# It really is the system.



## drop bear (Mar 27, 2021)

More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold  back the development of the individual. 

He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods. 






I have always felt this as self evident. In that eben if you train really hard in something that is not fundamentally designed to make you better. You will really struggle to get better. 

And If the system doesn't work. Then naturally talented people will always be better at it because they are the only variable.

And that the system needs a self regulating method to determine if it is working. Which is basically resisted training. And cross training.


----------



## Damien (Mar 28, 2021)

I think it is also down to honesty about what something is for and what it isn't. There are plenty of things in traditional martial arts which are there as training tools, but people try to make them into martial applications, or create elaborate scenarios where they actually work. 

Take horse stance, good for leg and lower back strength and endurance, good for hip mobility and balance, but despite what some might say you're never going to hold it for an extended period in a fight and it isn't going to make you more stable when being pushed or take leg kicks better.

Build attributes, then build basic high percentage success rate skills, then go off into the weeds of situational stuff and be honest with yourself about what in your system lies where and you can't go too wrong. Obviously the teacher has a big role to play in facilitating that. Of course if your system doesn't have those basic reliable skills, then it really is the system that is the problem!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

Damien said:


> I think it is also down to honesty about what something is for and what it isn't. There are plenty of things in traditional martial arts which are there as training tools, but people try to make them into martial applications, or create elaborate scenarios where they actually work.
> 
> Take horse stance, good for leg and lower back strength and endurance, good for hip mobility and balance, but despite what some might say you're never going to hold it for an extended period in a fight and it isn't going to make you more stable when being pushed or take leg kicks better.
> 
> Build attributes, then build basic high percentage success rate skills, then go off into the weeds of situational stuff and be honest with yourself about what in your system lies where and you can't go too wrong. Obviously the teacher has a big role to play in facilitating that. Of course if your system doesn't have those basic reliable skills, then it really is the system that is the problem!


I will say there's at least one person here on MT who uses what I'd classify as a horse stance in his sparring. He stays low in it and seems to do pretty well with it from some of the videos and pictures he has posted. And it seems to be built into the style to use it that way. But I do think that's not true in most styles.

But on the whole, I agree. THere are things in all systems that do not/should not have direct application (hanmi walk in my system, speedbag in boxing, etc.). Knowing what those are and acknowledging their purpose is important. I try to teach students where those are - some of them are even taught as "techniques" in NGA, but I see them as training drills for specific principles, rather than anything that has reasonable application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold  back the development of the individual.
> 
> He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods.
> 
> ...


It always surprises me that this is controversial. Of course the person matters (someone who trains harder and with higher intensity will develop better skills than me), but the system matters, too. Somoene _could_ train for boxing or MMA with my system, but it'd be a bad decision. It's not a good approach for that. If they want to focus just on fighting skills, it's not the best choice for that (though a closed group could use it for that by pruning some of the stuff that serves other purposes). I'm not the best source for ground fighting (BJJ or catch wrestling would be much better there).

The system matters. Hard stop.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 28, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> It always surprises me that this is controversial. Of course the person matters (someone who trains harder and with higher intensity will develop better skills than me), but the system matters, too. Somoene _could_ train for boxing or MMA with my system, but it'd be a bad decision. It's not a good approach for that. If they want to focus just on fighting skills, it's not the best choice for that (though a closed group could use it for that by pruning some of the stuff that serves other purposes). I'm not the best source for ground fighting (BJJ or catch wrestling would be much better there).
> 
> The system matters. Hard stop.


Agree. I think the conversation is at the juncture where a persons intentions, ability, and the access to information weighs heavy. Since systems like MMA and even BJJ are amalgamations I am not convinced any one defined style covers everything. A serious 'fighter' is going to widen their knowledge with experience in multiple styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. I think the conversation is at the juncture where a persons intentions, ability, and the access to information weighs heavy. Since systems like MMA and even BJJ are amalgamations I am not convinced any one defined style covers everything. A serious 'fighter' is going to widen their knowledge with experience in multiple styles.


Agreed. The best folks (in whatever way we choose to define "best") in any group of martial artists are likely to have gotten that way by being or doing different from the rest. So they either had some natural athletic gifts or abilities when they started, or they worked harder/smarter in their training.

Within the group, the person matters a lot. Who is in the group matters, too - and that is at least partly a function of the training (what attracts/repels different kinds of people).


----------



## jobo (Mar 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold  back the development of the individual.
> 
> He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods.
> 
> ...


BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument


While the fist part is true, that doesn't render the argument spurious. There's not equal result (for any given context) across different systems. Two equally gifted people can get different results from different systems, because the system does matter. Give me a fantastic athlete and ask me to train them to kick. Give @andyjeffries someone slightly less talented and ask the same thing. I'm gonna bet his system produces the better kicker, even though my student had an advantage in physical skill. Of course, if you gave me someone who's highly gifted and Andy someone who has trouble standing on one leg, I might manage to come out on top, but that's a huge difference in the starting point.


----------



## jobo (Mar 28, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> While the fist part is true, that doesn't render the argument spurious. There's not equal result (for any given context) across different systems. Two equally gifted people can get different results from different systems, because the system does matter. Give me a fantastic athlete and ask me to train them to kick. Give @andyjeffries someone slightly less talented and ask the same thing. I'm gonna bet his system produces the better kicker, even though my student had an advantage in physical skill. Of course, if you gave me someone who's highly gifted and Andy someone who has trouble standing on one leg, I might manage to come out on top, but that's a huge difference in the starting point.


how have you decided that one fantastic athlete is slightly less talented than the other fantastic athlete, how is this measured ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 28, 2021)

Damien said:


> Take horse stance, good for leg and lower back strength and endurance, good for hip mobility and balance, but despite what some might say you're never going to hold it for an extended period in a fight and it isn't going to make you more stable when being pushed or take leg kicks better.


I'm going to say with exceptions.

There are cases where you would hold a horse stance or  horse like stance for a long period of times.  It's more like a modified horse than a traditional horse and it's used in grappling defense.   This is what the modified horse stance looks like.   When someone is determined to take me down, then I will take this stance.  Depending on the person attacking you may have to stand like this for a significant amount of time and your legs will burn.  It's a good defensive stance for grappling but you have to have crazy strong legs to do it, because like you stated.  I'm not going to hold it.  In reality, I have to move around while keeping the same height. I have to move at the same height when attacking and defending.   This stance makes you more stable in terms of grappling.  If the person starts to kick then I have to abort this stance for a more mobile stance.








Damien said:


> I think it is also down to honesty about what something is for and what it isn't. There are plenty of things in traditional martial arts which are there as training tools, but people try to make them into martial applications, or create elaborate scenarios where they actually work.


I agree with this as well, and many times there's actually an application for it, but the person doesn't understand the application so you end up with something really elaborate. Then you have things that are training tools like you stated. Things that help improve balance, sensitivity, develop breathing, or tension / relaxation.  Sometimes it develops explosive power, but it's a training tool and not an application.  And don't let me get started on Performance Martial Arts.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument



The point is there isn't equality in dedication or efficiency of training


----------



## drop bear (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> how have you decided that one fantastic athlete is slightly less talented than the other fantastic athlete, how is this measured ?



Through competition.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument


I think the argument happens because that statement often tries to pin point "one thing" makes a system good or bad, effective or ineffective.  The reality is that there are going to be tons of elements that help determine such things.   It's not just 1 thing.  We often hear, is it the system or the student?  Answer: All of the above.  Sometimes Both, Sometimes the student, Sometimes the system.  

A system that was never made for fighting TKD Dancing.  Will be bad for fighting, no matter how talented a person is.
A system that was made for fighting Boxing. Will be bad for fighting if the person trains poorly or incorrectly. Showing up once every 2 weeks won't produce quality results.

There are just so many examples that can go either way.  My thought's about the martial arts Journey guy is that didn't understand his system in the context of fighting.    Fighting is abrasive.  It's not going to be smooth like Aikido and Tai Chi often show, and I think that's where the misunderstanding begins.  People think it's supposed to be smooth, but I'm willing to bet, none of those martial arts formally state that.

Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see.  To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A.  How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 28, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the argument happens because that statement often tries to pin point "one thing" makes a system good or bad, effective or ineffective.  The reality is that there are going to be tons of elements that help determine such things.   It's not just 1 thing.  We often hear, is it the system or the student?  Answer: All of the above.  Sometimes Both, Sometimes the student, Sometimes the system.
> 
> A system that was never made for fighting TKD Dancing.  Will be bad for fighting, no matter how talented a person is.
> A system that was made for fighting Boxing. Will be bad for fighting if the person trains poorly or incorrectly. Showing up once every 2 weeks won't produce quality results.
> ...



From my experience I have seen talented guys dominate in some styles regardless of their work rate. 

