his opinon he's entitled to it just as you're entitled to yours. If he thinks it's useless that's up to him. I personally don't care at all what people think of the styles I train I just do what I do and let people think what they want


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

I can agree with your reaction to his arrogance, but I'm curious about this:



JowGaWolf said:


> Nothing is so disappointing as a TMA martial artist who studies martial arts and never tries to use any of the techniques that he spent a large portion of his life and time in free sparring or sports fighting. I watch his professional fight videos and not a bit of martial arts was done outside the basic kicks, punches found in TMA.



If he used basic kicks and punches, those are techniques from his MA. Why is it disappointing that he didn't use other techniques? I would assume he was using what he found to be most useful. If I were to train for that kind of open competition, there are entire swaths of my art that would not be best suited. Many of them might be useful, but only if the right situation presented (so they are less likely to be seen), while a small core would be very likely to show up on a regular basis.


----------



## MA_Student (Aug 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I can agree with your reaction to his arrogance, but I'm curious about this:
> 
> 
> 
> If he used basic kicks and punches, those are techniques from his MA. Why is it disappointing that he didn't use other techniques? I would assume he was using what he found to be most useful. If I were to train for that kind of open competition, there are entire swaths of my art that would not be best suited. Many of them might be useful, but only if the right situation presented (so they are less likely to be seen), while a small core would be very likely to show up on a regular basis.


Agreed the basic punches and kicks are the main focus of martial arts. All the fancy stuff is good to learn and could be useful but really the basics are the most important things. No one can use everything they learn it's about what works for you. Maybe the op can use stuff from Kung fu more and the guy he's talking about is just more comftorble using his basics. Nothing wrong with that at all in my eyes


----------



## MA_Student (Aug 29, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Disagreed with the bold part, what if you do Jujitsu or some other grapling art?
> 
> I agree on the part about the basics, my teacher always told me that advanced techniques are just refined basics and polished principles.


This thread is about striking arts so in relation to Kung fu or any other striking it is


----------



## MA_Student (Aug 29, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Read the bold part, you suggest it's the basis of all martial arts.


Did I say it's the basis of all martial arts. This thread is about striking martial arts so I was talking about striking arts. Nitpicking much lol


----------



## MA_Student (Aug 29, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Maybe specify yourself better next time?


Yes boss


----------



## Danny T (Aug 29, 2017)

Don't care who it is or what level of fame or skills:
1. Learning a Martial Art is more than just learning to fight & fighting is not learning a martial art.
2. Learning a Martial Art is more than just learning self defense & self defense is not learning a martial art.
3. Learning a Martial Art is more than just becoming fit & becoming fit is not learning a martial art.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> If that's his opinon he's entitled to it just as you're entitled to yours. If he thinks it's useless that's up to him. I personally don't care at all what people think of the styles I train I just do what I do and let people think what they want


that was his professional opinion based on his studies, his degree in Martial arts, and the books he's written.  A lot that he and I discussed sounds very similar to what the Chinese government states about the function and purpose of Martial Arts. 

I pretty much told him the same thing that my martial arts training doesn't require that I be an expert.  It only requires that I train hard and train honestly. 

Stuff like that in relation to my skill set doesn't bother me. For me this is a bigger picture in reference to how knowledge is passed.  I'm starting to wonder if if knowing how to fight isn't the real danger that China has feared.  I'm starting to think that is the confidence that people get as a by product of knowing how to fight. Everyone that I've met who knows how to fight have strong characters and they are less likely to be intimidated.  These are the same things that the MMA  guy from the MMA vs Tai Chi displayed.  In other countries people may call that independence / freedom/ rights as a citizen, but China is a communist country so maybe it's that spirit that the government tries to crush.   I don't know.  Maybe I just had a higher expectation of what I thought I would hear from a place that considers themselves to be a university of kung fu.  



Malos1979 said:


> I would like to see a name, who is this so called celebrity?


I may show his video one day but not in this thread and not in this context.  After I read his comment last night I've decided to flush his conversation out of my mind and to focus on more positive stuff that helps me to better understand kung fu specifically and martial arts in general.  



gpseymour said:


> If he used basic kicks and punches, those are techniques from his MA. Why is it disappointing that he didn't use other techniques? I would assume he was using what he found to be most useful. If I were to train for that kind of open competition, there are entire swaths of my art that would not be best suited. Many of them might be useful, but only if the right situation presented (so they are less likely to be seen), while a small core would be very likely to show up on a regular basis.


 These were basic kicks and punches that aren't defined by a Martial Art System.  It was that generic looking kicking and punching.  He had some decent wrestling / grappling skills which he used a lot.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

I've had a chance to speak with a lot of Martial Artist that I would consider to be very knowledgeable in their system and in martial arts in general.  I appreciate that you guys stay true to your system and not toss the techniques away as being something that "Doesn't work."   It's so important that you as a martial artist keep and spread your knowledge of functional martial arts.   Historical European Martial Arts has shown just how difficult it is to get that knowledge back once it's lost.   While this post is in reference to martial arts it also applies to other things in life as well.   Write your knowledge and understanding of Martial Arts down in a journal, keep it updated and make sure your knowledge and understanding of functional martial arts survives.  Don't let it fade into the dark shadow of nothing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Disagreed with the bold part, what if you do Jujitsu or some other grapling art?
> 
> I agree on the part about the basics, my teacher always told me that advanced techniques are just refined basics and polished principles.


I think he was referring to the striking arts. It's a reasonable analogue for the basic movements in BJJ, Judo, or any other grappling art, as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've had a chance to speak with a lot of Martial Artist that I would consider to be very knowledgeable in their system and in martial arts in general.  I appreciate that you guys stay true to your system and not toss the techniques away as being something that "Doesn't work."   It's so important that you as a martial artist keep and spread your knowledge of functional martial arts.   Historical European Martial Arts has shown just how difficult it is to get that knowledge back once it's lost.   While this post is in reference to martial arts it also applies to other things in life as well.   Write your knowledge and understanding of Martial Arts down in a journal, keep it updated and make sure your knowledge and understanding of functional martial arts survives.  Don't let it fade into the dark shadow of nothing.


This is why I teach martial arts.

It's also why I coach and teach managers.


----------



## jobo (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've had a chance to speak with a lot of Martial Artist that I would consider to be very knowledgeable in their system and in martial arts in general.  I appreciate that you guys stay true to your system and not toss the techniques away as being something that "Doesn't work."   It's so important that you as a martial artist keep and spread your knowledge of functional martial arts.   Historical European Martial Arts has shown just how difficult it is to get that knowledge back once it's lost.   While this post is in reference to martial arts it also applies to other things in life as well.   Write your knowledge and understanding of Martial Arts down in a journal, keep it updated and make sure your knowledge and understanding of functional martial arts survives.  Don't let it fade into the dark shadow of nothing.


but there seems a fair % of doesn't work in a lot of tmas, what is the purpose of retaining such techniques, they won't work just as well in another 50 years


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> but there seems a fair % of doesn't work in a lot of tmas, what is the purpose of retaining such techniques, they won't work just as well in another 50 years


There are some techniques in NGA that I teach as "esoteric techniques". They actually work, but you'd never choose them except in some really squirrely instances. Their main use, IMO, is to help train (usually advanced students) in some specific concept. Their practice adds utility to other techniques, so they - though they are taught and practiced as techniques - function as drills in my curriculum. I make sure I explain their purpose to students when they learn them - I don't want them trying to work out how to "get to" those techniques in any realistic fashion.


----------



## jobo (Aug 29, 2017)

we have spent the last god knows how many weeks, working our way through a higher level kata, 20 odd techniques at one a,week, with out actually counting, i estimate that 50% of them are good usable skills, 25%might be ok if you had the reactions of a cobra and 25% will get you badly hurt.

why are we doing them? They are in the kata, why are they in the kata? Nobody knows, they just are


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> we have spent the last god knows how many weeks, working our way through a higher level kata, 20 odd techniques at one a,week, with out actually counting, i estimate that 50% of them are good usable skills, 25%might be ok if you had the reactions of a cobra and 25% will get you badly hurt.
> 
> why are we doing them? They are in the kata, why are they in the kata? Nobody knows, they just are



Sounds like you need to be looking at what Iain Abernethy does, or at least your instructors do because there's nothing in the katas that should be unless of course your instructors have made their own up or added/subtracted moves from traditional ones.
The Pinan / Heian Series as a Fighting System: Part One | Iain Abernethy


----------



## jobo (Aug 29, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Sounds like you need to be looking at what Iain Abernethy does, or at least your instructors do because there's nothing in the katas that should be unless of course your instructors have made their own up or added/subtracted moves from traditional ones.
> The Pinan / Heian Series as a Fighting System: Part One | Iain Abernethy


well that my point, if you are doing TRADITIONAL ma then you do traditional kata and traditional kata contains fantasy moves, if you throw them out, then the knowledge is lost, as was being claimed by the op and it's no longer traditional


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> but there seems a fair % of doesn't work in a lot of tmas, what is the purpose of retaining such techniques, they won't work just as well in another 50 years


That's why I said "functional martial arts" in my statement.  If the technique is only for show and entertainment then those aren't at risk because they don't fall into the scope of "functional martial arts.".  Things like that can be made up and often are.  It's the real stuff that takes many years to create and with each generation those techniques are improved upon.  Those type of things are at risk for being lost. Even the techniques that help train and condition the body, so that the fighting techniques can be functional should be treasured.  Once these things are lost then it's like trying to reinvent the wheel, people literally have to start over from scratch to try to figure stuff out.  It's not a guarantee that people do today can figure out things from the past.  As good as our ability to build tall buildings is, they still can't figure out how pyramids were actually made.  Sometimes martial arts is just like that, the knowledge becomes lost for ever and that's a shame.   The only thing stuff like that shows is that we (as humans) weren't smart enough to recorded and too dumb to figure it out from scratch after it was lost.


