# judo for self defense



## Manny

There is no doubt to me that judo can be an efective way to defende one self if need it on the streets (outside the dojo) however I wonder at what level (belt color) the senseis starts to teach self defense moves instead the sporting ones?

As long as I know in judo the most important thing is to learn how to fall and this takes several months and then the student starts to learn some trowing but at what level the judo sensei starts to teach solid techs to use in a self defense escenario?

Manny


----------



## arnisador

In my experience few Judo instructors teach much beyond the sport, even though strictly speaking there are self-defense techniques in the classic Kodokan system.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

The judo instructor that teaches at the club I'm familiar with doesn't actually start teaching 'self-defense' moves, or street applications of judo until shodan.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Manny said:


> I wonder at what level (belt color) the senseis starts to teach self defense moves instead the sporting ones?



When teacher starts to teach you how to use illegal moves. Also when you teacher starts to teach you how to execute a "bad throw".


----------



## bluewaveschool

Illegal in the sense of against sporting rules?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

bluewaveschool said:


> Illegal in the sense of against sporting rules?



Such as how to:

- hide a hay-maker in your head lock so you can knock your opponent 1/2 way out before your head lock.
- pull your opponent's face into your elbow.
- grab on your opponent's arm so you can hurt his wrist joint or elbow joint when you apply your throw.
- bend your opponent's leg side way so you can hurt his knee joint.
- ...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Yes, only illegal for the sport, but a lot of judo players are only concerned with the sport aspect. Sort of the equivalent of throwing elbows if you get too close somehow in a tkd match..you'll get in trouble for doing it and it wont benefit your matches, so sport TKD instructors dont spend time on it. (This is only really true for judo, jujutsu doesn't have 'illegal moves' as far as I know, would kind of be the equivalent of self-defense TKD rather than Kukkiwon TKD).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The day when a "sport" coach starts to teach any anti-terrorism school, he will find out that his students will not be satisfied with just "sport", he will be forced to change. Until then some coaches my feel too comfortable in his "sport" zone. If you go to Judo forum and talk about "combat", you will be treated as a troll.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

I teach MuSool Hapkido which is pure self-defense but I hired a Judo Instructor to teach at my Dojang (Dojo). He is teaching a lot of teens and I've heard him tell them several times; "on the mat you, do it this away" and "on the street, it's done like this". 

I am not sure if he is the exception to the rule because he is teaching a sport at a self-defense school or if that is the way he teaches. 

We also teach Taekwondo at the Dojang. There is a sport TKD team where they work on ring techniques, but the regular traditional Taekwondo classe train more of a street applicable fighting system. At the end of the day, "martial" implies war. I want my students to be able to safely defend themselves. 

The sport aspect is good, but if all you train for is sport, the student is developing bad habits.


----------



## punisher73

As always, it depends.  There are some Judo schools that teach the full spectrum including Judo's self-defense kata.  Others, only concentrate on the sport side of things.  Talk to the instructor about what you want and see if they can help you bridge that gap between sport and self-defense.


----------



## Isaiah90

Manny said:


> There is no doubt to me that judo can be an efective way to defende one self if need it on the streets (outside the dojo) however I wonder at what level (belt color) the senseis starts to teach self defense moves instead the sporting ones?
> 
> As long as I know in judo the most important thing is to learn how to fall and this takes several months and then the student starts to learn some trowing but at what level the judo sensei starts to teach solid techs to use in a self defense escenario?
> 
> Manny



Judo is not effective for self defense for these reasons. Check my videos.

*Little to no striking *- The problem with Judo is there's little to no striking especially if you're grappling with someone. A real attack will catch a Judoka off guard. There's been several cases of Judokas who got beat up by robbers before they robbed them.






*Weapons - *Judokas lack training to deal with weapons. If they do, it's unrealistic for self defense. They think a knifeman is going to lunge in with one stab or a gunman is just going to point a gun and not shoot. Completely unrealistic. Most Judokas were stabbed or shot to death. One Judoka, in particular, got sprayed with toxic chemicals then had his fingers chopped off one by one. He was beaten to death with a hammer.






*Multiple attackers *- No training in multiple attackers in Judo either. You'd get jumped easily when you try to grapple with one.

For these reasons, Judo will get you beaten or killed on the streets.


----------



## pdg

Isaiah90 said:


> Judo is not effective for self defense for these reasons. Check my videos.
> 
> *Little to no striking *- The problem with Judo is there's little to no striking especially if you're grappling with someone. A real attack will catch a Judoka off guard. There's been several cases of Judokas who got beat up by robbers before they robbed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weapons - *Judokas lack training to deal with weapons. If they do, it's unrealistic for self defense. They think a knifeman is going to lunge in with one stab or a gunman is just going to point a gun and not shoot. Completely unrealistic. Most Judokas were stabbed or shot to death. One Judoka, in particular, got sprayed with toxic chemicals then had his fingers chopped off one by one. He was beaten to death with a hammer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple attackers *- No training in multiple attackers in Judo either. You'd get jumped easily when you try to grapple with one.
> 
> For these reasons, Judo will get you beaten or killed on the streets.



Yet more comedy gold.

And to add to the hilarity, the most recent reply before yours was posted around the time you (sometimes) claim to have started training.


----------



## wab25

Isaiah90 said:


> Judo is not effective for self defense for these reasons. Check my videos.
> 
> *Little to no striking *- The problem with Judo is there's little to no striking especially if you're grappling with someone. A real attack will catch a Judoka off guard. There's been several cases of Judokas who got beat up by robbers before they robbed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weapons - *Judokas lack training to deal with weapons. If they do, it's unrealistic for self defense. They think a knifeman is going to lunge in with one stab or a gunman is just going to point a gun and not shoot. Completely unrealistic. Most Judokas were stabbed or shot to death. One Judoka, in particular, got sprayed with toxic chemicals then had his fingers chopped off one by one. He was beaten to death with a hammer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple attackers *- No training in multiple attackers in Judo either. You'd get jumped easily when you try to grapple with one.
> 
> For these reasons, Judo will get you beaten or killed on the streets.


I wish I could have a "Disagree" button for each video. Actually, I want a "Disagree" button for each scenario analyzed, within each video.

As for the first video... the guy analyzing, shows that he has zero understanding of how traditional arts (karate and TKD) train. Just because all karate guys don't win all fights, is not proof that karate is not effective. Its not hard to look through youtube to find examples of karate guys and TKD guys successfully defending themselves.

I find it especially amusing that the "Judo Fails" he shows, are successful Judo throws, applied to KO one guy, and to effectively take down and pin the other guy. I am not sure that the guy doing the analyzing in the Judo video, understands what the word "fail" means. One move ending a fight or altercation, decisively, is not a fail. Out of all the altercations shown, the Judo guys ended things the quickest and most decisively.