It is literally who has the better physicality. 

Where say bjj is an easy example of that rule being broken.


----------



## jobo (Mar 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The point is there isn't equality in dedication or efficiency of training


how do you know there isn't equality of dedication ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> From my experience I have seen talented guys dominate in some styles regardless of their work rate.
> 
> It is literally who has the better physicality.
> 
> Where say bjj is an easy example of that rule being broken.


This is what Jobo was pointing to in regards to natural ability.  Some people can train 3 times a week and be better than someone who trains  5 times a week.  There's just numerous factors that come into play.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> how have you decided that one fantastic athlete is slightly less talented than the other fantastic athlete, how is this measured ?


You do understand how discussion works, don't you?

See, I didn't make a claim that someone was more talented than someone else, so I don't have to be able to measure it. But, hey, you're the person who brought up the concept of more talented folks..........so surely YOU have a way to measure that, so you can say someone is, in fact, more talented.

Or maybe that's just you trying to make an argument with no point. You tell me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Through competition.


If they had equal training, that'd work.


----------



## Buka (Mar 28, 2021)

I’ve found that guys who come in with natural ability and God given physicality eventually get smoked by the tortoise who eventually catches them.

Most of them soon quit.


----------



## jobo (Mar 28, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> You do understand how discussion works, don't you?
> 
> See, I didn't make a claim that someone was more talented than someone else, so I don't have to be able to measure it. But, hey, you're the person who brought up the concept of more talented folks..........so surely YOU have a way to measure that, so you can say someone is, in fact, more talented.
> 
> Or maybe that's just you trying to make an argument with no point. You tell me.


yes you did,  you said a fantastic athlete  and one SLIGHTLYless able, so yes you need to measure it or you dont know who is the more talented  or in your words fantastic, do you ?

the whole scenario you outlined is totally dependent on it, let's start with how you measure " fantastic"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 28, 2021)

Buka said:


> I’ve found that guys who come in with natural ability and God given physicality eventually get smoked by the tortoise who eventually catches them.
> 
> Most of them soon quit.


I agree with you.  Just expanding..

Only happens after the tortoise has trained.  Most people in general who have a natural ability will often get lazy with their training early on because they are able to dominate others.  This leads them to the false assumption of  "I don't need any training, I'm good enough."  You see that type of attitude in every sport.  But where it falls apart is when "the tortoise" trains and masters the lessons.  Lessons are lessons regardless of skill level.  The advanced lessons are more likely things that someone with a natural ability and dedicated training developed.  So when the tortoise learns that lesson, they will often be better than the guy with natural ability and lazy training.

Natural ability will only go so far.  But if a person has natural ability  + dedicated training.  Then "the tortoise" isn't going to catch up.  Almost all top athletes showcase natural ability + a desire to grind out that training.  Then there are those we often say "wasted talent" people who have the natural talent but not the willingness to put in the work.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument


Spurious; now there is a word you do not hear every day.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 28, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The point is there isn't equality in dedication or efficiency of training


Or equity in coaching/teaching. Nor should it be IMHO. A good teacher will see ability and push to bring it out. Not everyone wants that however.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 28, 2021)

jobo said:


> yes you did,  you said a fantastic athlete  and one SLIGHTLYless able, so yes you need to measure it or you dont know who is the more talented  or in your words fantastic, do you ?
> 
> the whole scenario you outlined is totally dependent on it, let's start with how you measure " fantastic"


So, it is you just trying to make an argument with no point. Got it.


----------



## Cynik75 (Mar 29, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> ...Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see.  To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A.  How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.


Ueshiba does not like.. 
This is not "use his force agains him". It is "use your force against him"..


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 29, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see.  To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A.  How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.



Couple comments...
I don't claim to be any judge of how well the akidoka is executing, but that other fellow is not a particularly good example of TKD. What he does seems to be classic WT style sport TKD. He doesn't know how to punch. His kicks are slow and badly telegraphed. He's totally predictable. And even if they were not wearing all the padding, his kicks look like point-sparring kicks, not knockout kicks
Beyond that, the gear they're wearing means that when he does land a strike, it doesn't really do much. The aikidoka can just soak up the impact. There is no similar reduction in the effectiveness of the aikidokas techniques.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 29, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Couple comments...
> I don't claim to be any judge of how well the akidoka is executing, but that other fellow is not a particularly good example of TKD. What he does seems to be classic WT style sport TKD. He doesn't know how to punch. His kicks are slow and badly telegraphed. He's totally predictable. And even if they were not wearing all the padding, his kicks look like point-sparring kicks, not knockout kicks
> Beyond that, the gear they're wearing means that when he does land a strike, it doesn't really do much. The aikidoka can just soak up the impact. There is no similar reduction in the effectiveness of the aikidokas techniques.



Fully agree. If I see the color of his belt correct the TKD guy is a blue belt, midway for gup ranking so he does not have a ton of experience. He had a bad habit if kicking air and was pretty tepid with the kicks he did land.
It was not an fair comparison to judge any style by. For all we know the Aikido guy may have been low experience as well and just been a more fight/spar oriented person.


----------



## _Simon_ (Mar 29, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the argument happens because that statement often tries to pin point "one thing" makes a system good or bad, effective or ineffective.  The reality is that there are going to be tons of elements that help determine such things.   It's not just 1 thing.  We often hear, is it the system or the student?  Answer: All of the above.  Sometimes Both, Sometimes the student, Sometimes the system.
> 
> A system that was never made for fighting TKD Dancing.  Will be bad for fighting, no matter how talented a person is.
> A system that was made for fighting Boxing. Will be bad for fighting if the person trains poorly or incorrectly. Showing up once every 2 weeks won't produce quality results.
> ...


WOW.. that video was really really interesting! The TKD guy's kicks felt a bit held back... but the aikidoka's entering was just awesome! No hesitation as soon as there was an opening, the timing was beautiful...


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 29, 2021)

_Simon_ said:


> WOW.. that video was really really interesting! The TKD guy's kicks felt a bit held back... but the aikidoka's entering was just awesome! No hesitation as soon as there was an opening, the timing was beautiful...


Yeah, looking at it again I can see where it may be a "propaganda" video for Aikido but who knows? Why did the TKD guy have on padding at all? Why did he continuously kick at the shoulders instead of the head. The few kicks that got in were heavily pulled. When I watch the TKD guy get off the floor he looks gassed from the start. 
The Aikido guy was smooth and energy efficient from the start.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 29, 2021)

Cynik75 said:


> Ueshiba does not like..
> This is not "use his force agains him". It is "use your force against him"..


Late in his career (don't know about earlier) Ueshiba appears to have been a bit of a purist about that. It's my opinion that aiki is a layer on top of technique. This fits with something said by Kondo of Daito-ryu. So, to me, "aikido" (the group of arts, not specifically Ueshiba's art) should incorporate both aiki and non-aiki use of technique. Without the non-aiki version, it's much more difficult to get the aiki opportunities against anyone with skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 29, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Couple comments...
> I don't claim to be any judge of how well the akidoka is executing, but that other fellow is not a particularly good example of TKD. What he does seems to be classic WT style sport TKD. He doesn't know how to punch. His kicks are slow and badly telegraphed. He's totally predictable. And even if they were not wearing all the padding, his kicks look like point-sparring kicks, not knockout kicks
> Beyond that, the gear they're wearing means that when he does land a strike, it doesn't really do much. The aikidoka can just soak up the impact. There is no similar reduction in the effectiveness of the aikidokas techniques.


Agreed. None of those kicks looked punishing, so I'd feel free to wade right in and jam them with my body (dangerous against someone kicking with force, if you miss the timing). The aikidoka did a decent job with the situation - might be capable of more, but really didn't need to be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Fully agree. If I see the color of his belt correct the TKD guy is a blue belt, midway for gup ranking so he does not have a ton of experience. He had a bad habit if kicking air and was pretty tepid with the kicks he did land.
> It was not an fair comparison to judge any style by. For all we know the Aikido guy may have been low experience as well and just been a more fight/spar oriented person.


In most branches of aikido, if they're wearing the hakama (divided skirt), they're a black belt. Though as we've discussed before, not sure what that means as far as experience. Probably more advanced than the TKD blue belt, in any case.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 29, 2021)

In another thread, I try to explain the "run your opponent down" strategy. Here is a good example for that. The Aikido guy knows how to do it - if you kick me, I'll run you down.







The TKD guy had a head lock on the Aikido guy. But not only his head lock was not strong enough, he didn't even control the Aikido guy's leading arm. His uppercut while holding head lock had a chance to end the fight.