----------



## jobo (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's why I said "functional martial arts" in my statement.  If the technique is only for show and entertainment then those aren't at risk because they don't fall into the scope of "functional martial arts.".  Things like that can be made up and often are.  It's the real stuff that takes many years to create and with each generation those techniques are improved upon.  Those type of things are at risk for being lost. Even the techniques that help train and condition the body, so that the fighting techniques can be functional should be treasured.  Once these things are lost then it's like trying to reinvent the wheel, people literally have to start over from scratch to try to figure stuff out.  It's not a guarantee that people do today can figure out things from the past.  As good as our ability to build tall buildings is, they still can't figure out how pyramids were actually made.  Sometimes martial arts is just like that, the knowledge becomes lost for ever and that's a shame.   The only thing stuff like that shows is that we (as humans) weren't smart enough to recorded and too dumb to figure it out from scratch after it was lost.


but they are only at risk of being lost if they are low% moves that people won't use in actual combat, if that's the case then they a) arnt functional and b) are no actual loss to the world


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> if you are doing TRADITIONAL ma then you do traditional kata and traditional kata contains fantasy moves,


I do traditional martial arts and there's no fantasy in the forms that are found in Jow Ga kung fu.  All of it is functional form the beginning to the end. Jow Ga kung fu is not the only system that is like this, so it's not something that makes Jow Ga unique in terms of function.   There is a lot of Wushu promoted by the Chinese government that is for show and they have even said as much from their own mouths.  Just based on the conversation I had with the "Expert"  it appears that Wushu is the "Standard of Kung Fu" in the eyes of many Chinese, but there are some old skool Kung Fu practitioners who would never try to do the precision performances that we often see with Wushu.  To give you an example, in terms of flashy moves.  This is a Wushu competition.





Traditional Martial Arts aren't known for being flashy like that. Here' a good Jow Ga 2 man staff set.  Not flashy in comparison to the first video.  All of the  stuff in the set is practical and something that you could actually use.





There are a lot of Traditional Martial Arts systems out there that don't do the flips and don't have wasted movements by doing things that one wouldn't or couldn't do in a real fight fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> but they are only at risk of being lost if they are low% moves that people won't use in actual combat, if that's the case then they a) arnt functional and b) are no actual loss to the world


 I agree.  Which is why those move are important as well.  If a practitioner isn't good at a move then he shouldn't throw it away.  He or she may have a student that can actually be good at some of the techniques that the instructor wasn't good at.  I'll use myself and my Sifu as an example.  My Sifu doesn't care much for sweeps, he never liked them and he likes them even less now that he has knee troubles from an unrelated martial art injury.   But for me.  I'm pretty good with sweeps.  I love them and I use them.  Sweeps fit well with my fighting strategy of fighting.  Had my Sifu thrown away his knowledge of sweeps just because he didn't like to use them,  then I would have never learn those techniques and I would have never become good at it.  Regardless of how well my Sifu uses the sweep didn't matter to him.  It's a functional technique so he kept it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> we have spent the last god knows how many weeks, working our way through a higher level kata, 20 odd techniques at one a,week, with out actually counting, i estimate that 50% of them are good usable skills, 25%might be ok if you had the reactions of a cobra and 25% will get you badly hurt.
> 
> why are we doing them? They are in the kata, why are they in the kata? Nobody knows, they just are


My school isn't like that and I've seen other schools that aren't like that in terms of needing the reactions of a cobra.  Much of what I've personally learned in terms of pulling a technique off is more about triggering a known reaction from the opponent and using the technique to exploit the reaction.  I personally teach students that they will have a slow success rate of techniques is they are always trying to react and anticipate what their opponent is trying to do.  I make it a point that the students understand that they need to control a fight.   If my opponent throws a jab at my face then it's because I wanted him to do so, and not because he made that decision on his own.   If I try to make my opponent strike my face and he kicks me in the stomach instead, then that is my warning that I'm no longer dictating what my opponent is doing and that my opponent now controls the fight.

I don't know the system that you are training but it sounds like you are:
1. good at 50% of what you know
2. Too slow or haven't mastered the timing required for 25% or what you know  (keep in mind you only need to be faster than your opponent not everyone is going to be faster than you)
3. You don't fully understand the last 25% yet, lack the capabilities needed for the last 25%, or the last 25% is actually junk.

I understand that schools are different so if there is something that is truly useless and is just for entertainment, then don't worry about saving that entertainment piece.  It's much easier to create an entertainment component than to create a functional component.   Entertainment only has to look good.  Function has to take into consideration a wide set of issues and is often only functional within a small area of opportunity.


----------



## jobo (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> My school isn't like that and I've seen other schools that aren't like that in terms of needing the reactions of a cobra.  Much of what I've personally learned in terms of pulling a technique off is more about triggering a known reaction from the opponent and using the technique to exploit the reaction.  I personally teach students that they will have a slow success rate of techniques is they are always trying to react and anticipate what their opponent is trying to do.  I make it a point that the students understand that they need to control a fight.   If my opponent throws a jab at my face then it's because I wanted him to do so, and not because he made that decision on his own.   If I try to make my opponent strike my face and he kicks me in the stomach instead, then that is my warning that I'm no longer dictating what my opponent is doing and that my opponent now controls the fight.
> 
> I don't know the system that you are training but it sounds like you are:
> 1. good at 50% of what you know
> ...


let's look at the 25% not fast enough.
one techneque was that your opoinent throw a right hand at you, you duck under the punch to your left, you right hand goes up to their ear and then you trap the punching hand, run your left arm up and get them in a neck twist,

ducking punches is a bad idea( unless you are FM), you tend to walk right in to a left hand or  a knee in the face, by the time you  have ducked a good opoinent isn't there any more, at the very least the,arm is no longer extends for you to trap.

if you were supper fast or you attacker was supper slow, maybe, but otherwise it a very low. % move

it depend on the old, hold your arm out straight whilst i trap it stuff


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> one techneque was that your opoinent throw a right hand at you, you duck under the punch to your left, you right hand goes up to their ear and then you trap the punching hand, run your left arm up and get them in a neck twist



That works perfectly every time!........ with a non resisting complaint partner so that the two of you walk away believing that they are now able to defend anything.

What we do with our karate bunkai though isn't like that, non resisting only lasts as long as it takes for you to work out the technique then it's hurt time. The tori makes an unplanned attack and uke defends it using techniques from kata. Our kata isn't fancy but the bunkai works.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> let's look at the 25% not fast enough.
> one techneque was that your opoinent throw a right hand at you, you duck under the punch to your left, you right hand goes up to their ear and then you trap the punching hand, run your left arm up and get them in a neck twist,


 would this technique be possible if you baited this punch.  This would mean that you know the punch is coming and how it will come.  This means that your brain isn't trying to figure out what to do.  It almost becomes like a demo at this point.   You know what punch he's going to throw and how fast he's going to throw the punch.  Is this technique one that can be done against someone trying to throw a punch combo?  Or is this punch something that you would do against people who like to throw a lot of single punches and range finders?  Can you do this technique against someone who doesn't have fast punching speeds?   Is this technique done at long range or is it something that should be applied at closer ranges just inside the point of contact, meaning that if you don't duck then you get punched in the face.  Is the technique an initial technique that you set up or is this a recovery technique that you do after ducking a punch naturally?  Is this technique being used against the correct punch or does it work better against different types of punches, say a punch that goes across the body like a hay maker?   Is there a certain way you need to duck in order to give your opponent the illusion that you are going for their legs but in reality, which stalls the decision process of throwing the left punch to the face?   Does the technique works if you go to the right instead of the left?   These are things that just pop up to mind when trying to figure what you describe as not being fast enough. 

I would have to actually see the technique to analyze and figure out in what context the technique may work, but as you can see there is quite a bit that comes to mind right away.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> That works perfectly every time!........ with a non resisting complaint partner so that the two of you walk away believing that they are now able to defend anything.
> 
> What we do with our karate bunkai though isn't like that, non resisting only lasts as long as it takes for you to work out the technique then it's hurt time. The tori makes an unplanned attack and uke defends it using techniques from kata. Our kata isn't fancy but the bunkai works.


I'm like that as well in terms of working out a technique.  I've failed at many of my techniques before I got them right.  But all of them I had to actually put my understanding of a technique to the test.   A lot of times getting hit works better than visualizing being hit.  If I fail, I don't discount the technique.  I just go back to analyzing the technique and what I may be doing wrong.  There have been a couple of times where I learned different applications of a technique by accident (not trying) simply because I was working on a technique I was having trouble with.

It's definitely necessary to play with the techniques and eat a few punches and or kicks.  I don't see how any of this can really be learned with just drills.  Fighting is just so fluid and each person moves differently which often times changes which techniques one may be able to use.  So getting in there for that "pain" is just part of the learning.  Granted it's not necessary to kill each other but there will be some discomfort.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting is just so fluid and



I think we may train with different aims though. For fight training we do a lot of sparring as well as practising fighting techniques such as speeding up strikes or making them stronger. In kata bunkai though we are training for self defence not fighting. Ours is karate kata and karate is designed for unarmed civilian self defence. 
One of the things Iain Abernethy will tell you is that in a self defence situation his first technique is to punch his attacker out ( he's a strong puncher) if he hasn't dropped them then his fallback is bunkai. However he's very experienced and has most techniques off so that he can do them instructively regardless of which hand they use etc. We are working on that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> my teacher always told me that advanced techniques are just refined basics and polished principles.


In CMA, an advance techniques can be

1. set up - such as to use a groin kick to set up a face punch.
2. combo - such as a front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick, spin back fist combo.
3. multiple defense - such as to block a kick, block a punch, ...
4. ...



jobo said:


> well that my point, if you are doing TRADITIONAL ma then you do traditional kata and traditional kata contains fantasy moves, if you throw them out, then the knowledge is lost, as was being claimed by the op and it's no longer traditional



With some MA knowledge, you can find a lot of valuable information from a fancy move.

One day I watch a preying mantis teacher taught his class in the park. His beginner students were doing something while one of his older student was doing a "3 steps 8 moves" combo. That "3 steps 8 moves" combo impressed me so much and I decide to steal that information. After I had digested that information, I then realized how smart our ancestor were when they creates those fancy moves.

If I try to create a modern form today, I don't think I can create one as good as that ancient form creator did.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2017)

It seems to me that a whole lot of people want to dictate to everyone else where their limits are.

Weird.  We see it a lot.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 29, 2017)

Being good in one or two ranges(out of four, grappling, trapping boxing and kicking) is cool and all, up till the point you end up at a range you aren't trained for and the other guy is. Most TMA tend to stay at either kicking and punching range(karate, tkd, most northern style Kung fu,etc), or trapping and grappling range(judo, jjj, wc), but very few incorporate all 4 in any meaningful way.

This is to say nothing of what striking or grappling style is more effective than the next, but that's been done to death.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> we have spent the last god knows how many weeks, working our way through a higher level kata, 20 odd techniques at one a,week, with out actually counting, i estimate that 50% of them are good usable skills, 25%might be ok if you had the reactions of a cobra and 25% will get you badly hurt.
> 
> why are we doing them? They are in the kata, why are they in the kata? Nobody knows, they just are



What kata?