----------



## Isaiah90

wab25 said:


> I wish I could have a "Disagree" button for each video. Actually, I want a "Disagree" button for each scenario analyzed, within each video.
> 
> As for the first video... the guy analyzing, shows that he has zero understanding of how traditional arts (karate and TKD) train. Just because all karate guys don't win all fights, is not proof that karate is not effective. Its not hard to look through youtube to find examples of karate guys and TKD guys successfully defending themselves.
> 
> I find it especially amusing that the "Judo Fails" he shows, are successful Judo throws, applied to KO one guy, and to effectively take down and pin the other guy. I am not sure that the guy doing the analyzing in the Judo video, understands what the word "fail" means. One move ending a fight or altercation, decisively, is not a fail. Out of all the altercations shown, the Judo guys ended things the quickest and most decisively.



lol i'm not talking about fights. I'm talking about real life attacks. Most don't make it. 

As for the Judo fails, you didn't pay attention to what i said in the video.


----------



## wab25

Isaiah90 said:


> As for the Judo fails, you didn't pay attention to what i said in the video.


I did pay attention. I disagreed with everything you said in them. 

Lets start with your first Judo Fail... the one where the gal, KOed the guy with a throw.

1. You said she didn't try de-escalating verbally. Why did people turn their cameras on in time to film the physical part? They overheard or saw something developing. From their actions at the start, they were definitely being verbal with each other. She may have failed de-escalating verbally... but its not always possible to do. Besides, you would not have picked a clip where it was successful.

2. You froze the clip while she was off balancing the guy. You said she left herself wide open to an attack, if this were a multiple attacker situation. Well, if you are going to pause video, then imagine you could magically make more bad guys appear, where you wanted them to attack her... then sure. But, there does not exist any technique that is immune to that. Even just standing the best guard you know of... I'll pause the video, and point to where the guy could be standing right behind you, punching the back of your head. Whats more important is that she was not in a multiple attacker situation, which she seemed to understand. What you are calling a failure of the technique, I am calling an effective entrance to her technique. I define it as successful because she KOed the guy with that technique, that she started with that entrance.

3. You paused the video again when she had the guy loaded and was starting the throw. You said that if he had reacted, he could have done anything, because he had her back. First off, you are showing that you have never been thrown like that by anyone that knew what they were doing. It happens much faster when you don't pause the video. When you are far enough off balance for that throw to work, like it did, you can generate very little power as your structure is compromised and you cannot root. From that point, there are a few things you can do, but most of them involve taking the fall anyway. That entrance you didn't like, got her in deep enough that the throw was going to happen no matter what he did. Further, he did react... he was trying to figure out how this little girl was hitting him with the earth.

4. You then pointed out the big problem, had she not knocked the guy out, he could have got back up and continued to attack her. First, thats true of any technique, from any art. If you don't cause the other guy to be unconscious, he might try to attack you again. With a throw like that, especially outside the ring... you have to worry about more than just a KO from hitting your head. You could also injure your neck, back, shoulder, clavical, knees, ankles, elbows... the list goes on. Many of those injuries will end the fight, even with out the KO. Most of them will limit what he can do, should he continue to attack.

Here is what you missed. You are very concerned with multiple attackers. First off, she was aware that she only had one attacker for the moment. Also, once she finished the throw, she popped right back up to her feet and was mobile again, able to run or fight the next guy.

If she were in a multiple attacker situation, lets go to point 2, where you showed that she was vulnerable from behind. Her entrance, would have moved her away from the guy behind her. Yes, he could have followed her... but then her throw would have thrown that guy into the second guy behind her. Even if she missed, the second guy now has to find a way around the guy KOed on the ground in front of him, to get to her. Remember, she was right back to her feet. She now has time to run, throw a 3rd guy or grab a weapon of opportunity. If she didn't KO the guy, now the second guy, has to find a way around the first guy, who is also trying to get back up... this may buy her even more time to run.

When dealing with multiple attackers... you need to stay mobile and find ways to reduce the number of people you are fighting. With this single move, she would have gotten herself outside the center of attackers, KOed one guy reducing the number of attackers and put a barrier between her and the other attackers. That very effective for one move.

What if he had a weapon? Well, he didn't have it out yet. She executed one move, that dumped the guy on his head with the possibility of KO, head injury, neck injury, back injury, shoulder injury, arm injury, wrist injury.... All of which will slow him down and or prevent him from using a weapon. Further, she was able to gain her feet again much quicker than the guy she threw. This gives her a head start to run away while he is getting his weapon.

In all cases, what she did proved highly effective. All the problems you have with her technique are problems with all techniques. We don't yet have techniques that can deal with time stopping so that more attackers can magically appear. The issues you have are solved by being aware of your environment. This gal demonstrated that she was aware and even after throwing the guy, popping back up to be ready for the next attacker or the guy to try to continue.

To sum up, I disagree completely with your analysis and your conclusions.


----------



## pdg

wab25 said:


> She may have failed de-escalating verbally... but its not always possible to do. Besides, you would not have picked a clip where it was successful.



There wouldn't have been a clip to pick, nobody films a swift de-escalation. There's not time, and even there was it'd be far too dull to publish.


----------



## now disabled

Isaiah90 said:


> lol i'm not talking about fights. I'm talking about real life attacks. Most don't make it.
> 
> As for the Judo fails, you didn't pay attention to what i said in the video.



So now an attack isn't a fight. Ok another point learned lol


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> So now an attack isn't a fight. Ok another point learned lol



Actually, this is one thing I'd agree with.

You attack your lunch, you attack a heavy bag, you attack a country if you invade.

It's only a fight if anything happens in return.

So, in the case of an attack on the OP, he's correct, it'll never be a fight.


----------



## JR 137

Isaiah90 said:


> lol i'm not talking about fights. I'm talking about real life attacks. Most don't make it.
> 
> As for the Judo fails, you didn't pay attention to what i said in the video.


I didn’t watch your video, but I have a question, in two parts...

Did the judoka walk away from the altercation with her life and health intact?  If so, how was it a fail?

Your analysis videos are far too long and have too much senseless rambling for me to sit through them.  I need the short version here.


----------



## JR 137

pdg said:


> Actually, this is one thing I'd agree with.
> 
> You attack your lunch, you attack a heavy bag, you attack a country if you invade.
> 
> It's only a fight if anything happens in return.
> 
> So, in the case of an attack on the OP, he's correct, it'll never be a fight.


It took me a few reads to get the punchline.  I’m a little slow I guess.


----------



## TSDTexan

JR 137 said:


> It took me a few reads to get the punchline.  I’m a little slow I guess.


we all have slow days.