----------



## jobo (Mar 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another thread, I try to explain the "run your opponent down" strategy. Here is a good example for that. The Aikido guy knows how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's not strengh, he let go as he was falling, a reasonably natral reaction to  try and break your fall


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 29, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't claim to be any judge of how well the akidoka is executing, but that other fellow is not a particularly good example of TKD


The quality of TKD isn't going to matter if you are just figuring out how techniques work.  As you get a better understanding how the application actually works then start going against better fighters.  Even though the TKD isn't the best he provides the right amount of resistance. The Akido practitioner had to still work to get what he was able to get, which speaks to the difficulty and level of understanding that he has.  

Kung fu is the same way and I have video of me teaching students how to use it and they display similar difficulties and the skill level that I used was sometimes zero and just allow them to attack my guard, and they still had trouble. 



Dirty Dog said:


> He doesn't know how to punch. His kicks are slow and badly telegraphed. He's totally predictable. And even if they were not wearing all the padding, his kicks look like point-sparring kicks, not knockout kicks


 Yes, but if you are trying to figure things out, then you don't want Knockout Kick Power or Knock Out Punch Power.  You can see in the video where the students kicks and punch would have connected had he actually been trying to kick the head.  A lot of his strikes fell short of the target.  In this aspect. I have had student's spar against me and for whatever reason they didn't want to make solid contact.  i don't know if that's the same thing here.  I don't know if he was instructed not to make solid contact or what.  There were some front kicks that he pulled . I don't have enough info on that aspect.  But I can say without a doubt,  If I was learning how to apply Chin Na then I would want to start with a sparring partner at that level so I can figure stuff out.  



Dirty Dog said:


> Beyond that, the gear they're wearing means that when he does land a strike, it doesn't really do much. The aikidoka can just soak up the impact. There is no similar reduction in the effectiveness of the aikidokas techniques.


  This goes back to learning how to apply things. 
Some people may see the video as someone who knows what he's doing with Aikido.  What i saw was someone trying to figure things out. I only say that because I've seen that same look with people I've trained before.  That look as if they don't understand how to apply it in sparring.  He didn't display the same amount of confidence that we often see with people who are comfortable with sparring and have their techniques down.  If he has to hunt for successful technique like that against a more skilled TKD practitioner then he will lose.  There's no room to "Figure Stuff Out" at a higher skill level.  But with that said if he keeps training like that he'll get better with the application and will gain a better understanding.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 29, 2021)

drop bear said:


> More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold  back the development of the individual.
> 
> He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods.
> 
> ...


This is all plainly obvious to everyone that's not neck deep in the sunken cost falacy.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another thread, I try to explain the "run your opponent down" strategy. Here is a good example for that. The Aikido guy knows how to do it - if you kick me, I'll run you down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The top video is a great example of the TKD guy kicking air. That was a free knockout shot had he kicked correctly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> The top video is a great example of the TKD guy kicking air. That was a free knockout shot had he kicked correctly.


As long as you move in and squeeze the space, your opponent won't have the proper kicking distance that he needs. When your opponent kicks, he has only 1 leg standing, that's the best time to run him down.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another thread, I try to explain the "run your opponent down" strategy. Here is a good example for that. The Aikido guy knows how to do it - if you kick me, I'll run you down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More importantly if you loose a headlock while the other guy is wearing head gear. You are not really trying.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as you move in and squeeze the space, your opponent won't have the proper kicking distance that he needs. When your opponent kicks, he has only 1 leg standing, that's the best time to run him down.


Well, not if you are knocked down/out by the kick. That kid was in slow motion and inaccurate.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 29, 2021)

[QUOTE="Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see.  To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A.  How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.




[/QUOTE]

One thing I observed from the video is there seems to be a large discrepancy between the experience of the two people sparring.   The Aikidoka has no gloves while the person he is fighting has rather large boxing gloves he is clearly not familiar with using.   Real experience is something difficult to translate from one style to another but convincing a TKD guy to wear big boxing gloves was clearly going to give the Aikidoka an advantage.  Would the outcome be any different without the gloves, probably not.  Gear can only protect you if you know how to use it.  Strapping it on will not give you anything more than you had before and may even put you at a disadvantage.

I've seen Rokas' videos for years and I give him props for publishing his journey on YouTube that led to the subsequent closing of his school and a change of path to a new MA. I would be interested to see how his fighting evolves and if he will ever use anything he learned on his prior path.   From the last videos I have seen, it would seem not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Well, not if you are knocked down/out by the kick. That kid was in slow motion and inaccurate.


Agree! The Aikido guy has no respect to the TKD guy's kicking/punching power.

In sparring, the 1st kick/punch that you throw should always be 100% power. If you can let your opponent to block your kick/punch and feels the shocking, the rest of the sparring will be easy for you.

This is why I hate the light contact sparring. How can you expect your opponent to respect your kick/punch if you can't let your opponent to feel your full power?


----------



## WaterGal (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Yeah, looking at it again I can see where it may be a "propaganda" video for Aikido but who knows? Why did the TKD guy have on padding at all? Why did he continuously kick at the shoulders instead of the head. The few kicks that got in were heavily pulled. When I watch the TKD guy get off the floor he looks gassed from the start.
> The Aikido guy was smooth and energy efficient from the start.



My guess is that the Aikido guy was working on practicing defenses against a striking opponent, and got a striking opponent to strike at him. The striking guy is probably either not very skilled (blue belt in TKD tends to be around 1-2 years of experience, so that may well be the case), or he's intentionally hesitating/telegraphing/pulling in order to help his partner practice the move, or both.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> the 1st kick/punch that you throw should always be 100% power.


  I trust you are speaking about tournament sparring.   Dojo sparring at 100% contact is not practical or realistic unless everyone in that session is roughly the same weight and experience.  No one is going to learn anything if you are going 100 % and the weight difference is more than 50 lbs.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 29, 2021)

When your opponent uses circular kick such as roundhouse kick or spin hook kick toward your head, if you just cover your head and run toward your opponent, what do your think your successful rate to run your opponent down may be?

- 10 out of 10 (100% successful)?
- 8 out of 10?
- 5 out of 10?
- 3 out of 10?
- 0 out of 10 (100% failure)?

Your thought?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> For all we know the Aikido guy may have been low experience as well and just been a more fight/spar oriented person


He didn't have a intermediate level of applying his techniques in sparring.  He may be ok if it's Style A vs Style A,, but it's clear that he was hunting and trying to figure out how to make things works.

You know when someone has a technique down.  They look comfortable with using that technique and it never looks like they are trying to figure stuff out.  The one thing that I like is that he didn't try to make it look "flowing" like what we see in the demos.  A lot of people try to fight light that and I just don't think it's realistic.  fighting is abrasive.  Floating like a feather and just catching stuff out of mid air with slow movement's just isn't going to happen.  Kicks and punches are going to come in, and you gotta be fast and during that thing are going to be abrasive.



dvcochran said:


> Yeah, looking at it again I can see where it may be a "propaganda" video for Aikido but who knows?


I hope not lol.  not exactly a stellar performance.  Good for showing the type of training but that's about it.



dvcochran said:


> The top video is a great example of the TKD guy kicking air. That was a free knockout shot had he kicked correctly.


 Yeah he pulled a couple of them  If he didn't want to kick the person in the face then he should have kicked him in the chest.  It doesn't help the Aikido practitioner to pull the kick completely back.  

When I train others, I always tell them to acknowledge punches that could have landed.  Don't just act as if nothing happened. If they do that then they can correct the issues without getting hit that time.   If they ignore it then they will have to learn the hard way.  There were a few times where the Aikido screwed up big time with outstretched hands and strikes looping over that guard.  Then he kept making the same mistake as if he didn't realize the danger he put himself in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 29, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Dojo sparring at 100% contact is not practical or realistic unless everyone in that session is roughly the same weight and experience.  No one is going to learn anything if you are going 100 % and the weight difference is more than 50 lbs.


If a grappler (such as an Aikido guy) has no respect to a striker's punching power, soon or later the striker will be taken down by that grappler.

A striker may play light contact sparring with another striker. A striker should never play light contact sparring with a grappler.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 29, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> One thing I observed from the video is there seems to be a large discrepancy between the experience of the two people sparring. The Aikidoka has no gloves while the person he is fighting has rather large boxing gloves he is clearly not familiar with using


Probably because the Aikidoka wasn't going to strike.  Which in my inexperience, seems to be incorrect. Punches and hand strikes actually make it easier to grab.  For example,  when a person throws a punch or open hand strike, the defender will pause their hands and arms to protect or guard where the strike will land.  This is the optimum time to grab an arm. As soon as you grab the arm, then you can "flow with the punch" that will try to come out.  This should be easier because you have already made contact and the grab, which is better than trying to catch strikes.

Just wading into strikes with outstretched arms doesn't make sense to me.  If I want to grab someone's arm, I sure as heck don't want to do it as it's punching.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a grappler (such as an Aikido guy) has no respect to a striker's punching power, soon or later the striker will be taken down by that grappler.
> 
> A striker may play light contact sparring with another striker. A striker should never play light contact sparring with a grappler.