Most kata interpretations are instructor specific. You may find that other people make those same kata techniques work more easily.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Nothing is so disappointing as a TMA martial artist who studies martial arts and never tries to use any of the techniques that he spent a large portion of his life and time in free sparring or sports fighting.


If you have never carried a dagger in your boots, you may never use this move in your life time. It such a beautiful move that you

- grab your opponent with your left hand.
- raise your right knee.
- use your right hand to pull out a dagger from your boots,
- stab your dagger onto your opponent's chest.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

Update on my original post.  And something for others to think about if they find themselves in a Similar s


Tez3 said:


> I think we may train with different aims though. For fight training we do a lot of sparring as well as practising fighting techniques such as speeding up strikes or making them stronger. In kata bunkai though we are training for self defence not fighting. Ours is karate kata and karate is designed for unarmed civilian self defence.
> One of the things Iain Abernethy will tell you is that in a self defence situation his first technique is to punch his attacker out ( he's a strong puncher) if he hasn't dropped them then his fallback is bunkai. However he's very experienced and has most techniques off so that he can do them instructively regardless of which hand they use etc. We are working on that.


We do the same.  My aim is different because I spar to learn but everything else sounds pretty much the same.  I did a lot of sparring, practiced fighting techniques such as speeding up strikes and making them stronger, If I under stand Kata Bunkai correctly then it's the same thing we do in terms of training.  We don't train for sport so everything is done from the aspect of "physical self-defense." and I do a lot of analysis and try to get the other students to learn how to analysis the technique, their use of it, and their opponent.   

If this is the guy you are talking about then, I like his videos.  He has a practical way of explaining things.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2017)

That's Iain .  His seminars are amazing, have a look on his site because he goes all over the world. some find his Cumbrian accent a bit hard to follow lol. he's a pretty good Judoka too.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I try to create a modern form today, I don't think I can create one as good as that ancient form creator did.


For me it wouldn't be possible.  Just from the start it would be very difficult in terms of the available time that I have for martial arts.  It would be something that I would almost have to bury myself in, every minute of the day in some way, be it  training or understanding how the body moves, and then doing it outside of theory. In addition I would have to make the form according to one would face if they were fighting MMA, BJJ, Muay Thai, etc.  Everything would have to be in the context of being applied against other systems.  At the age of 45 there is no way I would be able to take the damage from learning for long.  At the most it would be a work in progress in which I would hope someone I teach would continue to refine it.   

I could easily make a form based on what I already know but to actually create one from scratch would be tough.  I would definitely like to have some ground recovery techniques added into the form.  Even a form that would be almost completely dedicated to fighting low and then being on the ground and then recovering.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I could easily make a form based on what I already know but to actually create one from scratch would be tough.


Agree! Most of the forms that we have created are just recombine what we have learned from our original forms.

To create 1,2,3 combo is easy. To create 8 moves combo is not. When you make your 1st move, you try to predict 7 more steps ahead, that will require a lot of MA knowledge.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> That's Iain .  His seminars are amazing, have a look on his site because he goes all over the world. some find his Cumbrian accent a bit hard to follow lol. he's a pretty good Judoka too.


He also seems to be a genuinely nice guy. I've had occasion to swap a few emails with him.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> My school isn't like that and I've seen other schools that aren't like that in terms of needing the reactions of a cobra.  Much of what I've personally learned in terms of pulling a technique off is more about triggering a known reaction from the opponent and using the technique to exploit the reaction.  I personally teach students that they will have a slow success rate of techniques is they are always trying to react and anticipate what their opponent is trying to do.  I make it a point that the students understand that they need to control a fight.   If my opponent throws a jab at my face then it's because I wanted him to do so, and not because he made that decision on his own.   If I try to make my opponent strike my face and he kicks me in the stomach instead, then that is my warning that I'm no longer dictating what my opponent is doing and that my opponent now controls the fight.
> 
> I don't know the system that you are training but it sounds like you are:
> 1. good at 50% of what you know
> ...



Fighting isn't about showcasing your skills.

Fighting is about winning.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Fighting isn't about showcasing your skills.
> 
> Fighting is about winning.


True.  I think being able to use 50% of what is train is a good thing depending on what the 50% consists of.  I don't know if I can say the same about my skill set. For the longest I referred to myself as a beginner simply for the fact that I'm no way near being able to use 50% of what I train.  5% of what I train is more than enough to keep me busy simply because one motion "technique" has multiple applications. I am happy that  from my first form I'm able to use every technique in that form in free sparring with the exception of 5 techniques that I haven't had an opportunity to actually try against someone.  I'm think the other techniques may be something that I will have a better chance to learn how to use if I spar with a Wing Chun practitioner.


----------



## jobo (Aug 30, 2017)

DaveB said:


> What kata?
> 
> Most kata interpretations are instructor specific. You may find that other people make those same kata techniques work more easily.


its the point that a fair % of techniques are a low,% high risk option that the issue, now I'm more than happy to admit that my quoted % apply to me, that they would change for the better if someone was more talented than me or for the worse for someone less so.

i think its the,art element of ma, that it contains pretty movements that only the very best can ever hope to utilise and even then they are,still far,lower % than many others moves.

i consider that any moves that involve ducking a punch or even more trapping a punch.to be more art that practical application, i think i could possibly pull them off if my attacker was a,slow drunk, i would most likely end up on the floor if they were of average physically capability. Now that doesn't really matter if its a contest with a ref or,sparring it a learning oppertunity  and,a,chance to improve, but can be a very,serious problem if its a street,fight/ attack


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> it contains pretty movements that only the very best can ever hope to utilise and even then they are,still far,lower % than many others moves.


In the long fist system, there are moves that you

- bend down, grab a handful of sand, and throw at your opponent's face.
- drop low and run while kicking dirt at your opponent's face when he follows you.
- ...

If you take those moves out of the form, you may eliminate people's imagination big time.

The following "fancy" form was designed for people who has handcuff on.


----------



## jobo (Aug 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, there are moves that you
> 
> - bend down, grab a handful of sand, and throw at your opponent's face.
> - drop low and run while kicking dirt at your opponent's face when he follows you.
> ...


i have friend who insists that one night he had a gang menacing him, so he pick up the largest dog turd he could find, smear it all over his hands and then tried to rub it on the group,who all started heaving and ran away, 

should that be included as a move?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, there are moves that you
> 
> - bend down, grab a handful of sand, and throw at your opponent's face.
> - drop low and run while kicking dirt at your opponent's face when he follows you.
> ...


And that's why people get their hands tied or handcuffed behind their backs lol.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> its the point that a fair % of techniques are a low,% high risk option that the issue, now I'm more than happy to admit that my quoted % apply to me, that they would change for the better if someone was more talented than me or for the worse for someone less so.
> 
> i think its the,art element of ma, that it contains pretty movements that only the very best can ever hope to utilise and even then they are,still far,lower % than many others moves.
> 
> i consider that any moves that involve ducking a punch or even more trapping a punch.to be more art that practical application, i think i could possibly pull them off if my attacker was a,slow drunk, i would most likely end up on the floor if they were of average physically capability. Now that doesn't really matter if its a contest with a ref or,sparring it a learning oppertunity  and,a,chance to improve, but can be a very,serious problem if its a street,fight/ attack



ALL well and good, but I still would like to know which kata you are referring to.

Flowery unrealistic techniques and karate are not things commonly associated with one another, so I would like to know more about the kata and the style it comes from.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 30, 2017)

Why does this matter? It's clear that many MMA guys will often be on the boat of "TMA sucks bruh! Take real martial arts like us!"

Let them have their boat. Meanwhile we will be on our own that welcomes all martial arts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2017)

DaveB said:


> ALL well and good, but I still would like to know which kata you are referring to.
> 
> Flowery unrealistic techniques and karate are not things commonly associated with one another, so I would like to know more about the kata and the style it comes from.


It only gets extreme when it's "extreme karate martial arts," but then at that point it's no longer karate. 






Karate, TKD, Hapkido, and Kung Fu all have martial arts based entertainment and unfortunately many people think that it's martial arts but it really isn't.  Martial arts that's used for fighting is fairly bland.  So I'm curious as well as to what is being called flowery techniques.  I need a visual


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> i consider that any moves that involve ducking a punch or even more trapping a punch.to be more art that practical application,


I'll see if I have a video of me doing just that.   I know I've done it before during free sparring.  I have also trapped a punch (if you include pinning punches) both work well for the technique I was doing.


----------



## jobo (Aug 31, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll see if I have a video of me doing just that.   I know I've done it before during free sparring.  I have also trapped a punch (if you include pinning punches) both work well for the technique I was doing.


I've done it as,well in a,controlled environment, that doesn't mean its not the,sort of thing that  canend very badly against a real attacker.

people have trouble,doing it to me, if they,duck my right i hit them with a left or a knee and trapping a full speed punch is only a high % move if you are in the matrix. In real life people,don't stand there with their,arm out, they pull it back double quick


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 31, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> It only gets extreme when it's "extreme karate martial arts," but then at that point it's no longer karate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can only comment of the Hapkido I studied.  No entertainment.  Just practical and effective defensive techniques against attacks.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 31, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm like that as well in terms of working out a technique.  I've failed at many of my techniques before I got them right.  But all of them I had to actually put my understanding of a technique to the test.   A lot of times getting hit works better than visualizing being hit.  *If I fail, I don't discount the technique.  I just go back to analyzing the technique and what I may be doing wrong.*  There have been a couple of times where I learned different applications of a technique by accident (not trying) simply because I was working on a technique I was having trouble with.
> 
> It's definitely necessary to play with the techniques and eat a few punches and or kicks.  I don't see how any of this can really be learned with just drills.  Fighting is just so fluid and each person moves differently which often times changes which techniques one may be able to use.  So getting in there for that "pain" is just part of the learning.  Granted it's not necessary to kill each other but there will be some discomfort.



In my experience, that is usually the key.  At least in the Hapikido I learned, all techniques are good, if done correctly.  If they aren't working for you, and you can't figure it out on your own, you no doubt need to ask your instructor what you are doing wrong and what you need to do to make it right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've done it as,well in a,controlled environment, that doesn't mean its not the,sort of thing that  canend very badly against a real attacker.
> 
> people have trouble,doing it to me, if they,duck my right i hit them with a left or a knee and trapping a full speed punch is only a high % move if you are in the matrix. In real life people,don't stand there with their,arm out, they pull it back double quick


Two thoughts on this. If you know what they are going to do (either because they've told you, or because you recognize it), you're countering, and that doesn't necessarily show a problem with the series of techniques. And it may be that they are forcing it - trying to do it when it's really not available. The most exaggerated example I can think of off the top of my head would be someone continuing to try a double-leg when their opponent has sprawled and gotten their upper body over their back. There are much better options from there. The same may be happening with this technique - they keep trying to make it work, even after your body shifts to where they are in danger of those strikes from you. There's something "next to" that technique that they should be using there, instead.