----------



## caped crusader

This guy has a great youtube channel


----------



## BrendanF

caped crusader said:


> This guy has a great youtube channel



He does - some of the people here have helped him with it.  Fortunately there's no need to reinvent the wheel; like the video you posted shows, there are still old schools training and teaching these days.


----------



## drop bear

caped crusader said:


> This guy has a great youtube channel



Real fighting is not about doing great damage to them. It is about shutting down their ability to do damage to you. Fighting conservatively is incredibly important when the stakes of loosing are high. 

So here while you are giving yourself a big pat about how you are going break a guys arm. You are also giving up you back in a way that can let the other guy squeeze your neck until you are dead. 

And then trying a move that you probably have never done for realsies because you can't rip people's arms off in training. 

This is not how you fight conservatively. It is taking a massive risk.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> Real fighting is not about doing great damage to them. It is about shutting down their ability to do damage to you. Fighting conservatively is incredibly important when the stakes of loosing are high.



You tell those battle hardened veterans that passed down the information those old schools collectively retain what 'real fighting' is all about.  I'm sure they had no idea


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> Real fighting is not about doing great damage to them. It is about shutting down their ability to do damage to you. Fighting conservatively is incredibly important when the stakes of loosing are high.
> 
> So here while you are giving yourself a big pat about how you are going break a guys arm. You are also giving up you back in a way that can let the other guy squeeze your neck until you are dead.
> 
> And then trying a move that you probably have never done for realsies because you can't rip people's arms off in training.
> 
> This is not how you fight conservatively. It is taking a massive risk.


Well I'm a bit of a Bruce Lee...I take what's useful and integrate it into my action. No one can predict a fight in most cases, so I flow ...
No one said follow the techniques Text book fashion.


----------



## caped crusader

BrendanF said:


> You tell those battle hardened veterans that passed down the information those old schools collectively retain what 'real fighting' is all about.  I'm sure they had no idea


Some of these arm bars and chokes work 100%. 
Of course ground work might not be good against say 2 guys. Judo is ä great System and some Boxing or practice of the atemi waza shown in kata...it's all there.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> You tell those battle hardened veterans that passed down the information those old schools collectively retain what 'real fighting' is all about.  I'm sure they had no idea



I can't. They are no longer alive.  So nobody knows what their opinions on real fighting is.

The best we have now is people interpreting their opinions based on other opinions. And very little practical experience.


----------



## drop bear

caped crusader said:


> Well I'm a bit of a Bruce Lee...I take what's useful and integrate it into my action. No one can predict a fight in most cases, so I flow ...
> No one said follow the techniques Text book fashion.



My comment is about concept.


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> And very little practical experience.


you know the US Marines & Army trained Judo in self defence /WW2 so i guess some of these vets did use it in combat.


----------



## caped crusader

Judo/Ju Jitsu  always been a part of training. some escrima too(in my case)


----------



## drop bear

caped crusader said:


> you know the US Marines & Army trained Judo in self defence /WW2 so i guess some of these vets did use it in combat.



The 2nd video at 6:23 and listen to the commentary of ippon seonagi


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> My comment is about concept.


was Bruce Lee not about concepts, using adapting..thinking. 
nothing is carved in stone.


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> The 2nd video at 6:23 and listen to the commentary of ippon seonagi


and ? cherry picking ...one throw.  Even as kids people used trips... o soto Gari .. we never knew it but that´s what it was.


----------



## drop bear

caped crusader said:


> and ? cherry picking ...one throw.  Even as kids people used trips... o soto Gari .. we never knew it but that´s what it was.



And supporting my opinion with your evidence. 

O soto gari. Would be a straw man. Because I never argued all judo was bad. Just that one idea as demonstrated by that one throw.


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> one idea


yes just one opinion..like i wrote.


----------



## Jeff_Beish

Back in the day, many, many Moons ago, when most of my students were school aged guys and gals my curriculum was the entire Gokyo no Waza and what Newaza I remembers including some atemi waza.  Several of my students visited me last year for my 80th birthday and remarked that what I taught them was Judo for shodan grade.  Yes I replied; that is the way I learned Judo and just didn't know better.  Hum, they were kids in their 50's!

My sensei in Okinawa and Japan proper taught us young people and school kids the same.  The purpose for shodan was to expose us to Judo without regard to age.  But, over the years that all changed when the prime directive for Judo was sport and petty politics. 

I am remined of my failed ideas by a photograph of one of my high schools students getting ippon using uki otoshi in a regional shiai.  Jezz he said, when he tested for shodan all he had learned came easy to pass.

Yes, Judo is great for self defense, even against other Judoka.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> I can't. They are no longer alive. So nobody knows what their opinions on real fighting is.
> 
> The best we have now is people interpreting their opinions based on other opinions. And very little practical experience.



Hahahaha.  After your years of extensive research, that's your conclusion?  Or... you're just guessing, coming to a conclusion that, surprise surprise, is exceedingly flattering to yourself and your own approach.  Hmm.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> Hahahaha.  After your years of extensive research, that's your conclusion?  Or... you're just guessing, coming to a conclusion that, surprise surprise, is exceedingly flattering to yourself and your own approach.  Hmm.



My approach is based on my years of extensive research.

Not the other way around.

I am very sceptical of these stories from guys nobody can even ask anymore. But is interpreted by some sort of disciple. 

It gets very cult like to be honest.


----------



## drop bear

caped crusader said:


> yes just one opinion..like i wrote.



Yeah but your opinion was wrong.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> My approach is based on my years of extensive research.
> 
> Not the other way around.



Are you sure about that?  For someone who claims to have done such research, your views are noticeably off base.  How many koryu jujutsu schools are you familiar with?



drop bear said:


> I am very sceptical of these stories from guys nobody can even ask anymore. But is interpreted by some sort of disciple.
> 
> It gets very cult like to be honest.



Again - you know this how?

I'm confused as to how you come to frame the knowledge I referred to above in those terms - what makes you think anyone is talking about 'stories from guys nobody can ask anymore'?

When you learn a BJJ technique, and hear some of the history around it - the famous 'kimura' for example - do you immediately dismiss the technique because you are being told 'stories from guys nobody can even ask anymore'?  Or does the historical background simply add some further context and at times technical or tactical information to your understanding of the art?


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> Are you sure about that?  For someone who claims to have done such research, your views are noticeably off base.  How many koryu jujutsu schools are you familiar with?
> 
> 
> 
> Again - you know this how?
> 
> I'm confused as to how you come to frame the knowledge I referred to above in those terms - what makes you think anyone is talking about 'stories from guys nobody can ask anymore'?
> 
> When you learn a BJJ technique, and hear some of the history around it - the famous 'kimura' for example - do you immediately dismiss the technique because you are being told 'stories from guys nobody can even ask anymore'?  Or does the historical background simply add some further context and at times technical or tactical information to your understanding of the art?