Respect is earned, I would agree with you there.  However, I would not use terms like 'always' and 'never' because there are always exceptions.   If this was an interclub match up between two people that study different MA and one has clearly more experience than the other, a 100% punch/kick is probably not appropriate.



JowGaWolf said:


> Probably because the Aikidoka wasn't going to strike.  Which in my inexperience, seems to be incorrect. Punches and hand strikes actually make it easier to grab.  For example,  when a person throws a punch or open hand strike, the defender will pause their hands and arms to protect or guard where the strike will land.  This is the optimum time to grab an arm. As soon as you grab the arm, then you can "flow with the punch" that will try to come out.  This should be easier because you have already made contact and the grab, which is better than trying to catch strikes.
> 
> Just wading into strikes with outstretched arms doesn't make sense to me.  If I want to grab someone's arm, I sure as heck don't want to do it as it's punching.


There is clearly more at play than just two people from different MA sparring.   If they were of equal experience in their respective systems, I would hope to see the TKD decline the use of gloves that are only going to be used against him.  

Agreed, when punches and strikes are coming in, there is better opportunity to catch them but that still depends on your level of comfort for dealing with these strikes and know what to do with them.   If you don't know what to do with it, you are just going to end up giving it back.


----------



## Steve (Mar 29, 2021)

Whether you consider this to be the tortoise/hair thing @JowGaWolf mentioned, or something similar, it's very predictable and should be no surprise.  What never ceases to amaze me is how we all seem to be surprised that some folks who train in martial arts can't defend themselves at all.  I mean, I can understand if a grappler is rolled up when taken out of his element or a striker seems defenseless when taken to the ground. That's totally reasonable, if you have gaps in your training.  But if you train to grapple and cannot, or if you train to strike and cannot, something is seriously broken in your training model.  It's not the person.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 29, 2021)

If a striker doesn't train how to knock down his opponent, what else does the striker train for? If a striker control his punching power, how can he knock down his opponent?

It's a joke that a striker tries to play light contact sparring rule with a grappler. Should that sparring stop when the striker uses uppercut on his opponent while he had a head lock?

I like to sparring rule that any head punch/kick should end the sparring match.


----------



## Damien (Mar 29, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Within the group, the person matters a lot. Who is in the group matters, too - and that is at least partly a function of the training (what attracts/repels different kinds of people).



Completely agree. The importance of good like minded training partners is often over looked. If there is no one around your level, their either too inexperienced, or too experienced then it can be very hard to get the right amount of pressure when drilling or sparring. Having people with the same intent behind their training can really drive you forward too.


----------



## Steve (Mar 29, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The best folks (in whatever way we choose to define "best") in any group of martial artists are likely to have gotten that way by being or doing different from the rest. So they either had some natural athletic gifts or abilities when they started, or they worked harder/smarter in their training.
> 
> Within the group, the person matters a lot. Who is in the group matters, too - and that is at least partly a function of the training (what attracts/repels different kinds of people).


Best in a group, though, is relative to the group.  The very best in a bad system may be very bad outside of that insular group.  All the natural talent in the world  can be completely negated by a poor system.  And an average talent in a good system can excel over an exceptional talent who is in a poor system.


----------



## Steve (Mar 29, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Through competition.


not the only way, but definitely the safest and most accessible way to measure skill.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 29, 2021)

Steve said:


> Best in a group, though, is relative to the group.  The very best in a bad system may be very bad outside of that insular group.  All the natural talent in the world  can be completely negated by a poor system.  And an average talent in a good system can excel over an exceptional talent who is in a poor system.


So you have a list of the ‘poor systems’?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 29, 2021)

Damien said:


> Completely agree. The importance of good like minded training partners is often over looked. If there is no one around your level, their either too inexperienced, or too experienced then it can be very hard to get the right amount of pressure when drilling or sparring. Having people with the same intent behind their training can really drive you forward too.



Your comment reminded me of the 1 minute mark here.  You can see the effect when someone is too experienced.  You can see him trying to avoid everything. He even mentions it at the 3:30 mark.


----------



## Steve (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> So you have a list of the ‘poor systems’?


Do you have a list?  Or is every school the same?


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 29, 2021)

Steve said:


> Do you have a list?  Or is every school the same?


I have no list nor would i have made such a broad or damning comment. 
Are there bad schools? Yes, definitely. Bad systems? I can’t say that. I don’t know anyone who have broad enough experience to make that judgement.


----------



## Steve (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I have no list nor would i have made such a broad or damning comment.
> Are there bad schools? Yes, definitely. Bad systems? I can’t say that. I don’t know anyone who have broad enough experience to make that judgement.


Cool.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 29, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Probably because the Aikidoka wasn't going to strike.  Which in my inexperience, seems to be incorrect. Punches and hand strikes actually make it easier to grab.  For example,  when a person throws a punch or open hand strike, the defender will pause their hands and arms to protect or guard where the strike will land.  This is the optimum time to grab an arm. As soon as you grab the arm, then you can "flow with the punch" that will try to come out.  This should be easier because you have already made contact and the grab, which is better than trying to catch strikes.
> 
> Just wading into strikes with outstretched arms doesn't make sense to me.  If I want to grab someone's arm, I sure as heck don't want to do it as it's punching.


There's an odd thing in the Aikido world (Ueshiba's Aikido). I see very few examples of folks who know how to strike. And Ueshiba was quoted as saying something like "Aikido is 70% atemi (strikes)". I don't understand how the strikes vanished from the art if they were so important to the founder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I have no list nor would i have made such a broad or damning comment.
> Are there bad schools? Yes, definitely. Bad systems? I can’t say that. I don’t know anyone who have broad enough experience to make that judgement.


I'd say it's expected that they exist. I've yet to see any endeavor I can think of that didn't produce some bad examples. I don't know which they are (I've seen a few that seemed pretty bad on a cursory examination), but I'd be really surprised if they didn't exist.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I have no list nor would i have made such a broad or damning comment.
> Are there bad schools? Yes, definitely. Bad systems? I can’t say that. I don’t know anyone who have broad enough experience to make that judgement.



I think there is consistently bad and good practice. Which is essentially a system.

I also don't think you need experience to make a judgement because you can look at progression.

And it is pretty simple. Rokus for example spent years doing one system or method. And then changed that system and got a lot better very quickly.

I don't have to understand Aikido to see that. In fact not understanding Aikido probably helps because all I look for is improvement. Rather than what is ascetically correct.


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 30, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> While the fist part is true, that doesn't render the argument spurious. There's not equal result (for any given context) across different systems. Two equally gifted people can get different results from different systems, because the system does matter. Give me a fantastic athlete and ask me to train them to kick. Give @andyjeffries someone slightly less talented and ask the same thing. I'm gonna bet his system produces the better kicker, even though my student had an advantage in physical skill. Of course, if you gave me someone who's highly gifted and Andy someone who has trouble standing on one leg, I might manage to come out on top, but that's a huge difference in the starting point.



Thanks for the mention!


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 30, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see.  To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A.  How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.



I will say that I feel sorry for the Taekwondo guy. He's really not very experienced in sparring at all. 

A lot of his kicks were thrown at the wrong distance (i.e. he was kicking short when standing at a middle distance), doesn't really have enough flexibility to be kicking to the head (he DOES kick to the head but it feels like it's at a stretch rather than being comfortable, and therefore able to deliver with power) and his kicks don't really bend at the knee very much during chambering (making them super visible all throughout the motion rather than be disguised).

I think it's very easy to put two styles together and have one look bad, if the two aren't really evenly matched. I'd be inclined to think the Aikidoka is a black belt and the Taekwondoin is MAX 2 years experience, and comes from a dojang without much sparring practice.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 30, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I think there is consistently bad and good practice. Which is essentially a system.
> 
> I also don't think you need experience to make a judgement because you can look at progression.
> 
> ...


I see what you are saying in that context. I would say intent has to factor in. If a person is taking a style that is not intuitive for what they are trying to accomplish then yes, you could call it the wrong system. Kind of like taking ballet to become a gymnast. They both have overlapping elements but one does not work well for the other. 
But you also have to factor in the accepted fact that no one system is going to work well for MMA so I am not sure how to reconcile that.
Something to consider, even with the popularity of MMA I am not aware of any major contraction in any one style.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 30, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I'd say it's expected that they exist. I've yet to see any endeavor I can think of that didn't produce some bad examples. I don't know which they are (I've seen a few that seemed pretty bad on a cursory examination), but I'd be really surprised if they didn't exist.