Of course, none of that means the technique is necessarily useful or effective - just some thoughts on where I see techniques "fail", but it's not a problem with the technique.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Two thoughts on this. If you know what they are going to do (either because they've told you, or because you recognize it), you're countering, and that doesn't necessarily show a problem with the series of techniques. And it may be that they are forcing it - trying to do it when it's really not available. The most exaggerated example I can think of off the top of my head would be someone continuing to try a double-leg when their opponent has sprawled and gotten their upper body over their back. There are much better options from there. The same may be happening with this technique - they keep trying to make it work, even after your body shifts to where they are in danger of those strikes from you. There's something "next to" that technique that they should be using there, instead.
> 
> Of course, none of that means the technique is necessarily useful or effective - just some thoughts on where I see techniques "fail", but it's not a problem with the technique.



As I see that defense you were replying to, it would be better to slide one's left hand down to the right wrist of the attacker, then use the right hand to grab the other side of the hand and twist the left hand counter-clockwise, stepping in as you do so.  Then a leg sweep to the opponent's right leg or a hip throw.  I wouldn't be surprised if you have a move like that in your curriculum.


----------



## jobo (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Two thoughts on this. If you know what they are going to do (either because they've told you, or because you recognize it), you're countering, and that doesn't necessarily show a problem with the series of techniques. And it may be that they are forcing it - trying to do it when it's really not available. The most exaggerated example I can think of off the top of my head would be someone continuing to try a double-leg when their opponent has sprawled and gotten their upper body over their back. There are much better options from there. The same may be happening with this technique - they keep trying to make it work, even after your body shifts to where they are in danger of those strikes from you. There's something "next to" that technique that they should be using there, instead.
> 
> Of course, none of that means the technique is necessarily useful or effective - just some thoughts on where I see techniques "fail", but it's not a problem with the technique.


this is in danger of going the way of Dave bs epic thread
with" every thing working" if you train it right" 

I've dodged a fair few punches in my life, they really shouldn't be able to hit you if you have even an inkling that they are going to fire, you only have to move your head 2 or  3 or 4' whilst they have to throw a punch 2or three feet of travel. If you are ducking under a punch thrown at jaw height then you are at least doubling the distance you have to move to be clear of the punch and consequently at least doubling the time it takes. Now you can do that in sparring and it doesn't matter greatly if they catch you or not. In an actual fight it matters a great deal, it looks great if you pull it off and not good at all if they split your eye open.

WORKS has to have a relatively high % of works in it against a capable oppoinent


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 31, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've done it as,well in a,controlled environment, that doesn't mean its not the,sort of thing that  canend very badly against a real attacker.
> 
> people have trouble,doing it to me, if they,duck my right i hit them with a left or a knee and trapping a full speed punch is only a high % move if you are in the matrix. In real life people,don't stand there with their,arm out, they pull it back double quick



So just because techniques can fail means they are bad and not realistic? That may not be what you are trying to say but that is what it is sounding like. All techniques can fail for a wide number of reasons, nothing in life is full proof and martial arts are no different..

Something as simple as a punch or low kick can fail and in fact fails all of the time. When one uses a paint brush and fails to make art they shouldn't blame it on the brush or the canvas, they need to look at themselves and see what about it they are not doing right.

Also look at the situation, did the situation call for said technique? If you are trying to force it to work then odds are it isn't going to, a simple judo leg sweep like osoto geri for example, if I failed to get them onto standing on one foot when I push or pull them then odds are the throw will fail to work because they have their other leg to stand and regain posture.

I'd basically be struggling with them when instead I could do something different.


----------



## jobo (Aug 31, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> So just because techniques can fail means they are bad and not realistic? That may not be what you are trying to say but that is what it is sounding like. All techniques can fail for a wide number of reasons, nothing in life is full proof and martial arts are no different..
> 
> Something as simple as a punch or low kick can fail and in fact fails all of the time. When one uses a paint brush and fails to make art they shouldn't blame it on the brush or the canvas, they need to look at themselves and see what about it they are not doing right.
> 
> ...


see my post above , i see ma through the prism of a street fight or attack, doesn't work means i get knock on the floor and get my head kicked in. Now as you say everything can go wrong, but some things go wrong a lot less than others.

what i count as works is a techneque that puts my untrained opoinent on his bum 75 % of the time and doesnt lead to me on my bum 99% of the time( 1% allowed for tripping over my own shoe laces)


----------



## JP3 (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I can agree with your reaction to his arrogance, but I'm curious about this:
> 
> 
> 
> If he used basic kicks and punches, those are techniques from his MA. Why is it disappointing that he didn't use other techniques? I would assume he was using what he found to be most useful. If I were to train for that kind of open competition, there are entire swaths of my art that would not be best suited. Many of them might be useful, but only if the right situation presented (so they are less likely to be seen), while a small core would be very likely to show up on a regular basis.



Yup.... I mean, it's not like there are a Lot of correct opportunities for me to use the awesome-looking 360-degree jump-spin hook kick, even though I spent probably about 2 years really getting the mechanics worked out in my 20s.  Of course, I've not attempted it in the last 5 years, but still.  On this concept DB is accurate, simple and conservative tends to be the best, tactically. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> As I see that defense you were replying to, it would be better to slide one's left hand down to the right wrist of the attacker, then use the right hand to grab the other side of the hand and twist the left hand counter-clockwise, stepping in as you do so.  Then a leg sweep to the opponent's right leg or a hip throw.  I wouldn't be surprised if you have a move like that in your curriculum.


I suck at picturing what people describe. I swear that sounds like a backwards hip throw to me, no matter how many times I read it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

jobo said:


> this is in danger of going the way of Dave bs epic thread
> with" every thing working" if you train it right"
> 
> I've dodged a fair few punches in my life, they really shouldn't be able to hit you if you have even an inkling that they are going to fire, you only have to move your head 2 or  3 or 4' whilst they have to throw a punch 2or three feet of travel. If you are ducking under a punch thrown at jaw height then you are at least doubling the distance you have to move to be clear of the punch and consequently at least doubling the time it takes. Now you can do that in sparring and it doesn't matter greatly if they catch you or not. In an actual fight it matters a great deal, it looks great if you pull it off and not good at all if they split your eye open.
> ...


I agree about trying to change levels that far. However, IMO, things like that are the set-up. You wouldn't choose to do it, it is what happened (somehow the punch passed over your head). Or, it's just a way to practice being at the point it leads to, so if you ignore how you got there, you're really just shifting your partner into place for the point at which the defense actually starts.

To clarify the latter, think of it like a wrestling coach demonstrating a single-leg takedown. He steps in, then realizes he is blocking the students' view because of the angle. He grabs his partner and tugs him sideways around about 45 degrees. Now he's in position to start the single-leg. It is my opinion that some "techniques" contain movement that just puts the person it the right "starting position" with a little momentum so you can practice over and over with the least effort and best repeatability. In application, it's that "starting position" that you're looking for to know it's time to reach for that technique.

Does that make sense? It's easier to explain in a room with someone to demonstrate on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

jobo said:


> WORKS has to have a relatively high % of works in it against a capable oppoinent


Remember that boxers' punches fail a pretty high percentage of the time against skilled defensive boxers. Counters work.


----------



## jobo (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Remember that boxers' punches fail a pretty high percentage of the time against skilled defensive boxers. Counters work.


indeed but they can only fail badly once in a fight, when the punch leaves them wide open and next thing someone is using smelling salts


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I suck at picturing what people describe. I swear that sounds like a backwards hip throw to me, no matter how many times I read it.



And I often suck at describing things.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've done it as,well in a,controlled environment, that doesn't mean its not the,sort of thing that  canend very badly against a real attacker.
> 
> people have trouble,doing it to me, if they,duck my right i hit them with a left or a knee and trapping a full speed punch is only a high % move if you are in the matrix. In real life people,don't stand there with their,arm out, they pull it back double quick



For ducking you just keep your hands up. That way you are still covered. And duck towards the right arm pit in this case to cut off space.

If you want to go all street. It is more important to use head movement because you may not know where the next punch is coming from.

The conservative nature of ducking is not exactly straight forwards. There is a concept that if your head is not where it should be they have a harder time targeting it. So you should attack and move all the time. Ducking is part of that mechanic.

Bloody Slap Boxing

So while you may think you are being safer by not moving your head. You kind of aren't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


> For ducking you just keep your hands up.


You can

1. duck your opponent's punch.
2. wrap your opponent's punching arm.

IMO, 2 > 1

If you

- duck your opponent's 1st punch, you will need to duck again.
- wrap your opponent's punching arm, he can't punch you any more.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can
> 
> 1. duck your opponent's punch.
> 2. wrap your opponent's punching arm.
> ...



Arm wraps are super hard to do at pace. Ducking does not have to be in response to a punch. You can just duck to reposition. Then you don't have to adress every shot coming at you. A percentage just miss anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

jobo said:


> indeed but they can only fail badly once in a fight, when the punch leaves them wide open and next thing someone is using smelling salts


That is the issue, indeed.

Just remember that what you're describing as a "technique" (and is probably described that way in the curriculum) is actually a series of moves, rather than a single technique. Each has to be used properly, or the whole sequence fails - or, more accurately, if one is interrupted or countered, you don't follow that sequence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> And I often suck at describing things.


Well, this should go fabulously, then!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


> For ducking you just keep your hands up. That way you are still covered. And duck towards the right arm pit in this case to cut off space.
> 
> If you want to go all street. It is more important to use head movement because you may not know where the next punch is coming from.
> 
> ...


I think the ducking he is describing is literally just ducking under the punch - like a bad fight scene in an old Star Trek episode. I've seen it used in some MA as a placeholder for high passes and ducks like the one you're describing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can
> 
> 1. duck your opponent's punch.
> 2. wrap your opponent's punching arm.
> ...


Which is better depends upon where you want to be. For most of our techniques, behind his shoulder (after the ducking) is superior.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Which is better depends upon where you want to be. For most of our techniques, behind his shoulder (after the ducking) is superior.


Here is another example.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I can only comment of the Hapkido I studied.  No entertainment.  Just practical and effective defensive techniques against attacks.