No. I learn a technique from a guy who can do that technique. I have no idea who kimoura was. I just know there are guys who can break my arm with it.


----------



## BrendanF

So to be clear - you have zero experience with koryu jujutsu systems.. and you dismiss them for 'having little practical experience'?

Beyond that, you are willfully ignorant of the history of your own system.. and presume to lecture others.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> So to be clear - you have zero experience with koryu jujutsu systems.. and you dismiss them for 'having little practical experience'?
> 
> Beyond that, you are willfully ignorant of the history of your own system.. and presume to lecture others.


Yeah. It is a simple logical process.

If someone did have practical experience with koryu jujutsu it would be really easy to demonstrate that. They could just do it to someone.

We wouldnt need all this silliness about how a hundred years ago a guy we have never met in a place we have never seen used a system that nobody can use.

And by the way I think I do have experience with koru jujitsu. We have recently had a guy turn up to our club with I think exactly that resume.

The infamous Zohan.

I did a bit on it.

I will see if I can hunt down his resume.
Here we go.


			https://m.facebook.com/groups/203014026473087/permalink/4374289096012205/
		


Is that one good enough.


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> The infamous Zohan.


never heard of him plus when i read Ninja & pressure points i am suspicious. visiting a seminar does not make you an expert.
Have you trained contiuously in this system or just looking at videos with a seminar under your belt?

also suspicious when people talk about having black belts in multiple martial arts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

BrendanF said:


> So to be clear - you have zero experience with koryu jujutsu systems.. and you dismiss them for 'having little practical experience'?


Pretty much by definition, no one currently practicing or teaching a koryu art has personal practical experience in the real-world application of that art, at least in its original context. Kajiya Takanori has not been in any actual duels to the death using real swords. Ellis Amdur has never assassinated a house guest with a knife while serving him tea*. (At least I certainly hope not!  )

This is not to say that individuals involved in these arts may not have practical experience from outside their koryu training. Some have been in real world fights and may even have made pulled off some technique from their koryu repertoire in a modern context. Some have experience in other arts where pressure testing is normal. Some even have subjected their art to pressure testing with sparring, either in-school or against outside practitioners, such as at a Dog Brothers gathering or a HEMA tournament. (I'd have to say that last group is a pretty small percentage of koryu practitioners, though.)

And of course, a higher percentage of the founders of these systems likely had real world practical experience in what they taught, although it is really hard to separate fact from legend and determine what their level of skill and experience would have been or how well they managed to transmit their knowledge to their students or how much functional understanding may have been lost through the generations where those skills weren't applied outside of drills and kata.

*This particular Araki Ryu kata raises all sorts of questions for me. Did an Araki Ryu practitioner actually assassinate a guest under orders of their lord as tradition states? If so, did he practice something like that kata as mental preparation for the deed? If so, did it help him pull off the necessary deception, or did it play out just about like any modern premeditated gangland murder? Were any other Araki Ryu practitioners called upon to perform similar assassinations over the years? If so, did the kata help them pull it off? Or was the whole thing just a psychological conditioning ploy, to get members of the ryu accustomed to the idea that they might have to commit murder on behalf of their feudal lord? What purpose does the kata play for modern practitioners? I've read Amdur Ellis's description of the mindset involved - remaining calm and giving no sense of the intended violence, but does it really work the same way for practitioners who know they will never be required to commit murder? Should it? Sorry ... got sidetracked there. Or maybe not - this sort of application is sometimes brought up to distinguish the context of a historical ryu from a modern competitive art, so it's worth thinking about.


----------



## Steve

BrendanF said:


> So to be clear - you have zero experience with koryu jujutsu systems.. and you dismiss them for 'having little practical experience'?
> 
> Beyond that, you are willfully ignorant of the history of your own system.. and presume to lecture others.


If the focus is on observable, measurable skill, then the history is really beside the point.  Nice to know, maybe.

If the art has internal integrity, you really don't need to know anything about its history to observe the results.  A person doesn't need to know anything about how to cook to judge for themselves whether the gumbo tastes good or not.  Because the skill is objectively measurable.  

And they don't even need to know the history of Cajun food to learn to cook it.  Because the history is irrelevant to the teaching of practical skills.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> Yeah. It is a simple logical process.
> 
> If someone did have practical experience with koryu jujutsu it would be really easy to demonstrate that. They could just do it to someone.



And you have zero experience to refute that idea.  I for one have practical experience with koryu jujutsu and could 'do it' to you.



drop bear said:


> We wouldnt need all this silliness about how a hundred years ago a guy we have never met in a place we have never seen used a system that nobody can use.



What are you talking about?



drop bear said:


> And by the way I think I do have experience with koru jujitsu. We have recently had a guy turn up to our club with I think exactly that resume.
> 
> The infamous Zohan.
> 
> I did a bit on it.
> 
> I will see if I can hunt down his resume.
> Here we go.
> https://m.facebook.com/groups/203014026473087/permalink/4374289096012205/
> Is that one good enough.



No, that one is not good enough.  That person has nothing to do with authentic Japanese martial arts.

Maybe you could get in touch with Phil Hinshelwood and tell him that his training is entirely 'theoretical' that 'nobody can use' - he does real Japanese jujutsu, and I think is in your area:  Budo Japan Yagyu Shingan ryu


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> And you have zero experience to refute that idea.  I for one have practical experience with koryu jujutsu and could 'do it' to you.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> No, that one is not good enough.  That person has nothing to do with authentic Japanese martial arts.
> 
> Maybe you could get in touch with Phil Hinshelwood and tell him that his training is entirely 'theoretical' that 'nobody can use' - he does real Japanese jujutsu:  Budo Japan Yagyu Shingan ry



Why is it that nobody can ever just show a real example of their stuff working and instead we have to constantly go down this garden path of people using every trick in the book to justify a system without doing the one honest thing that would justify the system?

Look just find some video of live sparring where anybody uses these ideas you are saying work.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> Why is it that nobody can ever just show a real example of their stuff working



What do you mean 'working'?  Why is it that you can't follow a linear conversation?  Why did you completely ignore my suggestion that you contact a teacher, who is in your area... and maybe actually gain some experience around something you claim to know about?



drop bear said:


> Look just find some video of live sparring where anybody uses these ideas you are saying work.



No problem:






And because Tony mentioned him:


----------



## BrendanF

Tony Dismukes said:


> Pretty much by definition, no one currently practicing or teaching a koryu art has personal practical experience in the real-world application of that art, at least in its original context.



That depends.  If you define the 'original context' to be completely scenario-specific then I suppose you would be right.  I would suggest that claiming the original context is 'assassinating a guest while serving tea' is about as accurate as saying that Karate kata are only effective if one's opponents line up perfectly in order for one to perform the scheduled techniques, as dictated by the kata.