I hope they are the 'homemade' variants. The made up 10th degree master who makes up his own system. My comment was intended for the major styles but admittedly did not make that clear


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a grappler (such as an Aikido guy) has no respect to a striker's punching power, soon or later the striker will be taken down by that grappler.
> 
> A striker may play light contact sparring with another striker. A striker should never play light contact sparring with a grappler.


Again, I think it depends on the context, Kung Fu Wang.   Perhaps, on the street, when you want to dissuade an attacker from pressing or continuing an attack, 100% power shot may be appropriate (using another tactic could also perform the same task).   However, the context here has not really been explained.  They are obviously trying to work together in some way as they are tapping out of trouble and the TKD guy doesn't really seem to want to hurt his opponent (the kicks are not really performed with any intent to harm).    Light contact would be more appropriate in this type of situation, imho.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I will say that I feel sorry for the Taekwondo guy. He's really not very experienced in sparring at all.
> 
> A lot of his kicks were thrown at the wrong distance (i.e. he was kicking short when standing at a middle distance), doesn't really have enough flexibility to be kicking to the head (he DOES kick to the head but it feels like it's at a stretch rather than being comfortable, and therefore able to deliver with power) and his kicks don't really bend at the knee very much during chambering (making them super visible all throughout the motion rather than be disguised).
> 
> I think it's very easy to put two styles together and have one look bad, if the two aren't really evenly matched. I'd be inclined to think the Aikidoka is a black belt and the Taekwondoin is MAX 2 years experience, and comes from a dojang without much sparring practice.


Yeah one was more comfortable with sparring than the other.  That makes a big difference.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> the TKD guy doesn't really seem to want to hurt his opponent (the kicks are not really performed with any intent to harm).    Light contact would be more appropriate in this type of situation, imho.


If you throw a light contact roundhouse kick at your opponent, 99.9% of the time your opponent will catch your kicking leg. the striking game will be over. The grappling game will start. 

Again, it's a "stupid idea" for a striker to apply light contact sparring rule against a grappler.

When the Aikido guy took down the TKD guy, the Aikido guy didn't consider whether that take down could hurt the TKD guy or not.







I just can't believe that nobody agree with me the moment the TKD guy's uppercut landed on the Aikido guy's face, the sparring should stop right there.

It makes no sense that the TKD guy doesn't want to knock the Aikido guy out, but the Aikido guy doesn't mind to take the TKD guy down.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah one was more comfortable with sparring than the other.  That makes a big difference.


If I know my opponent is not going to knock me out/down, I will have a big smile on my face no matter how many rounds that I spar.

The light sparring give you the wrong kind of confidence. The experience to gain from blocking a full power punch is different from to block a light punch.

If your opponent's punch can't make your blocking arm to feel the shocking force, your blocking experience won't be useful. Same as the kick. If your opponent's roundhouse kick can't almost break your blocking arm, your blocking experience won't be useful.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you throw a light contact roundhouse kick at your opponent, 99.9% of the time your opponent will catch your kicking leg. the striking game will be over. The grappling game will start.
> 
> Again, it's a "stupid idea" for a striker to apply light contact sparring rule against a grappler.
> 
> ...


Perhaps in the context of a real fight your comment may be appropriate but I think the video is far from a real fight.  I really don't think the Aikidoka was trying to hurt the TKD guy, TBH.  He would release him right after the tap.   I do think the Akidoka took advantage of a lesser experienced opponent and they were 'playing' for lack of a better word.  Light contact is still the way to go in this situation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I do think the Akidoka took advantage of a lesser experienced opponent.


The Aikido guy takes advantage on the light sparring rule.

The Aikido guy can spar against Bill Wallace. If Bill Wallace uses controlled light kick, the Aikido guy can still take Bill Wallace down.

All I'm trying to say is if you take away "knock down" from a striker, the striker has nothing left. An 80 years old grappler can take down a 20 years old striker if the control sparring rule is applied.

There is something called "control punch". There is no such thing called "control throw". When you throw someone, you are using full force.

So what's the proper rule that should be followed when a striker spars against a grappler?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Again, I think it depends on the context, Kung Fu Wang.   Perhaps, on the street, when you want to dissuade an attacker from pressing or continuing an attack, 100% power shot may be appropriate (using another tactic could also perform the same task).   However, the context here has not really been explained.  They are obviously trying to work together in some way as they are tapping out of trouble and the TKD guy doesn't really seem to want to hurt his opponent (the kicks are not really performed with any intent to harm).    Light contact would be more appropriate in this type of situation, imho.


Good points.  The TKD appears to be less willing to work his skill set.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you throw a light contact roundhouse kick at your opponent, 99.9% of the time your opponent will catch your kicking leg. the striking game will be over. The grappling game will start.
> 
> Again, it's a "stupid idea" for a striker to apply light contact sparring rule against a grappler.
> 
> ...


I just train differently. Most people can recover from a head punch or a kick to the head as long as it doesn't come in unrestricted.  

The Aikido practitioner helped control the take down fall which is why the fall was as slow as it was. 
It was a gentle take down.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Aikido guy takes advantage on the light sparring rule.
> 
> The Aikido guy can spar against Bill Wallace. If Bill Wallace uses light kick, the Aikido guy can still take Bill Wallace down.
> 
> All I'm trying to say is if you take away "knock down" from a striker, the striker has nothing left.


Perhaps he did take advantage of a light sparring rule.   I would say that was always his intent.

That Aikido guy could not take Bill Wallace down, no way, no how.  Not that I know Bill Wallace but I would think that anyone versed in real contact would not put themselves in that situation.   If they do, they wouldn't put gloves on and do air kicks from outside kicking range (if this was supposed to be a contest of some type).

I do appreciate what you are saying about taking away the weapons of a striker vs a grappler if the intent was to find out who would come out on top between two individuals in a real contest.  Strikers do not always have to go 100% to gain respect, imho.   If I can slip in and give you a shot that YOU know and I know will take you down that should be enough to gain respect.  If it isn't, well let's see how that works out between the two because someone is going to go to sleep and I suppose we will have an answer of sorts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Strikers do not always have to go 100% to gain respect,


IMO, the light contact sparring rule between a striker and a grappler should be

When a

- head punch is landed by the striker.
- clinch is established by the grappler.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Perhaps he did take advantage of a light sparring rule.   I would say that was always his intent.
> 
> That Aikido guy could not take Bill Wallace down, no way, no how.  Not that I know Bill Wallace but I would think that anyone versed in real contact would not put themselves in that situation.   If they do, they wouldn't put gloves on and do air kicks from outside kicking range (if this was supposed to be a contest of some type).
> 
> I do appreciate what you are saying about taking away the weapons of a striker vs a grappler if the intent was to find out who would come out on top between two individuals in a real contest.  Strikers do not always have to go 100% to gain respect, imho.   If I can slip in and give you a shot that YOU know and I know will take you down that should be enough to gain respect.  If it isn't, well let's see how that works out between the two because someone is going to go to sleep and I suppose we will have an answer of sorts.



If he can just walk through bills kicks and punches. Then the Aikido guy probably could.

The point is you should acknowledge you kind of can't walk through them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The light sparring give you the wrong kind of confidence.


This why the person has to acknowledge the strikes that would be damaging.   If you land a light but solid strike to my head, Then I should mentally register that as a dangerous or damaging strike.  I shouldn't think of it as a light strike that can't hurt me.   Had the person thrown the punch full force then I would have been injured. I have to distinguish between strike that are more dangerous at 100% and strikes that would of no concern even at 100%


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I know my opponent is not going to knock me out/down, I will have a big smile on my face no matter how many rounds that I spar.
> 
> The light sparring give you the wrong kind of confidence. The experience to gain from blocking a full power punch is different from to block a light punch.
> 
> If your opponent's punch can't make your blocking arm to feel the shocking force, your blocking experience won't be useful. Same as the kick. If your opponent's roundhouse kick can't almost break your blocking arm, your blocking experience won't be useful.


Light punches for me are hard punches for someone else.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the light contact sparring rule between a striker and a grappler should be
> 
> When a
> 
> ...


I read this wrong the first time

I agree with this.  Light sparring such as tapping strikes. Should have rules like that.  For me this type of sparring wouldn't be classified as light.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I think there is consistently bad and good practice. Which is essentially a system.
> 
> I also don't think you need experience to make a judgement because you can look at progression.
> 
> ...


System, in this case, is a generic term intended to mean any course of training, from a specific school to an entire martial arts style.  And if results are being evaluated objectively, it should be pretty easy to diagnose where the anomalies lie.  If someone goes to a grappling school and after a year, two years, five years, 10 years, still stinks at grappling, it might be the person, the school, or the entire system that is the problem.  

My point is that, if most people who study in a school stink at whatever the school is teaching, it's not the people that are the problem.  It's at least the school.  But if that school is pretty typical of all of the schools in a style... the disfunction is systemic.