  It's not all Hapkido schools, just some.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Two thoughts on this. If you know what they are going to do (either because they've told you, or because you recognize it), you're countering, and that doesn't necessarily show a problem with the series of techniques. And it may be that they are forcing it - trying to do it when it's really not available. The most exaggerated example I can think of off the top of my head would be someone continuing to try a double-leg when their opponent has sprawled and gotten their upper body over their back. There are much better options from there. The same may be happening with this technique - they keep trying to make it work, even after your body shifts to where they are in danger of those strikes from you. There's something "next to" that technique that they should be using there, instead.
> 
> Of course, none of that means the technique is necessarily useful or effective - just some thoughts on where I see techniques "fail", but it's not a problem with the technique.


Or it may be actually 2 separate techniques and not an actual combination.  Sometimes forms will tie 2 different techniques together but they aren't actual fighting combination.  I'm thinking about the forms that I train and how the forms have actual combination and some are just 2 separate techniques tied together.  Those techniques that are tied together were never meant to be used as a combination.  In one of my forms there is a slap followed by long fist punch, but in application the punch isn't going to realistically follow the slap.  I have done both techniques in free sparing and the slap is more like an striking entry for grappling and head control.  The punch is just a punch


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Or it may be actually 2 separate techniques and not an actual combination.  Sometimes forms will tie 2 different techniques together but they aren't actual fighting combination.  I'm thinking about the forms that I train and how the forms have actual combination and some are just 2 separate techniques tied together.  Those techniques that are tied together were never meant to be used as a combination.  In one of my forms there is a slap followed by long fist punch, but in application the punch isn't going to realistically follow the slap.  I have done both techniques in free sparing and the slap is more like an striking entry for grappling and head control.  The punch is just a punch


Agreed - the term "technique" is used in some styles to identify what is actually a short form. It is done in NGA, though to a lesser extent. What I refer to as a "classical form" for the technique is usually called the "classical technique", and contains more than the technique.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> indeed but they can only fail badly once in a fight, when the punch leaves them wide open and next thing someone is using smelling salts



So which kata advocated such tactical weaknesses?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed - the term "technique" is used in some styles to identify what is actually a short form. It is done in NGA, though to a lesser extent. What I refer to as a "classical form" for the technique is usually called the "classical technique", and contains more than the technique.



Interesting way to look at that. 

In the Hapkido I studied, we tend to respond to one attack at a time, just as one would do in a classic kata.  We know about moving to engage other possible attackers, pretty much in conjunction with and flowing from a particular technique.  But our techniques tend to prevent a 'primary' attacker from being able to do anything to us, and put other potential attackers at disadvantage, usually because we won't be where they planned on us being, and we are already preparing for that attack.   But we do not consider our art one that uses katas or forms.  I suppose it was decided early on, perhaps even in Dai ito Ryu, that it would be limiting to restrict oneself to canned responses.  But I don't really know if that is the reason.


----------



## jobo (Sep 1, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So which kata advocated such tactical weaknesses?


any kata that,advocates,ducking under a punch


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting way to look at that.
> 
> In the Hapkido I studied, we tend to respond to one attack at a time, just as one would do in a classic kata.  We know about moving to engage other possible attackers, pretty much in conjunction with and flowing from a particular technique.  But our techniques tend to prevent a 'primary' attacker from being able to do anything to us, and put other potential attackers at disadvantage, usually because we won't be where they planned on us being, and we are already preparing for that attack.   But we do not consider our art one that uses katas or forms.  I suppose it was decided early on, perhaps even in Dai ito Ryu, that it would be limiting to restrict oneself to canned responses.  But I don't really know if that is the reason.


Daito-ryu does use forms - that's what their "techniques" are. They are specific, technically detailed, and rigid (in structure, not the person doing them). That's all a form is. The distinction from the technique is conceptual - the technique is the lock/throw, itself. So, a hip throw starts from the moment they are in position at your hip. Practicing the technique requires some sort of entry to it. In many MA, there's a prescribed entry that's the "official" version - and that is essentially a form. So, if a hip throw starts from a same-side grip (left hand gripping right wrist), and that's how it's always taught (with variations from other attacks being practiced later), that's a short form. Some forms are highly stylized (you can see this in the videos with the Kondo brothers doing Daito-ryu). Some are less stylized (you can see this in videos of "classical techniques" from NGA). Both are still forms, because they are not variable. There's a precise "right" way to do the "technique". Application of that technique will be (should be) more variable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> any kata that,advocates,ducking under a punch


DB mentioned earlier that there's a valid way to duck a punch. I don't know if the kata you're talking about approaches that or not - you haven't pointed us to which one it is.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> any kata that,advocates,ducking under a punch



But specifically, the one your teacher was going through that you mentioned earlier..
Is there a reason you're avoiding this question?


----------



## jobo (Sep 1, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But specifically, the one your teacher was going through that you mentioned earlier..
> Is there a reason you're avoiding this question?


one i can't recall its name, Il have to go into my pictures to find it and i can't be ****Ed and second i have no interest discussing a specific kata, only the general principle of low % moves contained in katas in general


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Daito-ryu does use forms - that's what their "techniques" are. They are specific, technically detailed, and rigid (in structure, not the person doing them). That's all a form is. The distinction from the technique is conceptual - the technique is the lock/throw, itself. So, a hip throw starts from the moment they are in position at your hip. Practicing the technique requires some sort of entry to it. In many MA, there's a prescribed entry that's the "official" version - and that is essentially a form. So, if a hip throw starts from a same-side grip (left hand gripping right wrist), and that's how it's always taught (with variations from other attacks being practiced later), that's a short form. Some forms are highly stylized (you can see this in the videos with the Kondo brothers doing Daito-ryu). Some are less stylized (you can see this in videos of "classical techniques" from NGA). Both are still forms, because they are not variable. There's a precise "right" way to do the "technique". Application of that technique will be (should be) more variable.



As I said, an interesting way to look at it.  In the Hapkido I studied, that was not the way we looked at it.  If a person grabbed us somewhere, depending on  where, we had more than one technique to defend against that attack.  It could be an attack to a body part, our clothing, from front or rear, but we viewed our responses as different techniques to that type of attack.  Not a piece of a kata/form.  That would mean you could string together as many techniques as you wished and call them a form. 

As I understood during my studies, that was a significant distinction.  We would not usually end different defenses the same way, even for a defense against a certain type of attack.  We might throw the opponent, joint lock a part of the body, attack a nerve pressure point (often to aid in a joint lock), or strike or kick.  We might dislocate a joint, throw, pin to the ground, or whatever.  However that technique was taught.

Hope that makes some sense.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> one i can't recall its name, Il have to go into my pictures to find it and i can't be ****Ed and second i have no interest discussing a specific kata, only the general principle of low % moves contained in katas in general


I think people are just curious because they may have some insight on the technique that may actually help you make this a high% technique.  This is what I'm getting from the comments that are being made.  You could be 100% correct about the technique being a low%, but if there's an chance that someone is familiar with the technique and is considers it a reliable technique, then at the very least it would be interesting to hear how they apply it.


----------



## jobo (Sep 1, 2017)

ninjushiho, or,something close to that spelling


----------



## Ironbear24 (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> see my post above , i see ma through the prism of a street fight or attack, doesn't work means i get knock on the floor and get my head kicked in. Now as you say everything can go wrong, but some things go wrong a lot less than others.
> 
> what i count as works is a techneque that puts my untrained opoinent on his bum 75 % of the time and doesnt lead to me on my bum 99% of the time( 1% allowed for tripping over my own shoe laces)



Ok so in this case it is important to distinguish between martial and art. Martial aims to be as highly effective as possible at well, destroying your opponent as well as avoiding yourself being destroyed. It cares nothing about appearances or looking impressive.

Art is the opposite and it's place is to either entertain and or simply be an exercise. The art in martial arts is also exaggerated in order to teach a specific principle. For example the cat stance in many kenpo methods, you will never use it as your nuetral fighting stance however the cat stance teaches how to move with your opponent so you don't get knocked over, or have your center line broken.

There comes a point in time where every single martial artist has to decide what they want, when and why.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> one i can't recall its name, Il have to go into my pictures to find it and i can't be ****Ed and second i have no interest discussing a specific kata, only the general principle of low % moves contained in katas in general



Well we can't provide any input if we don't know what you are referring to. Many things in martial arts are often exaggerated or "hokey" so the person practicing it could grasp whatever principles it is trying to pass on.

Then when it comes to application, things look a lot less hokey and less artsy because reality doesn't have to be that way to work.


----------



## jobo (Sep 1, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> Well we can't provide any input if we don't know what you are referring to. Many things in martial arts are often exaggerated or "hokey" so the person practicing it could grasp whatever principles it is trying to pass on.
> 
> Then when it comes to application, things look a lot less hokey and less artsy because reality doesn't have to be that way to work.


named above


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> ninjushiho, or,something close to that spelling


Thanks


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> one i can't recall its name, Il have to go into my pictures to find it and i can't be ****Ed and second i have no interest discussing a specific kata, only the general principle of low % moves contained in katas in general


That kata is actually pertinent to the discussion. Those of us asking are doing so for a reason - we want to see how others are doing the kata, so we can tell if it's an issue with what's in the kata, or how you've learned it (which could be the teaching, or could be your understanding - obviously, we can't know which).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> As I said, an interesting way to look at it.  In the Hapkido I studied, that was not the way we looked at it.  If a person grabbed us somewhere, depending on  where, we had more than one technique to defend against that attack.  It could be an attack to a body part, our clothing, from front or rear, but we viewed our responses as different techniques to that type of attack.  Not a piece of a kata/form.  That would mean you could string together as many techniques as you wished and call them a form.
> 
> As I understood during my studies, that was a significant distinction.  We would not usually end different defenses the same way, even for a defense against a certain type of attack.  We might throw the opponent, joint lock a part of the body, attack a nerve pressure point (often to aid in a joint lock), or strike or kick.  We might dislocate a joint, throw, pin to the ground, or whatever.  However that technique was taught.
> 
> Hope that makes some sense.


It sounds like your study centered around what we'd call "applications" - which is where most of my/my students' time is spent. The classical form (what some styles call the "technique") is a starting point for learning the basic movements, and some related principles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> Ok so in this case it is important to distinguish between martial and art. Martial aims to be as highly effective as possible at well, destroying your opponent as well as avoiding yourself being destroyed. It cares nothing about appearances or looking impressive.
> 
> Art is the opposite and it's place is to either entertain and or simply be an exercise. The art in martial arts is also exaggerated in order to teach a specific principle. For example the cat stance in many kenpo methods, you will never use it as your nuetral fighting stance however the cat stance teaches how to move with your opponent so you don't get knocked over, or have your center line broken.
> 
> There comes a point in time where every single martial artist has to decide what they want, when and why.