In my koryu training it has always been made clear to me that we learn concepts and principles which may be applicable to certain situations.. but may not.  I've not been in any 'duels to the death using real swords', but I have confronted a hatchet wielding home invader with a wooden sword.  And I'm sure my koryu training helped me there - despite my opponent not being a 15th century Japanese warrior.



Tony Dismukes said:


> This is not to say that individuals involved in these arts may not have practical experience from outside their koryu training. Some have been in real world fights and may even have made pulled off some technique from their koryu repertoire in a modern context. Some have experience in other arts where pressure testing is normal. Some even have subjected their art to pressure testing with sparring, either in-school or against outside practitioners, such as at a Dog Brothers gathering or a HEMA tournament. (I'd have to say that last group is a pretty small percentage of koryu practitioners, though.)



Again I just don't view things in this way - one should have obtained 'practical experience' _from_ their koryu training.  And of course outside the dojo, in addition.



Tony Dismukes said:


> This particular Araki Ryu kata raises all sorts of questions for me. Did an Araki Ryu practitioner actually assassinate a guest under orders of their lord as tradition states? If so, did he practice something like that kata as mental preparation for the deed? If so, did it help him pull off the necessary deception, or did it play out just about like any modern premeditated gangland murder? Were any other Araki Ryu practitioners called upon to perform similar assassinations over the years? If so, did the kata help them pull it off? Or was the whole thing just a psychological conditioning ploy, to get members of the ryu accustomed to the idea that they might have to commit murder on behalf of their feudal lord? What purpose does the kata play for modern practitioners? I've read Amdur Ellis's description of the mindset involved - remaining calm and giving no sense of the intended violence, but does it really work the same way for practitioners who know they will never be required to commit murder? Should it? Sorry ... got sidetracked there. Or maybe not - this sort of application is sometimes brought up to distinguish the context of a historical ryu from a modern competitive art, so it's worth thinking about.



It is an interesting one.  I would suggest (if you haven't) you get a copy of Mr Amdur's 'Old School' book, which features a chapter devoted to the origins of Araki ryu - and discusses this kata set in depth.  From memory - forgive if I'm off at all - the founder of Araki ryu wrote that he was taught by someone who had obtained an unbelievable amount of power (martially) and then been corrupted by it; he was ordered to kill his best friend.  Under a pretext he lured the friend to a suitable spot and murdered him while serving tea/sake.  Mr Amdur speculates that the person was Shinmen Munisai - Musashi's father.

I don't believe the kata was practised as preparation - I think it was codified as a lesson.  I don't think it is intended to 'teach' someone how to assassinate someone in those specific and somewhat obscure circumstances.  I think it is intended to teach a number of things, starting with mindset and running through a number of other things.

Does it work that way for practitioners who know they will never be required to commit murder?  Good question - do you think sword training 'works' the same way for people who will never find themselves on a feudal battlefield?  I guess I feel like the training was never intended to be a literal analogue, so that question - while relevant - is not necessarily the be-all end-all.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> What do you mean 'working'?  Why is it that you can't follow a linear conversation?  Why did you completely ignore my suggestion that you contact a teacher, who is in your area... and maybe actually gain some experience around something you claim to know about?
> 
> 
> 
> No problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because Tony mentioned him:



I don't travel hundreds of kilometres to train with your guy because if the training is anything like the videos I will still walk out without ever knowing if the system works or not. Drills are no real indication. Every thing works in a drill. 

Others  can go much less distance and work with legitimate guys who can prove their systems work. 

And train in a live manner so that I can see if their system works fo me.


----------



## BrendanF

Cool cool cool.  Maybe stick to commenting on these modern systems that you 'know work' then, and refrain from talking about things you have zero experience or understanding of.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> Cool cool cool.  Maybe stick to commenting on these modern systems that you 'know work' then, and refrain from talking about things you have zero experience or understanding of.



But my point is that if you train in the manner that those videos demonstrate. You may never know if your system works. Because you are not testing it properly.

So at least I know what to look out for in a working system even if I don't understand the system itself. And I know what a working system looks like when I see it. 

So technically I have more understanding and experience in what you are trying to achieve than someone who is physically training in that style.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> But my point is that if you train in the manner that those videos demonstrate. You may never know if your system works. Because you are not testing it properly.



My point is you have zero knowledge of how those people train.  And you have zero understanding of what 'testing it properly' means.  As a result you regularly resort to mischaracterisation and assumption.

That's why I suggested someone who I know is legit that you could contact and learn something from - not 'my guy'.  But you have said repeatedly that you prefer willful ignorance.



drop bear said:


> So at least I know what to look out for in a working system even if I don't understand the system itself. And I know what a working system looks like when I see it.



The fact that you actually think you can 'know what to look for in a working system even if I don't understand the system itself' says it all.



drop bear said:


> technically I have more understanding and experience in what you are trying to achieve than someone who is physically training in that style.



I bet you believe that.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> My point is you have zero knowledge of how those people train.  And you have zero understanding of what 'testing it properly' means.  As a result you regularly resort to mischaracterisation and assumption.
> 
> That's why I suggested someone who I know is legit that you could contact and learn something from - not 'my guy'.  But you have said repeatedly that you prefer willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you actually think you can 'know what to look for in a working system even if I don't understand the system itself' says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you believe that.


If you understood the system yourself you would have an opportunity to address any mischaracterisation and assumption. 

For some reason you seem to be trying to avoid doing this. You avoid showing your martial arts in a honest fashion. 

If you can't be honest or upfront you can't accuse people of being misinformed. 

You have consistently shown dead drills as an example of functional martial arts for self defense. And dead drills while being important building blocks for learning martial arts. Are not a good representation for its ability to function in a real situation. 

Here is a basic explanation as to what aliveness is. And why it is important for an honest assessment of practical martial arts.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> If you understood the system yourself you would have an opportunity to address any mischaracterisation and assumption.


This has been done in the past; you have ignored it.  That's why so many members here have said they ignore your posts.



drop bear said:


> For some reason you seem to be trying to avoid doing this. You avoid showing your martial arts in a honest fashion.
> 
> If you can't be honest or upfront you can't accuse people of being misinformed.



Again, you simply resort to petty name calling.  What on earth do you mean?



drop bear said:


> You have consistently shown dead drills as an example of functional martial arts for self defense. And dead drills while being important building blocks for learning martial arts. Are not a good representation for its ability to function in a real situation.



No I have not.  Can you show me a single example of where I have presented dead drills as an example of functional martial arts for self defense?



drop bear said:


> Here is a basic explanation as to what aliveness is. And why it is important for an honest assessment of practical martial arts.