To be very clear, this is simply a comment about people getting good at whatever they think they're being taught.  Where this gets tricky is when styles or schools start to bait and switch you by equating two things that are not actually the same.  Self defense and something else.  Fighting and something else.  You might be learning ninjutsu... but are you learning to fight?  You might be learning some version of Aikido, but what skills are you actually acquiring that translate to ability outside of the school?

When I hear the statement, "It really is the system," I think that applies to any style that relies on exceptional natural ability in order to excel.  In BJJ, MMA, boxing, wrestling, Judo, etc, the beauty is that normal, average, every day people get really good all the time.  People who are strong and not strong. People who are flexible and not flexible.  People who have never been called 'athletic' in their lives.  I mean, sure you can point to the elite athlete and say, "That guy is exceptional."  But to demonstrate that the system is sound, and that the training can consistently and reliably build expertise, you can pick pretty much anyone who trains in the style.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2021)

Steve said:


> System, in this case, is a generic term intended to mean any course of training, from a specific school to an entire martial arts style.  And if results are being evaluated objectively, it should be pretty easy to diagnose where the anomalies lie.  If someone goes to a grappling school and after a year, two years, five years, 10 years, still stinks at grappling, it might be the person, the school, or the entire system that is the problem.
> 
> My point is that, if most people who study in a school stink at whatever the school is teaching, it's not the people that are the problem.  It's at least the school.  But if that school is pretty typical of all of the schools in a style... the disfunction is systemic.
> 
> ...



The bait and switch I think is a bit more subtle. In that you are made to judge off what you can't see.

So the classic MMA guy gets owned in jujitsu and says yeah but if I could have thrown punches the outcome would have changed.

Or if a guy gets caught in an arm bar the outcome would be different if they had an imaginary knife.

If a style says an outcome. Then that outcome should be measured.

So we train for happiness or we train awareness really should measured that or the claim is meaningless.

The individual is kind of a weird one in that intent is used a bit. So " I am not training to be a UFC fighter" is the reasoning for I am not getting any better. 

Yes one does factor in the individual but the other doesn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just can't believe that nobody agree with me the moment the TKD guy's uppercut landed on the Aikido guy's face, the sparring should stop right there.


I can't see where  the punches landed. If it's the face, he should have been able to end it. If it was the top of the head, probably not so much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Aikido guy takes advantage on the light sparring rule.
> 
> The Aikido guy can spar against Bill Wallace. If Bill Wallace uses controlled light kick, the Aikido guy can still take Bill Wallace down.
> 
> ...


There's a lot of room between light sparring and 100%. I can keep a friendly grappler from getting good position with moderate strikes, if we're not going hard.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 30, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> This why the person has to acknowledge the strikes that would be damaging.   If you land a light but solid strike to my head, Then I should mentally register that as a dangerous or damaging strike.  I shouldn't think of it as a light strike that can't hurt me.   Had the person thrown the punch full force then I would have been injured. I have to distinguish between strike that are more dangerous at 100% and strikes that would of no concern even at 100%


I agree that this is the better way to train if you and your partner are both equally invested in trying to learn things but it doesn't work very well if one or the other of you is more focused on "winning" than learning. I've experienced this problem when cross training with people who feel a strong need to "win" at sparring and also with people who are such blind believers in their system or their skill that they can't acknowledge when it isn't working for them. Obviously the long term answer is to either not spar with such people or go into it to learn what you can and make sure that you're not worried in the least about proving anything to them or what they learn.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The Aikido guy has no respect to the TKD guy's kicking/punching power.
> 
> In sparring, the 1st kick/punch that you throw should always be 100% power. If you can let your opponent to block your kick/punch and feels the shocking, the rest of the sparring will be easy for you.
> 
> This is why I hate the light contact sparring. How can you expect your opponent to respect your kick/punch if you can't let your opponent to feel your full power?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the light contact sparring rule between a striker and a grappler should be
> 
> When a
> 
> ...



That's why I generally agree with Kung Fu Wang's posts above. Even when both participants _are_ fully invested in cooperating to learn as much as possible from a light sparring session there's still the problem that some good number of techniques that work in light sparring will not work at harder contact levels and that a good number of techniques require more than (what most people consider) light contact to be effective. In my opinion light contact is best used as something like an advanced drill, within a rule set such as what Kung Fu Wang suggests or something similar, that focuses on the specific skills you're trying to develop from that sparring session. It isn't so useful for testing out your full arsenal of techniques because it's an overly artificial format.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 30, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> This why the person has to acknowledge the strikes that would be damaging.   If you land a light but solid strike to my head, Then I should mentally register that as a dangerous or damaging strike.  I shouldn't think of it as a light strike that can't hurt me.   Had the person thrown the punch full force then I would have been injured. I have to distinguish between strike that are more dangerous at 100% and strikes that would of no concern even at 100%


Agreed. There's a difference between you tagging me and hitting me lightly with what could have been a powerful punch. They don't feel the same from either side.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just can't believe that nobody agree with me the moment the TKD guy's uppercut landed on the Aikido guy's face, the sparring should stop right there.
> 
> It makes no sense that the TKD guy doesn't want to knock the Aikido guy out, but the Aikido guy doesn't mind to take the TKD guy down.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I know my opponent is not going to knock me out/down, I will have a big smile on my face no matter how many rounds that I spar.
> 
> The light sparring give you the wrong kind of confidence. The experience to gain from blocking a full power punch is different from to block a light punch.
> 
> If your opponent's punch can't make your blocking arm to feel the shocking force, your blocking experience won't be useful. Same as the kick. If your opponent's roundhouse kick can't almost break your blocking arm, your blocking experience won't be useful.


This is why light-contact sparring is more productive when the participants have some experience with hard contact sparring. That way they have a more realistic understanding of proper distancing, body mechanics, and which strikes would actually be damaging in a real fight.

When you have that understanding, you can give controlled strikes the appropriate respect and recognize whether a given shot would have been likely to hurt you/slow you down/take you out or not.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Aikido guy takes advantage on the light sparring rule.
> 
> The Aikido guy can spar against Bill Wallace. If Bill Wallace uses controlled light kick, the Aikido guy can still take Bill Wallace down.
> 
> ...



Sure there are controlled throws. I have many times taken a sparring partner down with care to make sure they landed safely. Other sparring partners have done the same for me.

You can't always ensure a soft landing (especially in a really competitive match), but the same can be said for light-contact sparring. Every now and then someone will get hit harder than intended. You can still do a fair amount to keep partners from landing too hard in a friendly light sparring session.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the light contact sparring rule between a striker and a grappler should be
> 
> When a
> 
> ...


Nah. 

No martial artist should be completely limited to just striking or just grappling.
Not all strikes are fight enders. Not all clinches are sufficient to complete a takedown. That upper cut the TKD landed from the headlock in the video was in no way a show stopper even if it had been thrown full force.
Strikers need practice operating within the clinch, how to prevent takedowns and to land strikes from the clinch and how to break free safely.
Grapplers need practice learning how to keep going when they get hit. If they mentally condition themselves to stop every time they get tagged lightly, that's counterproductive.
Any martial artist needs to get a feel for how strikes and grapping flow from one to the other and how they interact
There's nothing wrong with working on a specific drill where one partner just tries to close the distance and establish a good clinch while the other tries to strike and maintain distance. It's a great drill and I've done it many times (on both sides). It's just not a substitute for sparring in general.

IMO, the "rule" for light sparring is to come in with the intent to learn and to be honest with yourself about how full contact would have changed the dynamic.
If I get a clinch and take my partner down and submit him, but get hit with a few glancing shots along the way, I recognize that I might have gotten a few bruises on the way to winning.
If I get a clinch and take my partner down and submit him, but get hit with a dozen perfectly clean shots with good range and body dynamics, then I recognize I might have gotten knocked out or been too dazed to actually finish the takedown in a real fight.
If I land some strikes while trying to prevent a clinch, but those strikes are poorly targeted or have poor body dynamics or have the wrong range, then I recognize that they probably would not have stopped a determined opponent, even if my sparring partner is being nice and not walking through them.

Sparring is about learning. Light contact sparring requires that we be honest with ourselves if we want to learn.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> This why the person has to acknowledge the strikes that would be damaging.   If you land a light but solid strike to my head, Then I should mentally register that as a dangerous or damaging strike.  I shouldn't think of it as a light strike that can't hurt me.   Had the person thrown the punch full force then I would have been injured. I have to distinguish between strike that are more dangerous at 100% and strikes that would of no concern even at 100%



I sort of switch with this a bit. I should be able to throw a shot have it not work and recover and throw something else. So if say I tap a head kick an the other guy just eats it and keeps going forwards that doesn't really enrage me. 

Do that to our coach though and he will beat you up. That particularly grinds his gears. 