The "art" in "martial art" is nothing to do with entertainment. It has no relation to "fine arts", etc. It's a whole term "martial arts". Martial arts can be interpreted (by individual, school, etc.) into something that is no longer about fighting/combat/defensive skills, but that's not the original intent. The exercises (including many of them that look odd, showy, or weak) are teaching principles that lead to the fighting/combat/defense end. It's not two sides - it should all be an integrated whole.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> ninjushiho, or,something close to that spelling


Thanks. Which style are we talking about? I looked at 3 videos, and none had a ducking motion in them, so I suspect I'm looking at the wrong material.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think the ducking he is describing is literally just ducking under the punch - like a bad fight scene in an old Star Trek episode. I've seen it used in some MA as a placeholder for high passes and ducks like the one you're describing.



People also duck and weave badly. If you duck or slip and are creating space. You get nailed. Very common beginner flaw.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 1, 2017)

you also have the concept of level changing for take downs. This works very well as a form of ducking a punch.

Very nice form in this video. That is the sort of combative double leg you really need to be worried about.





Notice you don't have defensive downward elbow or defensive guillotine choke with this version.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> you also have the concept of level changing for take downs. This works very well as a form of ducking a punch.
> 
> Very nice form in this video. That is the sort of combative double leg you really need to be worried about.
> 
> ...


My level changing was never great, and has gone to crap over the last few years, as my knees got more persistently crappy. Not only does it make stuff like this harder for me, it leaves me more vulnerable to stuff like this.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> My level changing was never great, and has gone to crap over the last few years, as my knees got more persistently crappy. Not only does it make stuff like this harder for me, it leaves me more vulnerable to stuff like this.



You may have to do the drop knee version. Which will keep your back a bit straighter.

What you have just mentioned moves interestingly into safe lifting.






All well and good. But a poster does not condition the body to have the flexibility to do those movements properly.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> one i can't recall its name, Il have to go into my pictures to find it and i can't be ****Ed and second i have no interest discussing a specific kata, only the general principle of low % moves contained in katas in general



But is there such a principle?

Despite a historical precedent, Karate application is for most styles a modern phenomenon. The specific application syllabus is instructor dependent. 

Even so, the bulk of karate, both in training and kata content is usually about creating opportunities to employ basic techniques without interruption.

Ducking, though present in principle  (and in the folk tales of karate masters) is not something you see often in karate forms. Slips are more common. In fact I can't think of a specific instance of ducking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You may have to do the drop knee version. Which will keep your back a bit straighter.
> 
> What you have just mentioned moves interestingly into safe lifting.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I got excuses for that, too.  I have arthritic big toes (about 40% loss of mobility on the left), so dropping to a knee is a bad idea, in some situations/positions. I've been working on some new methods of getting to levels (some knee, some back), and my knees have gotten a bit better in the last year, but it's probably just something I don't have reliably in my arsenal as much as I wish. If my knees continue to improve a bit, level changing is on my list for development.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> you also have the concept of level changing for take downs.


In wrestling, there are

1. upper body control - control your opponent's head or shoulder.
2. lower body control - control your opponent's waist or leg.

IMO, 1 > 2

When you control your opponent's head such as reverse head lock (guillotine choke), you can apply your body weight on your opponent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In wrestling, there are
> 
> 1. upper body control - control your opponent's head or shoulder.
> 2. lower body control - control your opponent's waist or leg.
> ...


If you truly control his leg, you control a percentage of his entire body - including his upper body.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If you truly control his leg, you control a percentage of his entire body - including his upper body.


If you control both of your opponent's legs, he will be down.

If you control only one of your opponent's legs,

- he can extend his leg between your legs (into your groin),
- hook his inner edge behind your upper leg,
- control both of your shoulders to prevent you from getting closer.

He can hop with his single leg and look for your weakness. His body will glue on your body. If you move your right leg, he will attack your left leg. If you move your left leg, he will attack your right leg. The interested fighting just start from there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You may have to do the drop knee version. Which will keep your back a bit straighter.
> 
> What you have just mentioned moves interestingly into safe lifting.
> 
> ...


 that chart looks like what I try to make happen to people who are trying to take me down.  I figure if I can get them to hurt their back, then I'll be in the clear lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you control both of your opponent's legs, he will be down.
> 
> If you control only one of your opponent's legs,
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if you notice but it's not just the leg in that video.  The person trying to lift is in a weak position for lifting.  If you refer to the chart that Drop Bear posted, you'll see that he looks like the 3rd person from the left bending over trying to lift the box.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure if you notice but it's not just the leg in that video.  The person trying to lift is in a weak position for lifting.  If you refer to the chart that Drop Bear posted, you'll see that he looks like the 3rd person from the left bending over trying to lift the box.


This is why I don't like "single leg" that you use both arms to get your opponent's leading leg. It's easier for your opponent to put you into that disadvantage position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you control both of your opponent's legs, he will be down.
> 
> If you control only one of your opponent's legs,
> 
> ...


If he can do either of those first two with the "controlled" leg, it's not controlled. If he does it with the other, you didn't use the control. The third, he shouldn't have leverage for if you actually have control of his leg (rather than just restraint).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If he can do either of those first two with the "controlled" leg, it's not controlled. If he does it with the other, you didn't use the control. The third, he shouldn't have leverage for if you actually have control of his leg (rather than just restraint).


You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. If you and your opponent are on the same skill level, when you use both arms to control your opponent's leading leg, you don't have any arm left to deal with his arms. Both of his hands can control your body wherever he wants to. You can't do anything about it.

This is why I believe the "under hook" and "over hook" are superior wrestling skill. When you use it, you can control both of your opponent's arms. When your arms and your opponent's arms are tangled, whoever has the best "leg skill" will win.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I don't like "single leg" that you use both arms to get your opponent's leading leg. It's easier for your opponent to put you into that disadvantage position.



Depends if your leg is forwards.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 2, 2017)

jobo said:


> ninjushiho, or,something close to that spelling


Not to be argumentative, but I don't see any "ducking" in this video, and he bends further than anyone in any other video I've seen.  Is this the kata you're referring to?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. If you and your opponent are on the same skill level, when you use both arms to control your opponent's leading leg, you don't have any arm left to deal with his arms. Both of his hands can control your body wherever he wants to. You can't do anything about it.
> 
> This is why I believe the "under hook" and "over hook" are superior wrestling skill. When you use it, you can control both of your opponent's arms. When your arms and your opponent's arms are tangled, whoever has the best "leg skill" will win.


That's what happens if you don't get control - that was my point. If you actually get control of the leg (again, not just restraint), then there's a lot you can do to limit his responses, because he should already be falling. Note that when I say "control", that means to the extent that it is no longer supporting his body properly - you control his structure through that leg. If you control the leg only so far as the hip (not having any transitive control to the body), then I refer to that as "restraint", which is only partial control.


----------



## jobo (Sep 2, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Not to be argumentative, but I don't see any "ducking" in this video, and he bends further than anyone in any other video I've seen.  Is this the kata you're referring to?


29 seconds


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 2, 2017)

jobo said:


> 29 seconds


I don't know the kata, and it's not done in either school I've been at.  But just going by general kata application knowledge, I wouldn't interpret that movement as ducking.  I view it more as a lean in.

Everyone's got a different interpretation.  That's the art of karate IMO; a movement can mean different things to different people.  It can be whatever one wants/needs it to be, whenever they want/need it to be.  There's no right or wrong, only better or worse interpretation IMO.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 2, 2017)

jobo said:


> 29 seconds


I thought that was a groin strike and a redirect / block.  For example, someone is doing a haymaker.  The upper arm deals with the haymaker while at the same time, the lower arm strikes the groin.  I've seen other's do it as a double palm strike.  One to the face and one to the groin.

this is the video that I watched.  The move is at :36. He doesn't tray to wrap his arm.  Instead he turns and deflect a low kick or low punch and strikes high.  Int the video that JR 137 showed he turns and deflects a high punch and strikes high.  Had these guys would have done a basic Jow Ga punch had they closed the second fist instead of using a knife hand.





After seeing this video I now see the wrap at the 4:37 mark.  I'm don't train in this system so this is just an uneducated opinion based on the little bit of martial arts that I know.  I wouldn't try to use it as the way he shows it in the video.   If I'm going to redirect a hand like that, then I wouldn't bother trying to grab it.  I would simply redirect and move forward with a double palm strike, one at the face and the other towards the lower abdomen or groin.  In the kata both hands go out at the same time.  When I look at the kata I just assume that they are fighting multiple people





This is more of what I had in mind and it actually makes more sense to me from a Jow Ga perspective.  You can see the technique in question at 2:19.  The wrap around the arm is more of a redirect than a wrap.  I'm not saying that one way is correct and the other way is wrong because techniques often have more than one application.  This particular application may be a higher % for you


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 2, 2017)

jobo said:


> 29 seconds


That's an interesting interpretation of that movement. I'll be interested in seeing what those with some experience in that kata think.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I thought that was a groin strike and a redirect / block.  For example, someone is doing a haymaker.  The upper arm deals with the haymaker while at the same time, the lower arm strikes the groin.  I've seen other's do it as a double palm strike.  One to the face and one to the groin.
> 
> this is the video that I watched.  The move is at :36. He doesn't tray to wrap his arm.  Instead he turns and deflect a low kick or low punch and strikes high.  Int the video that JR 137 showed he turns and deflects a high punch and strikes high.  Had these guys would have done a basic Jow Ga punch had they closed the second fist instead of using a knife hand.
> 
> ...


The application I go with is somewhere between these 2 videos.

Take Kenneth Funakoshi's application but from the outside rather than the inside, and while you can strike with both arms it works just as well to just position your hands by the head and thigh for the subsequent wheel throw.

If you do want to apply it percussively you use the lean as a slip not a duck, so your body motion throws weight into the strike while taking you offline.

The part of Jobo's description I think is low % is the neck wrap. If it was really so straightforward to take control of an adversary mma would look a lot different. 
But slipping punches is basic ma.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 3, 2017)

DaveB said:


> The application I go with is somewhere between these 2 videos.
> 
> Take Kenneth Funakoshi's application but from the outside rather than the inside, and while you can strike with both arms it works just as well to just position your hands by the head and thigh for the subsequent wheel throw.
> 
> ...


Good post. A thought on your last paragraph: against a skilled opponent, most things are relatively low percentage. Simple, reliable takedowns like single-legs and double-legs drop their % when used on someone skilled at using and defending them.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Good post. A thought on your last paragraph: against a skilled opponent, most things are relatively low percentage. Simple, reliable takedowns like single-legs and double-legs drop their % when used on someone skilled at using and defending them.