Hahaha thanks champ.  I don't need the Thornton 'aliveness' lesson explained to me; I understand what you are saying.  You on the other hand, don't seem to comprehend what you are told.  A common trait of the willfully ignorant.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> No I have not. Can you show me a single example of where I have presented dead drills as an example of functional martial arts for self defense?





> drop bear said:
> Look just find some video of live sparring where anybody uses these ideas you are saying work.



No problem:


----------



## BrendanF

As I said, you have a habit of misreading and making false assumptions.  Easy to do when you don't care to actually understand or learn anything.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> As I said, you have a habit of misreading and making false assumptions.  Easy to do when you don't care to actually understand or learn anything.



Ok. So why wouldn't I understand that video?

I mean it isn't exactly uncommon. It was osotogari a wristlock throw and a straight arm bar.

They are techniques done by just about every other martial arts.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=525209585229687


----------



## Tony Dismukes

BrendanF said:


> I for one have practical experience with koryu jujutsu





BrendanF said:


> one should have obtained 'practical experience' _from_ their koryu training


Maybe it would help if we spent a little time defining what we each mean by "practical experience."

Practical experience can mean a lot of different things in different fields. But since we're talking martial arts rather than plumbing or politics, I'm going to define it as experience actually executing the methods of your martial art (kicks, punches, chokes, throws, stabs, cuts, whatever) against someone who is honestly doing their best to prevent you from succeeding while also doing their best to execute their own techniques against you. If you have a different definition, please offer it, but I think it's a reasonable starting point for discussion. I also think it's at least pretty close to what drop bear is referring to when he uses the term.

I'm going to break it down a little further and talk about practical experience in a specific context vs practical experience in a broader context. Specific skills, tactics, and techniques may or may not be transferrable to different situations.

I'm also going to talk a little bit about individual practical experience vs collective practical experience. If a single person has successfully used their art in 50 fights, it tells us something about that individual and _possibly _a bit about the quality of their methods. If thousands of people have used that art in hundreds of thousands of fights, it probably tells us something more about the effectiveness of the art as a whole.

So, let's look at some examples...

First, let's consider collegiate wrestling. The primary skills and objectives of the art are to be able to control another person's body, to establish dominant grips, control their posture,  take them down, move them into the positions you desire, and pin them, while preventing them from doing the same to you. (All generally within the confines of a particular sporting rule set.)

An experienced college wrestler will have participated in hundreds of tournament matches and thousands of sparring matches with well-trained, highly conditioned opponents who are doing their best to shut down all of his techniques and simultaneously impose their own will. He will have many, many incidents where a specific movement worked or did not work and opportunity to reflect on why that happened and how to improve his success rate. That's one individual. Since collegiate and scholastic wrestling are fairly widespread, there is also a fair amount of collective experience that coaches and athletes can draw upon to evaluate what works under what circumstances - literally hundreds of thousands of matches which can be learned from.

That is, of course, in a specific context - a sport with a certain ruleset. Do we have any experience with how those wrestling skills might generalize to a wider context? What about other grappling sports? What about mixed martial arts? What about street fights? Do these skills carry over at all?

As it turns out, there is a fair amount of evidence that they do. Many collegiate/scholastic wrestlers will cross over and try competing in other grappling sports. Many have made it into MMA. Many have gotten into "real" fights outside of a sporting arena. (You can find plenty of examples on YouTube. I personally remember almost 40 years ago seeing a wrestler and a Kung Fu practitioner of my acquaintance go at it - the results were decidedly one-sided.) The general results seem to be - the wrestlers do pretty well. If they want to compete at the highest level of MMA or different grappling arts then they have to adjust their technique a bit, but the fundamentals carry over quite nicely. (In fact, many of us in BJJ are working to absorb the lessons that said wrestlers have to teach us.)

Now, let's take another example. Let's say HEMA longsword (Meyer, Fiore, whatever school, it doesn't matter). The fundamentals skills and goals of this art are to be able to cut or stab an opponent with a sword, while preventing them from doing the same to you. What practical experience would a high-level practitioner have?

Well, they would probably have a fair amount of sparring with blunted swords both in a club and tournament setting, trying to hit without being hit, while using the techniques laid out in historical manuals, and attempting to judge whether the strikes would have been of sufficient quality (proper edge alignment, sufficient force, etc) to inflict a disabling wound if the swords were sharp. This counts as practical experience in the practice of hitting someone with a weapon while preventing them from hitting you. However it should be noted that the quantity of said experience is significantly less, on average, for HEMA practitioners than for collegiate wrestlers. HEMA is a niche hobby, typically practiced by adults with other demands on their time and there are far fewer tournaments available to compete at. There _might _be a handful of HEMA practitioners worldwide with as much sparring/competition experience as a typical D1 wrestler. However, the competition talent pool is much shallower, so the level of challenge they will have faced in their experience will be less.

Next comes the question of how well the skills gained might translate from the actual context of practical experience (sparring with blunt swords) to other contexts. In this case, the most relevant context might be the actual historical circumstances that the arts were designed for - dueling or self-defense with actual sharp swords. And the answer? We really don't know. There are a lot of variables in a real sword fight that we don't get to experience in sparring. The fear of actually being killed or maimed. The willingness to actually kill or maim another person. Knowing exactly how much of a wound you might inflict with a particular blow you land. Knowing whether that wound would incapacitate your opponent and if so, how long it would take before they stopped fighting and trying to kill you. Having the internal fortitude to keep fighting when you've been wounded and don't yet know how bad it is. Having the experience of actually wearing a sword on your person as you go through your daily life. Recognizing the situations where you might need to deploy your sword quickly and how to do so most efficiently and knowing when not to deploy it and knowing the legal ramifications of using your sword in a society where such weapons are common. That's a lot of stuff that we don't have a good way to replicate - and frankly most of us wouldn't want to. If I had access to a time travel machine or fantasy portal which could take me to a time or place where I could get truly  complete practical experience in sword fighting, I wouldn't even consider it. I'll settle for developing my skill at bonking people with a blunt sword while keeping them from bonking me. 

 Now when you say "one should have obtained 'practical experience' _from_ their koryu training", exactly how much time are you spending actually executing your techniques against someone who is really trying their best to stop your techniques and defeat you?


BrendanF said:


> I've not been in any 'duels to the death using real swords', but I have confronted a hatchet wielding home invader with a wooden sword. And I'm sure my koryu training helped me there - despite my opponent not being a 15th century Japanese warrior.


There you go. That's a bit of actual real-life practical experience. It's something you can learn from. And I'm sure your training did help you.