Submissions is a very good place to learn this, especially heel hooks because people invariably thrash the wrong way to escape. And there is no point to making a point of that by crippling someone.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the light contact sparring rule between a striker and a grappler should be
> 
> When a
> 
> ...


If that is the ruleset you want to use within your organization, you may want to think longer about the end goal of sparring with this in mind.  Beginners may not be used to contact so accidental face shots can happen, if this results in them being tossed on their head with maximum efficacy the ruleset may have to be modified to ensure learning and experience can be gained without the risk of grave injury.   Alternatively, if beginners clinch to stop a barrage of shots and this results in intensity ramping up to 100% power, again this ruleset would need to be modified or only people with truly no common sense will be participating in these types of matches. 



drop bear said:


> If he can just walk through bills kicks and punches. Then the Aikido guy probably could.
> 
> The point is you should acknowledge you kind of can't walk through them.


I haven't seen any evidence of any Akidoka that would walk through punches and kicks from Bill Wallace or any one else at his level of experience.   Maybe they exist but you would think there would be some video of it somewhere.  

No you shouldn't be able to walk through a striker's punches or kicks in a real contest but that doesn't mean you need to go at 100% intensity ALWAYS regardless of who you are matching or their level of experience as I think Kung Fu Wang was suggesting.  If that is the reputation you want to garner for yourself, you will probably attract many people that wouldn't mind testing your 100% so that they can lay their hands on you and bounce you on your head at their 100%.   Not sure about you, but I have to work on Monday and don't necessarily want to risk life and limb every time I step on the tatami.  Do I want to test it from time to time ?  Sure ok but let's agree on a ruleset that isn't going to cripple and maim us just to find out where we are in our training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> If I get a clinch and take my partner down and submit him, but get hit with a dozen perfectly clean shots ...


- Your opponent use 25% force head punch on you, you still take him down.
- Your opponent use 50% force head punch on you, you still take him down.

Next time, he may use 75% force head punch on you. A control sparring soon turn into a full contact sparring.

In one Chinese wrestling tournament, my opponent's right hand grabbed on my waist belt. I used my left arm to strike on the outside of his right elbow joint. The 1st time I only use 30% power, but my opponent still won't let it go. The 2nd time, I used 50% power, my opponent still hanged on. The 3rd time, I use full force, he finally let it go. But the audience all screamed at me as if I tried to hurt my opponent on the wrestling mat.

What option do I have? If my opponent doesn't respect my 30% power, I have to use 50% power. If my opponent still doesn't respect my 50% power, I may have to use full power.

IMO, if you don't respect your opponent's power, the ring/mat will no longer be a safe place to test your MA skill.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I have to work on Monday and don't necessarily want to risk life and limb every time I step on the tatami.


- You can use single leg to take your opponent down 10,000 times to build up confidence that your single leg has high successful rate.
- You can use arm bar to tap your opponent out 10,000 times to build up confidence that your arm bar has high successful rate.
- You just can't knock your opponent down 10,000 times to build up confidence that your punching power has high successful rate.

This is the general problem for the striking art. The issue is not whether knock down is easier than the take down, or the other way around. The issue is it's easier to train "take down", but harder to train "knock down".


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The bait and switch I think is a bit more subtle. In that you are made to judge off what you can't see.
> 
> So the classic MMA guy gets owned in jujitsu and says yeah but if I could have thrown punches the outcome would have changed.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  The school element is what I really had in mind.  More of a, "You won't be good at fighting, because I'm not training you to be a UFC fighter.  But you'll be REALLY good at self defense."


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Your opponent use 25% force head punch on you, you still take him down.
> - Your opponent use 50% force head punch on you, you still take him down.
> 
> Next time, he may use 75% force head punch on you. A control sparring soon turn into a full contact sparring.


I don't want to seem as if I am picking on your posts,  I am not trying to however I thought I would point out that 25% or 50% power to the head may not be a good way to frame your point.   A guy that is 6'-3" and 240 lbs could give you a serious concussion if they land a clean shot at 25 to 50% power.    I would advocate that a 25 to 50% shot to the solar plexus is sufficient to send anyone a message given that both opponents are roughly the same size.   Similarly the same intensity hit to the floating ribs should be ample to let someone know they have holes in their game.   

I hope that all of these types of exchanges begin and end with respect.    As many people have already said, there is a time a place for light sparring as well as a time and place for going 100%.   Giving a shot at 100% all the time regardless of who you are facing doesn't seem to be appropriate to me for the reasons I've already stated but I appreciate this exchange none the less.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I read this wrong the first time
> 
> I agree with this.  Light sparring such as tapping strikes. Should have rules like that.  For me this type of sparring wouldn't be classified as light.





drop bear said:


> I sort of switch with this a bit. I should be able to throw a shot have it not work and recover and throw something else. So if say I tap a head kick an the other guy just eats it and keeps going forwards that doesn't really enrage me.
> 
> Do that to our coach though and he will beat you up. That particularly grinds his gears.
> 
> Submissions is a very good place to learn this, especially heel hooks because people invariably thrash the wrong way to escape. And there is no point to making a point of that by crippling someone.


I'm like your coach.  I rather see someone understand that a strike would have been costly and that they screwed up.  To me that means the are mentally aware.  My brother's girlfriend would just try to walk in like nothing happened. I asked if she was aware that my kicks were getting in clean.  She said she wasn't.  She had no clue that she was open and that my foot was on her abdomen.   Stuff like that sets me off, but only when they they don't see it.  I have a video with th instructor from the old school.  I ask him "are you going to keep giving me that opening"  He didn't even know that my foot was tapping his ribs freely with no resistance.  I'm guess I'm like this because it's the stuff you don't see that causes the most damage. I should always be aware of my weak spots


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - You can use single leg to take your opponent down 10,000 times to build up confidence that your single leg has high successful rate.
> - You can use arm bar to tap your opponent out 10,000 times to build up confidence that your arm bar has high successful rate.
> - You just can't knock your opponent down 10,000 times to build up confidence that your punching power has high successful rate.
> 
> This is the general problem for the striking art. The issue is not whether knock down is easier than the take down, or the other way around. The issue is it's easier to train "take down", but harder to train "knock down".


I'm not really sure I am following your train of thought any longer.  What is the general problem for striking arts ?  That we have no way to knock someone down ?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> A guy that is 6'-3" and 240 lbs could give you a serious concussion if they land a clean shot at 25 to 50% power.


This is why in another post I tried to explain "one should respect his opponent's 25% power strike". When people don't respect the other's person's striking power, a light contact sparring will turn into a full contact sparring.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I'm not really sure I am following your train of thought any longer.  What is the general problem for striking arts ?  That we have no way to knock someone down ?


A: How many people have you taken down so far?
B: I have taken down about N guys.
A: Can you still take people down today?
B: I believe I can.
A: How many people have you knocked down so far?
B: ...
A: Can you still knock people down today?
B: ...


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why in another post I tried to explain "one should respect his opponent's 25% power strike". When people don't respect the other's person's striking power, a light contact sparring will turn into a full contact sparring.


Or you could be sparring with someone that doesn't have the experience to know that you are going 25%.    I am sure in your training hall as in my dojo, most people that train there have a healthy respect for their training partners.   If they don't, I agree intensity will go to 100% in a matter of no time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 30, 2021)

If a MA tournament uses a simple rule such as the round stop at either a knock down, or a take down, who will be benefitted by this rule? the striker, or the grappler?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> There's an odd thing in the Aikido world (Ueshiba's Aikido). I see very few examples of folks who know how to strike. And Ueshiba was quoted as saying something like "Aikido is 70% atemi (strikes)". I don't understand how the strikes vanished from the art if they were so important to the founder.


I have a couple of ideas about how that may have happened.  Unfortunately I think it's a natural course of things.   I look at how I teach martial arts.  The students who want to learn Jow Ga but don't care about learning how to fight using it will know less than the students I teach how to apply it in sparring and in fighting.  When I teach like this, I'm actually creating 2 camps. 

Those who know Jow Ga but lack the knowledge and skills to apply it. (limited understanding, knows what it look like)
Those who know Jow Ga and focus on the knowledge and skills to apply it. (detailed understanding of how the gears work)
*Those in group #1* believe that their knowledge of quantity = knowledge of a system.  Yet nothing happens when they screw up an application.  People in this group care about how stuff looks so they "purify the look"

*Those in group #2* believe that application and use = understanding.  Lots of downsides for screwing up an application.  People in this group care about how stuff functions so they "purify the function"

Group #1 can get rid of punches without consequences.  Group #2 cannot.  

A lot of Aikido practitioners fall under Group #1 and when they look for function they will abandon the system because they believe that they understand all there is to understand Aikido, without ever realizing that they never train with the same mind set that Group #2 trains in.  They thing they can take Group #1 Knowledge and make it work in a Group #2 setting and it doesn't work that way.  It never has


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

MetalBoar said:


> but it doesn't work very well if one or the other of you is more focused on "winning" than learning.