I had also meant to add that the percussive application is not really supported in this kata. It's there, but the the following techniques don't build on the strikes.

Bassai dai on the other hand demonstrates the yama zuki with a number of follow-up techniques that take you out of your lean  and teach you about building combinations.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A thought on your last paragraph: against a skilled opponent, most things are relatively low percentage.


Low % is more based on the practitioner's ability and not so much the opponent.  A skilled opponent is more likely to make a technique a low occurrence % more so than a low success percentage.  A skilled opponent will usually have a defense that decreased the opportunity for the martial artist to use certain techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Low % is more based on the practitioner's ability and not so much the opponent.  A skilled opponent is more likely to make a technique a low occurrence % more so than a low success percentage.  A skilled opponent will usually have a defense that decreased the opportunity for the martial artist to use certain techniques.


There's that side, too. But, for instance, if you look at high-level Judo competition (the Olympics, for instance), you'll see them attempt several throws and have to abandon them immediately. They thought the throw might be available, but it wasn't. That's what I mean by a lower %. The difference between your statement and mine is a matter of whether you count only the times it is actually attempted, or all the times it might have been. With a beginning student, at any given moment, my chances of landing a punch (or a throw/takedown) is much higher than if, for instance, I was sparring you, Tony, DB, etc. One measure of my skill is how often I recognize that and make a better choice (including waiting for something useful to be available).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> They thought the throw might be available, but it wasn't.


 yeah this is definitely different from what I'm thinking.  I don't count this because this same result can be caused by baiting which makes your opponent think that they have something that really isn't there.  As for punching me and Tony,  your technique would still be a high percentage technique even if we are good at evading your punch.  For example,  You throw a jab with your left hand forward and I'm able to avoid it most of the time. After failing, you switch and jab with your right hand forward and as a result you are able to hit me more.   The technique is the same technique for both scenarios.  The only difference is you did better with one arm than the other, so the Jab is still a high %.   We can make this scenario more complicated.  Let's say Tony avoids both of your jabs with no problem. Then you change it up on him. You look at his stomach and jab him in his face and you mix up what you do before you throw the Jab.  The Jab is still the same technique that failed you previously.  But now that you changed what you do before you throw the jab, you are able to land more.  It's the same technique.

In your example of the Judo throw.  This might be the same thing where the technique is reliable, but because of your opponent's understanding that you know it and can use it (meaning he will try to prevent you from using it), the approach to being successful to with the technique may be to do something different before actually doing the technique.  The more experienced your opponent is the better your opponent will be at not letting you have your way.  It doesn't mean that the technique itself is a low percentage technique.  It just means you many have to "wrap it up in peanut butter and bread" before you feed your opponent that technique.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's that side, too. But, for instance, if you look at high-level Judo competition (the Olympics, for instance), you'll see them attempt several throws and have to abandon them immediately. They thought the throw might be available, but it wasn't. That's what I mean by a lower %. The difference between your statement and mine is a matter of whether you count only the times it is actually attempted, or all the times it might have been. With a beginning student, at any given moment, my chances of landing a punch (or a throw/takedown) is much higher than if, for instance, I was sparring you, Tony, DB, etc. One measure of my skill is how often I recognize that and make a better choice (including waiting for something useful to be available).


For me a low percentage technique is one that has a very small chance of being successful period.  Me kicking my opponent in the face while doing a backflip would be something that is low percentage no matter the skill level of the opponent.  
Stuff like this.  Low Percentage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me a low percentage technique is one that has a very small chance of being successful period.  Me kicking my opponent in the face while doing a backflip would be something that is low percentage no matter the skill level of the opponent.
> Stuff like this.  Low Percentage.


We can agree on that part, for sure. My original point was simply that percentages go down on everything when the opponent is more skilled. My jab is a higher-percentage move against an unskilled person than someone who has developed sparring skill.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's that side, too. But, for instance, if you look at high-level Judo competition (the Olympics, for instance), you'll see them attempt several throws and have to abandon them immediately. They thought the throw might be available, but it wasn't. That's what I mean by a lower %. The difference between your statement and mine is a matter of whether you count only the times it is actually attempted, or all the times it might have been. With a beginning student, at any given moment, my chances of landing a punch (or a throw/takedown) is much higher than if, for instance, I was sparring you, Tony, DB, etc. One measure of my skill is how often I recognize that and make a better choice (including waiting for something useful to be available).



Exept. Nope. We dont have to go off an individual fighter vs another individual fighter. We can look at the highest percentage in a comp. Or through a fighters career.

The Top Scoring Judo Techniques for Olympic Judo - Kokakids - Junior Judo Magazine

Which would give a much more realistic concept of high percentage than just saying. "I guess we will never know"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Exept. Nope. We dont have to go off an individual fighter vs another individual fighter. We can look at the highest percentage in a comp. Or through a fighters career.
> 
> The Top Scoring Judo Techniques for Olympic Judo - Kokakids - Junior Judo Magazine
> 
> Which would give a much more realistic concept of high percentage than just saying. "I guess we will never know"


That doesn't change my point, so I'm not sure what you intend to refute. The percentage for a technique goes down when the other guy's skill goes up.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't change my point, so I'm not sure what you intend to refute. The percentage for a technique goes down when the other guy's skill goes up.



Maybe individually. But not as a group. As much.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 4, 2017)

Someone recently admitted that they wanted to fight me, to prove that TMA can't beat MMA.  He wanted to do a video like the MMA vs Tai Chi video.  Long story short.  I told him that if he wants to fight me because he truly believes that I don't know how to fight, then that makes him a bully.  I asked him why would he beat up someone who he believed couldn't defend themselves.  My question pretty much silenced him. 

So if anyone tells you that TMA can't fight, and they want to fight you.  Then simply ask that person why would he/she beat on someone they believe couldn't defend themselves.  Then call him/her a bully.   This puts the person into jam as he/she would have to either admit that they are a Bully for trying to fight someone they believed couldn't fight back, or they have to acknowledge that you can fight and that you do TMA.   At this point you can just sit back and grin as it kills any TMA vs MMA argument as the person will be conflicted between being a bully or admitting you can fight as his /her equal lol.

My wife says that I have a talent for killing conversations lol.


----------



## jobo (Sep 4, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me a low percentage technique is one that has a very small chance of being successful period.  Me kicking my opponent in the face while doing a backflip would be something that is low percentage no matter the skill level of the opponent.
> Stuff like this.  Low Percentage.


that re enforces the point i made earlier. Not only is that unlikely to come off, but it leaves you in a very vulrable position if there isn't a ref to stop it

flash moves that don't come off are one thing, flash moves that dont come off and that leave you lay on the floor are quite another


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Maybe individually. But not as a group. As much.


Why do you say that? It is my experience that for everyone, assuming they can execute their core techniques readily, they have higher percentages against folks who are significantly less skilled than them, lower percentages against folks around their own skill level, and much lower percentages against folks well above their skill level.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> that re enforces the point i made earlier. Not only is that unlikely to come off, but it leaves you in a very vulrable position if there isn't a ref to stop it
> 
> flash moves that don't come off are one thing, flash moves that dont come off and that leave you lay on the floor are quite another


If your kata looks plain and boring in comparison to other martial arts then there's a good chance that the majority or all of that kata has functional and practical use.  From there the percentage will vary with the interpretation of the technique.  Sometimes an instructor will get it wrong, complicate, or fail to say when is the best time to use the technique because they don't know.  The chances that someone will get the technique correct without sparring is very small.  The instructor may know what it's for and how it's used, but will lack the knowledge of when to use it and what to use it against.  There is a high chance that the technique will fail if any of those 2 things are wrong.  Keep in mind that it's not uncommon to have an instructor that knows his stuff but lacks the ability to use it in free sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Why do you say that? It is my experience that for everyone, assuming they can execute their core techniques readily, they have higher percentages against folks who are significantly less skilled than them, lower percentages against folks around their own skill level, and much lower percentages against folks well above their skill level.



Because that is not how high percentage moves are worked out. They are high percentage across the board. Not really high percentage as compare to the other guys defence.

Look at mma. The most successful takedown is still the double leg.
Fight Stats: Double Leg Is The Most Common MMA Takedown, Nurmagomedov Most Successful Takedown Artist

And it is also the takedown people spend the most of their time defending.

So double leg becomes high percentage.

It does not have as much to do with the skill of the oponant as just the basic effectiveness of the move.

High percentage because you fight gumbies is a pretty usless statistic.

Execution of their core technique is a bit dependant on the defence of the other guy. GSP pretty much only uses core techniques.





This is a trick I picked up watching a guy street fight. A dude I used to bounce with routinely used to knock guys out in their fives and tens. And looking at how he did it, he wasn't using any technique I wasn't doing or didn't know.

He was just really good at high percentage basics.

Found him. Clay in the orange red shorts.





Didn't know this. He got shot after some issue with bikers.(No really they are not gangsters. They are just a social riding club)

, Clay Auimatagi security - Google Search:


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Because that is not how high percentage moves are worked out. They are high percentage across the board. Not really high percentage as compare to the other guys defence.
> 
> Look at mma. The most successful takedown is still the double leg.
> Fight Stats: Double Leg Is The Most Common MMA Takedown, Nurmagomedov Most Successful Takedown Artist
> ...


Okay, I take your point. I use the term differently, apparently.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I take your point. I use the term differently, apparently.


Not sure if you notice in the video, but the low kick was a high percentage technique vs the circular punch which is considered a "low percentage" technique because it's slower. Yet he was able to use the technique effectively, which brings into question "Is the circular punch" really a low percentage technique?  Or was the kick actually a low percentage technique?  I watch one of his other fights where his opponent tried the same kicks. The outcome was different as the other guy understood that he couldn't just kick first. He thew punch combos and ended the combo with the same kick.  This made the kick more effective.  2 different fights with 2 different fighters using the same kick and having the same problem.  The only real difference is that one understood why the kick was being countered and made the adjustment.  This is the fight that I'm referring to. The first 2 minutes he threw the kick first.  You can see him work it out.  The he realized that he had to use a punch combination before the kick.  There is no skill level involved between throwing a kick first and throwing a punch before the kick, and tying a kick at the end of a punch combination.  The approach is what changes and not the effectiveness of the technique.