Now consider. That's *one *incident, against an opponent who probably wasn't even trained in his weapon. What percentage of your technical repertoire did you have the opportunity to use and test out? Assuming that whatever you used worked successfully, do you feel that you now have a sample size to judge how often those movements will work under what circumstances? Compare that to the *thousands *of matches a collegiate wrestler has had - all the successes and failures and opportunities to see what needs improvement.


drop bear said:


> Look just find some video of live sparring where anybody uses these ideas you are saying work.





BrendanF said:


> What do you mean 'working'?  Why is it that you can't follow a linear conversation?  Why did you completely ignore my suggestion that you contact a teacher, who is in your area... and maybe actually gain some experience around something you claim to know about?
> 
> 
> 
> No problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because Tony mentioned him:


We seem to be having a failure to communicate here. Drop bear asked for live sparring. You presented videos of two-person kata, which is definitely not the same thing. There can be value to two-person kata, especially when you allow for the possibility of a bit of improvisation or resistance to check the technical correctness of the movements. I sometimes use similar drills, although not formalized and standardized the way they are in koryu arts. But they are not sparring. The Tenjin Shinyo Ryu video was entirely cooperative and scripted. The video with Amdur Ellis showing Araki Ryu had a bit more improvisation and testing of structure (especially the bit with the naginatas in the bind), but they were still not really trying to hit each other.


----------



## Hanzou

BrendanF said:


> What do you mean 'working'?  Why is it that you can't follow a linear conversation?  Why did you completely ignore my suggestion that you contact a teacher, who is in your area... and maybe actually gain some experience around something you claim to know about?
> 
> 
> 
> No problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because Tony mentioned him:



I think @drop bear is talking more along the lines of this;


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/StreetMartialArts/comments/pdd3y1

or this





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=822456881200623


----------



## BrendanF

Tony Dismukes said:


> Practical experience can mean a lot of different things in different fields.



Hey Tony - great post, apologies for the delayed response.

Absolutely.  This cuts to the heart of the point I was trying to make.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm going to define it as experience actually executing the methods of your martial art (kicks, punches, chokes, throws, stabs, cuts, whatever) against someone who is honestly doing their best to prevent you from succeeding while also doing their best to execute their own techniques against you. If you have a different definition, please offer it, but I think it's a reasonable starting point for discussion. I also think it's at least pretty close to what drop bear is referring to when he uses the term.



Sure, that's well written.  Your further comments about context were even better.



Tony Dismukes said:


> There you go. That's a bit of actual real-life practical experience. It's something you can learn from. And I'm sure your training did help you.





Tony Dismukes said:


> *one *incident, against an opponent who probably wasn't even trained in his weapon. What percentage of your technical repertoire did you have the opportunity to use and test out? Assuming that whatever you used worked successfully, do you feel that you now have a sample size to judge how often those movements will work under what circumstances? Compare that to the *thousands *of matches a collegiate wrestler has had - all the successes and failures and opportunities to see what needs improvement.



Yep - that's one incident I've mentioned.  I have had a few.

In these *thousands* of matches the collegiate wrestler has had... how many of those included his/her opponent swinging a weapon at them?

The reality is - for all of these thousands of wrestling matches, the collegiate wrestler has received zero training around weapon use, retention or defense.

Similarly, plenty of martial artists trained in and skilled with the use of weapons.. may be completely ignorant of critical knowledge or training in the use of or defense against firearms.

Plenty of wonderful pistoleros have no knowledge of combat shooting tactics, troop movement, and the myriad other factors which come into play in a firefight.

Context is critical, and the blanket statements made by Drop Bear that essentially boil down to "BJJ/wrestling/MT > anything and everything else" ignore that, and stem from a fundamental lack of understanding of the breadth of contexts out there, and the training methodologies which can be effectively used to approach them.

The entire 'liveness' discussion too ignores these contextual variances at worst, or projects principles inappropriate to different contexts at best.

The point I was trying to make in posting the clips of those demonstrations of kata was precisely that - these are 'live' practises, just in varying degrees.  Any idea that those Tenjin Shinyo ryu folks are 'cooperative' with each other is way off base.  They do Judo in addition to their jujutsu studies, for one thing.  Same as the koryu jujutsu I study.

There is a reason that experienced, intelligent martial artists do not all simply do mma/BJJ.  There are benefits to be gained from other things.



Tony Dismukes said:


> That is, of course, in a specific context - a sport with a certain ruleset. Do we have any experience with how those wrestling skills might generalize to a wider context? What about other grappling sports? What about mixed martial arts? What about street fights? Do these skills carry over at all?



Of course they do.  But decreasing as one moves further away from an unarmed, single opponent fight.  I would argue that crossover application to other grappling sports or mma is a significant distance from 'street fights'.  And while of course one can find plenty of footage of wrestlers smashing people 'in the streets', one can also find footage of them being shot and stabbed.

I'm reluctant to engage in these discussions because the restrictions imposed by writing on these forums results in back and forth, polarised debates where folks feel put upon.  I would hasten to add that I am all for 'aliveness' in training.  I do think it is essential.  I just don't think that the only appearance it can take is the 'mma/bjj' paradigm, and so to dismiss other arts one is clearly ignorant of is not only offensive, but foolish.  Particularly where weapons enter the chat.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

BrendanF said:


> In these *thousands* of matches the collegiate wrestler has had... how many of those included his/her opponent swinging a weapon at them?
> 
> The reality is - for all of these thousands of wrestling matches, the collegiate wrestler has received zero training around weapon use, retention or defense.


That's quite correct. Effective wrestling skills are an important aspect of using and fighting against weapons, but someone who has only done wrestling as a sport will have to learn a bunch of extra stuff to apply those skills in a weapons context. I will argue that an experienced grappler will have a head start in that aspect of training when they start weapons training, compared to someone who has no such background. I believe that Ellis Amdur requires new Araki Ryu students to have some background in a close range grappling art (i.e. wrestling, Judo, BJJ, Sumo, etc rather than something like Aikido) for just that reason.


BrendanF said:


> Context is critical, and the blanket statements made by Drop Bear that essentially boil down to "BJJ/wrestling/MT > anything and everything else" ignore that, and stem from a fundamental lack of understanding of the breadth of contexts out there, and the training methodologies which can be effectively used to approach them.


I think you are missing DB's basic point. Yes - he's a big advocate for MMA, but his bottom line is that he believes in training against resistance and techniques which have been shown to reliably work against resistance. In terms of weapons training, I've never seen him badmouth the Dog Brothers or HEMA practitioners or anyone else who can show their methods working against people who are trying to not let it happen.


BrendanF said:


> The point I was trying to make in posting the clips of those demonstrations of kata was precisely that - these are 'live' practises, just in varying degrees. Any idea that those Tenjin Shinyo ryu folks are 'cooperative' with each other is way off base. They do Judo in addition to their jujutsu studies, for one thing. Same as the koryu jujutsu I study.


The Tenjin Shinyo Ryu folks may very well do non-cooperative live randori, but the clip you posted was not it. In every technique shown, the uke made no attempt whatsoever to prevent tori from executing his movement nor did he make any effort to defeat tori with his own movements. If you consider that "live", then I think you are using a very different sense of the word. Perhaps you could explain the definition you are using and we can come up with a common vocabulary to communicate better.

The Araki Ryu video was closer to something like sparring, and had some improvisation, but it's not all the way there. You might consider it a sort of middle ground between purely cooperative kata and actual sparring. That can have benefits, but if you never do actual sparring then it can also have the risk of leading you into some bad habits and misunderstandings of how things work.


BrendanF said:


> I would argue that crossover application to other grappling sports or mma is a significant distance from 'street fights'. And while of course one can find plenty of footage of wrestlers smashing people 'in the streets', one can also find footage of them being shot and stabbed.


Once guns and knives enter the picture, then anyone can get shot or stabbed, including people who train in weapons use and weapons defense or even people with significant real world experience in firefights or knife assaults.


BrendanF said:


> I just don't think that the only appearance it can take is the 'mma/bjj' paradigm, and so to dismiss other arts one is clearly ignorant of is not only offensive, but foolish. Particularly where weapons enter the chat.


It depends on what you mean by "the mma/bjj paradigm." You can certainly have legitimate arts where the technical foundation doesn't look like MMA or BJJ. However you still need to do live training against resistance. If you are training with swords, then you should have people legitimately trying to hit you with a sword while preventing you from countering. If you are training for escaping multiple opponents, then you should have training where a group of people who know what they are doing actually trying to get hold of you and keep you from escaping. (Not just coming at you like uncoordinated zombies and taking easy dives the way you see in many videos of "multiple attacker defense.")

In addition, if there are aspects of what you are training for which can't really be simulated accurately in live, resisted training and which you don't have opportunities to carry out in real life, then you should acknowledge that these are aspects of your training that you can't know for certain how well you would be prepared for. In my original post I pointed out a bunch of the limitations of my HEMA training with regards to the reality of a sword fight. Those same limitations also apply to any koryu sword art.


----------



## BrendanF

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yes - he's a big advocate for MMA, but his bottom line is that he believes in training against resistance and techniques which have been shown to reliably work against resistance. In terms of weapons training, I've never seen him badmouth the Dog Brothers or HEMA practitioners or anyone else who can show their methods working against people who are trying to not let it happen.



I do understand his point.  Neither the Dog Brothers or HEMA practitioners 'show their methods working against people who are trying to not let it happen' however.  They are engaged in a game which is far from genuine combat, in the same way kendo does not accurately replicate a sword fight.  If they were showing methods 'working', someone would not be there to train the next day.



Tony Dismukes said:


> the clip you posted was not it. In every technique shown, the uke made no attempt whatsoever to prevent tori from executing his movement nor did he make any effort to defeat tori with his own movements. If you consider that "live", then I think you are using a very different sense of the word. Perhaps you could explain the definition you are using and we can come up with a common vocabulary to communicate better.



I know what you mean - perhaps I can explain my thoughts better.  Sure, in those public demonstrations there may be less or little resistance provided by uke.  But training in those kata properly involves the senior practitioner (uke) providing resistance.  In early stages the resistance should be (if the senior is good) matched to tori's capacity.  However training should progress to involve pushing tori with significant amounts of resistance - attempting to prevent tori from executing his movements, defeat tori with their movements, and 'breaking' the kata and using different technical approaches to the mandated circumstances.  In other words, genuine kata training does involve full resistance training.  It just is not 'sparring'.



Tony Dismukes said:


> That can have benefits, but if you never do actual sparring then it can also have the risk of leading you into some bad habits and misunderstandings of how things work.



Sparring can have benefits, but can also lead to bad habits and misunderstandings of how things work.



Tony Dismukes said:


> if there are aspects of what you are training for which can't really be simulated accurately in live, resisted training and which you don't have opportunities to carry out in real life, then you should acknowledge that these are aspects of your training that you can't know for certain how well you would be prepared for. In my original post I pointed out a bunch of the limitations of my HEMA training with regards to the reality of a sword fight. Those same limitations also apply to any koryu sword art.



There are no weapon arts that train leaving practitioners dead at the end, so by definition there isn't anyone 'simulating accurately'.  And ultimately almost none of those training in archaic weapon use these days will ever be in a position to use their training as intended.. so we are genuinely engaged in navel gazing, in these discussions.  It is clear, some people seem to think wearing padding and sparring is the only effective method for training.  In Japan, where this discussion has been ongoing for the better part of a millennium, koryu weapon arts tended to prioritise kata training.  I believe with the obvious understanding that folks would engage in rough-housing on their own time.


----------



## Steve

BrendanF said:


> There are no weapon arts that train leaving practitioners dead at the end, so by definition there isn't anyone 'simulating accurately'.


Yes. Finally.


----------



## caped crusader




----------



## Hanzou

caped crusader said:


>



Those are some nice collar chokes, but those are tough to pull off in a SD situation unless your opponent is wearing a thick shirt or a jacket. You're better off with chokes that don't require the gi, like RNCs, Guillotines, Triangle, D'arces, Nogi Ezekiel, Head and arm, etc.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Those are some nice collar chokes, but those are tough to pull off in a SD situation unless your opponent is wearing a thick shirt or a jacket. You're better off with chokes that don't require the gi, like RNCs, Guillotines, Triangle, D'arces, Nogi Ezekiel, Head and arm, etc.



Paper cutters? Loop chokes And the like are supposed to work with T shirts.

Nobody let's me destroy a t shirt trying.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Paper cutters? Loop chokes And the like are supposed to work with T shirts.
> 
> Nobody let's me destroy a t shirt trying.



Yeah, I just prefer to not rely on material they're wearing for the choke. It can lead to consistency problems. I find that I can slap on no-gi chokes far more quickly and more consistently than gi chokes. Some of the no-gi variants of loop chokes aren't bad either.


----------



## caped crusader

Hanzou said:


> Those are some nice collar chokes, but those are tough to pull off in a SD situation unless your opponent is wearing a thick shirt or a jacket. You're better off with chokes that don't require the gi, like RNCs, Guillotines, Triangle, D'arces, Nogi Ezekiel, Head and arm, etc.


Agree 100%


----------



## Ugh

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> The judo instructor that teaches at the club I'm familiar with doesn't actually start teaching 'self-defense' moves, or street applications of judo until shodan.


What the hell are you doing until then, patty cake?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Ugh said:


> What the hell are you doing until then, patty cake?


I don't train there anymore. But learning the sport of judo/doing randori mostly.


----------