I think the way you think of it is based more on the person's ability than the technique. How effective is a technique based on a person's skill level and not if the technique alone is effective.  I think this is the most common way that people determine if a technique is a high percentage or a low percentage, by basing it on the person's skill level and ability to do it.  So in this light we get things like "Tai Chi Master" who we just assume has the skill level and the ability to use the techniques.  So when the "Tai Chi Master" loses, people think that Tai Chi techniques are not effective but no one ever questions if the "Tai Chi Master" actually have the skill level and ability to use the technique. It doesn't necessarily mean the technique is ineffective or low percentage,  but it definitely means that the "Tai Chi Master" couldn't use them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 5, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure if you notice in the video, but the low kick was a high percentage technique vs the circular punch which is considered a "low percentage" technique because it's slower. Yet he was able to use the technique effectively, which brings into question "Is the circular punch" really a low percentage technique?  Or was the kick actually a low percentage technique?  I watch one of his other fights where his opponent tried the same kicks. The outcome was different as the other guy understood that he couldn't just kick first. He thew punch combos and ended the combo with the same kick.  This made the kick more effective.  2 different fights with 2 different fighters using the same kick and having the same problem.  The only real difference is that one understood why the kick was being countered and made the adjustment.  This is the fight that I'm referring to. The first 2 minutes he threw the kick first.  You can see him work it out.  The he realized that he had to use a punch combination before the kick.  There is no skill level involved between throwing a kick first and throwing a punch before the kick, and tying a kick at the end of a punch combination.  The approach is what changes and not the effectiveness of the technique.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not referring to the ability to do the technique, but the ability of the opponent to prevent it. My single-leg is a higher-percentage technique against a striker than against a wrestler.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 5, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Someone recently admitted that they wanted to fight me, to prove that TMA can't beat MMA.  He wanted to do a video like the MMA vs Tai Chi video.  Long story short.  *I told him that if he wants to fight me because he truly believes that I don't know how to fight, then that makes him a bully.*  I asked him why would he beat up someone who he believed couldn't defend themselves.  My question pretty much silenced him.
> 
> Well done!
> 
> ...



A good response.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not referring to the ability to do the technique, but the ability of the opponent to prevent it. My single-leg is a higher-percentage technique against a striker than against a wrestler.


  But if you are looking at it that way, then aren't you looking at the ability of the opponent to do their technique?  So in that light you aren't looking at your ability to use a technique, you are looking at your opponent's ability to use a technique.  So in a way it's the same thing, it's just that you aren't measuring your ability but your opponent's ability.  If this is correct then my statement would still hold true.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 5, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> A good response.


It worked better than I thought it would.  I haven't heard anything from him since I've told him that.  I haven't seen him bully other TMA artists in the group either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 5, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> But if you are looking at it that way, then aren't you looking at the ability of the opponent to do their technique?  So in that light you aren't looking at your ability to use a technique, you are looking at your opponent's ability to use a technique.  So in a way it's the same thing, it's just that you aren't measuring your ability but your opponent's ability.  If this is correct then my statement would still hold true.


If you include counters as techniques, then yes. I'm specifically NOT talking about my own ability to do my technique - that is a static point in both instances. But it's not really the same thing. Someone who knows how to sprawl to avoid a single-leg makes the single-leg less likely to be successful than if they didn't know that. Their skill matters.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 5, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I was told that my by this person that my opinion of martial art had no value because I have never competed as a Professional Fight or MMA fight.


I've actually been told something similar.

My response was that one of the fundamentals of self-defense was to control your environment and never place yourself in a situation where someone else could hurt you.  MMA doesn't follow that fundamental, and because of that, I was far more successful in defending myself than they were.  

It was amusing watching his reaction.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 5, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> It worked better than I thought it would.  I haven't heard anything from him since I've told him that.  I haven't seen him bully other TMA artists in the group either.



Great!  I hope I never have to use that, but if the opportunity should arise, I will gleefully steal that.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 5, 2017)

Balrog said:


> I've actually been told something similar.
> 
> My response was that one of the fundamentals of self-defense was to control your environment and never place yourself in a situation where someone else could hurt you.  MMA doesn't follow that fundamental, and because of that, I was far more successful in defending myself than they were.
> 
> It was amusing watching his reaction.



So the best martial artist are the guys who never turn up.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So the best martial artist are the guys who never turn up.


I firmly believe that old Sun Tzu nailed it:

*For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.*


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 6, 2017)

Balrog said:


> I firmly believe that old Sun Tzu nailed it:
> 
> *For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.*


 Key word is Subdue.  Which is not the same as avoiding or not confronting the enemy.  More schools in the U.S. need to teach their kids this instead of telling them not to fight back or to walk away.  Sometimes those aren't viable options.  Kids who killed themselves because of bullying, didn't do it because they were only bullied once.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 6, 2017)

Balrog said:


> I firmly believe that old Sun Tzu nailed it:
> 
> *For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.*



A doctor who has never lost a patient is not the same as a doctor who has never operated on one.

You know who said that?

Me Just then.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> A doctor who has never lost a patient is not the same as a doctor who has never operated on one.
> 
> You know who said that?
> 
> Me Just then.


Perfect comedy timing.  I freaking read that thing thought I was going to be enlightened by some guy that's been dead for over 100 years and then  I got to the end... " Me Just then" ha ha ha.  You sir,  are a genius.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 6, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Perfect comedy timing.  I freaking read that thing thought I was going to be enlightened by some guy that's been dead for over 100 years and then  I got to the end... " Me Just then" ha ha ha.  You sir,  are a genius.


Whenever I said, "Old Chinese saying said ...", I'm old and I'm Chinese.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> A doctor who has never lost a patient is not the same as a doctor who has never operated on one.
> 
> You know who said that?
> 
> Me Just then.


A doctor who practices preventive medicine and keeps his patients healthy would never need to operate.

You know who said that?

Take a guess.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Key word is Subdue.  Which is not the same as avoiding or not confronting the enemy.  More schools in the U.S. need to teach their kids this instead of telling them not to fight back or to walk away.  Sometimes those aren't viable options.  Kids who killed themselves because of bullying, didn't do it because they were only bullied once.


No argument there, which is why I teach classes in bullying prevention.  I like Suz Tzu's quote because to me it embodies the idea that fighting should be the last resort.  I teach that.  But I mix it with what I call (for lack of a better term) "light-switching".  If you have to fight, you have to change like a light switch being thrown from nice guy to eat-your-heart-while-it's-still-beating guy.  Nobody wins a physical confrontation by being nice.  They do it by hurting the the other guy until his point of view changes and he stops trying to hurt you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 8, 2017)

Balrog said:


> witch being thrown from nice guy to eat-your-heart-while-it's-still-beating guy.


I think this is one of the main reasons why Martial Arts Master (the real ones) always spoke of removing emotions like anger and kindness from the training of forms.  The tell student to remove these emotions because such physical scenarios it's like what you stated "a switch."  Being angry will cloud judgement, being kind will put you in arm.  I'm a nice guy so if I start worrying about my attacker's well being or my morale values then I'll put myself in danger.  Martial arts reduces everything to focus and action.  It teaches to fight with the same concern of well-being that a person kills a mosquito with.  We don't feel, we just do. 

I recently just saw a video of a police officer being shot.  It was clear that he was letting his emotions guide him as he was trying to get a guy in a coat to stop walking away.  The police officer had his taser out but it would have been ineffective because of the coat, the guy with the coat also had his hand in his coat pocket and refused to remove his hand from his pocket.   The police officer gave multiple commands which were ignored.  Everything about the approaching this guy was wrong.  The only reason that I can think of why things went for the officer is that he couldn't flip that switch, he couldn't shut off his emotional engine of having to actually shoot someone, or as you stated (eat-your-heart-while-it's-still-beating).  You could literally see him and hear in the tone of his voice that he didn't want to be that guy.

Removing emotion from the violent action that one has to commit makes it easier to do that emotion and it doesn't put the person at risk of going into a blind rage.
I like that you teach it as being a switch.   It's not a permanent mental state of being extremely violent.  It's a switch that we control.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think this is one of the main reasons why Martial Arts Master (the real ones) always spoke of removing emotions like anger and kindness from the training of forms.  The tell student to remove these emotions because such physical scenarios it's like what you stated "a switch."  Being angry will cloud judgement, being kind will put you in arm.  I'm a nice guy so if I start worrying about my attacker's well being or my morale values then I'll put myself in danger.  Martial arts reduces everything to focus and action.  It teaches to fight with the same concern of well-being that a person kills a mosquito with.  We don't feel, we just do.


This is why I make sure I talk in a calm voice about the destruction some techniques can cause. I just comment on it: "And if I can't control him here, I'll take the shoulder out." I talk at other times (not during technique) about the repercussions of self-defense decisions, but in that moment, I want it to be clear to them that if I've been put in a position of having to defend, I can't really afford to be nice unless it is clear I absolutely outclass the guy (and even then, I'm taking a risk to do so). I need to end this as quickly as possible. If that means he has a concussion, broken wrist, or whatnot, that's what I'll do. 

"I'm a really nice guy, until I'm not."


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

Balrog said:


> A doctor who practices preventive medicine and keeps his patients healthy would never need to operate.
> 
> You know who said that?
> 
> Take a guess.



Except it is a fantasy expectation.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is why I make sure I talk in a calm voice about the destruction some techniques can cause. I just comment on it: "And if I can't control him here, I'll take the shoulder out." I talk at other times (not during technique) about the repercussions of self-defense decisions, but in that moment, I want it to be clear to them that if I've been put in a position of having to defend, I can't really afford to be nice unless it is clear I absolutely outclass the guy (and even then, I'm taking a risk to do so). I need to end this as quickly as possible. If that means he has a concussion, broken wrist, or whatnot, that's what I'll do.
> 
> "I'm a really nice guy, until I'm not."



Makes no difference.

Some roid muncher is about to take you head off. The last thing you are going to access is your instructor telling you something in a calm voice about the repercussions of whatever.

You are ether mentally prepared to deal with stress or you can hope you have a genetic disposition that can cope.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Makes no difference.
> 
> Some roid muncher is about to take you head off. The last thing you are going to access is your instructor telling you something in a calm voice about the repercussions of whatever.
> 
> You are ether mentally prepared to deal with stress or you can hope you have a genetic disposition that can cope.


The calm voice is when I'm talking about the destruction/injury that we can cause (not the repercussions). I use a calm voice to make sure they understand this is not about being bloodthirsty or wanting to hurt people. Sometimes, it's just what it takes, so you do it.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Except it is a fantasy expectation.


As was yours.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 9, 2017)

Balrog said:


> As was yours.



So you actually think prevention can erase the need for surgery. Are you one of those guys who think avocados cure cancer as well?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So you actually think prevention can erase the need for surgery. Are you one of those guys who think avocados cure cancer as well?


Depends how hard you hit someone with them.


----------