I'm with you on this one.  I used to spar with someone who only cared about getting the best shots in,  as a result I had to be careful of what I try to pull off because if I fail he would take advantage of it and hit me.  I could deal with it because I had a couple of techniques I was really comfortable with.

But one day he hits a student on the top of the head and in the video you can see that her knees buckle and she almost  passes out (due to the vertebrae compression).  There was no reason to strike her like that or anyone like that, but he was all about getting the best shot in.  If I hit him hard, he'll try to hit me harder,  If I land a good shot he will try to land a better shot.  If I'm open he would take the cheap shot instead of the Polite Strike that reminds you that you left yourself wide opened.  It was all about winning for him, and because of that he learned very little kung fu application.



MetalBoar said:


> Obviously the long term answer is to either not spar with such people or go into it to learn what you can and make sure that you're not worried in the least about proving anything to them or what they learn.


They are still good for something.  Once you have "mastered " the technique to the point you feel that you can pull it off and still protect yourself, then those are the type of guys you want to really put your skills to the test.   But if you are still working things out and learning the technique, then leave those guys alone.  They will only slow your growth.  In my case, I was able to learn my techniques by sparring people who weren't trying to win or knock my head off.  Then when I feel comfortable with the technique, then I'll  spar with those knuckle heads.  I don't remember trying too many new things with the instructor from my old school.  The 2 instructors (before I became one) and one other student used to go at it hard, at the beginning I did the same thing but stopped because it was too dangerous to try new stuff that I was learning.  But anyway.  if you have your techniques down pat already, then go bang it out with in reason.  Show them what you know.



Tony Dismukes said:


> That way they have a more realistic understanding of proper distancing, body mechanics, and which strikes would actually be damaging in a real fight.


Yep.  When you mess up in that environment, you have conversations like "I was punching too far out."  or "I kept slipping the punch the wrong way."  In a full contact those same mistakes turn into conversations like "are you, ok?!?  Give him some air."  "Sit out for a bit."  "How are you feeling?  How many fingers are you hold up."

I remember I was trying something new once and literally jumped into the punch.  The world went black, I wasn't knocked out, but I didn't see the punch and when the lights came back on, I asked "What did you hit me with?"  That's when he said, he didn't hit me, he just stuck his fist out "stiff arm" and I ran into  it. lol.  I couldn't tell you how I made that mistake, or what I should have learned that day.  I didn't remember 3 minutes prior to that..  I just remember that I had a brown out lol.  and that my cheek hurt.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I'm not really sure I am following your train of thought any longer.  What is the general problem for striking arts ?  That we have no way to knock someone down ?


I think he switched gears on us.  When I read what he was saying the first time.  I was applying it to one of the videos.  But then when I just take what he says without any reference to any of the videos then it made sense, which is why I stated that I read his comment incorrectly.  I'm thinking 1 thing and he's thinking another.  

When he says that a fight should end when someone gets hit in the face, then it's similar to what we have been saying.  If a striker taps someone on the face with a nice solid but not hard punch, then the grappler shouldn't act as "if it wasn't nothing".   The grappler should acknowledge that he got hit solid without addressing the punch. From a training perspective a grappler should be concern with stuff like that.  If he can't avoid the slow stuff, then it's not likely he can afford to make the same mistake if someone is punching hard.

Similar in grappling (for me).  If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore.  This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student.  Nothing good can come from this.  Then I would ask the other student to do it again






This is how the fight ended and it started with this.  





Different guy Same problem. 






1st lesson isn't to learn how to fight on the ground.  It's to learn how to not put yourself in this position. Until a student gets this part right, there's just no purpose of letting things play out.  I already know how it's going to end.  




At this point, just acknowledge, that your partner has gotten the best of you and that he /she  made you pay dearly for that mistake.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 30, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sparring is about learning. Light contact sparring requires that we be honest with ourselves if we want to learn.


lol.  I skimmed through your comments saw this and agree with everything before it.  Still don't know what you said.  This should be on the both sides of the main door of every TMA school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I'm not really sure I am following your train of thought any longer.  What is the general problem for striking arts ?  That we have no way to knock someone down ?


John's point is that there's no striking analogy for takedowns in grappling. I can take you down with conviction without having to drop you hard, and we both know you were taken down. I can do that over and over with relatively low risk to you (same for submissions). But with striking, the only full evidence is hitting someone hard enough to knock them down, which you can't safely repeat over and over.

I think Tony covered this issue pretty well, though. If you and I both have experience with hard sparring (have been knocked down a few times), then you don't have to hit me hard enough to knock me down. We both know pretty well whether a given controlled hit would have been damaging.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 31, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think he switched gears on us.  When I read what he was saying the first time.  I was applying it to one of the videos.  But then when I just take what he says without any reference to any of the videos then it made sense, which is why I stated that I read his comment incorrectly.  I'm thinking 1 thing and he's thinking another.
> 
> When he says that a fight should end when someone gets hit in the face, then it's similar to what we have been saying.  If a striker taps someone on the face with a nice solid but not hard punch, then the grappler shouldn't act as "if it wasn't nothing".   The grappler should acknowledge that he got hit solid without addressing the punch. From a training perspective a grappler should be concern with stuff like that.  If he can't avoid the slow stuff, then it's not likely he can afford to make the same mistake if someone is punching hard.
> 
> ...


I agree in part. Especially when padded up the contact should at least be enough to make the opponent consider it and adjust because of it.  This should be consensual and agreed upon up front. 
If not the sparring is a waste of time. One big exception is when drilling counters and what not which is often done at lower speeds and contact.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: How many people have you taken down so far?
> B: I have taken down about N guys.
> A: Can you still take people down today?
> B: I believe I can.
> ...


I may be missing something here.  When you say knocked down can you elaborate what that means to you ? 

I train in Kyokushin so I train knockdown all the time.   It is fairly understood that when a shot slips in damage can occur.  If you tap me in the floating ribs or in the solar plexus, I know that can make for a bad day for me.   Similarly if I let a kicks slip in without checking them but that comes from experience with sparring at a higher level and understanding what it feels like to get a clean shot at an exposed target.  



JowGaWolf said:


> I think he switched gears on us.  When I read what he was saying the first time.  I was applying it to one of the videos.  But then when I just take what he says without any reference to any of the videos then it made sense, which is why I stated that I read his comment incorrectly.  I'm thinking 1 thing and he's thinking another.
> 
> When he says that a fight should end when someone gets hit in the face, then it's similar to what we have been saying.  If a striker taps someone on the face with a nice solid but not hard punch, then the grappler shouldn't act as "if it wasn't nothing".   The grappler should acknowledge that he got hit solid without addressing the punch. From a training perspective a grappler should be concern with stuff like that.  If he can't avoid the slow stuff, then it's not likely he can afford to make the same mistake if someone is punching hard.
> 
> ...





gpseymour said:


> John's point is that there's no striking analogy for takedowns in grappling. I can take you down with conviction without having to drop you hard, and we both know you were taken down. I can do that over and over with relatively low risk to you (same for submissions). But with striking, the only full evidence is hitting someone hard enough to knock them down, which you can't safely repeat over and over.
> 
> I think Tony covered this issue pretty well, though. If you and I both have experience with hard sparring (have been knocked down a few times), then you don't have to hit me hard enough to knock me down. We both know pretty well whether a given controlled hit would have been damaging.



Thanks for the clarification and it seems as if you know Kung Fu Wang's style of writing better than I do.  Cheers !


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I may be missing something here.  When you say knocked down can you elaborate what that means to you ?


Knock down = You knock your opponent down on the ground. He may be able to get back up, or he may not.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Knock down = You knock your opponent down on the ground. He may be able to get back up, or he may not.


Perhaps I am missing the context of your statement.   I have knocked many people down but I hope they always get back up in training.   In training we don't necessarily want people to get injured so we train with pads.   When we are sparring, even when we are going 100%, we aren't trying to injure our opponent.  Show them holes in their game yes.  Give them a painful memory if they miss a check but we want people to continue to train and learn at a pace that will not discourage them from participating.   

At a tournament, we may also go 100% and try to knock our opponent out but then again they are trying to do the same to me.   The more tournaments you enter the more realistic opportunities you have to test your training but knocking someone out is not something that the crowd necessarily cheers.   We are all amateurs so knockouts (even though that is the point of Knockdown) are considered with a certain gravity and respect.  We sincerely care for the wellbeing of our opponent because we understand that we could also be in that same position.  

This is the context I am responding to you.  If you are speaking about another context, feel free to let me know.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> When we are sparring, even when we are going 100%, we aren't trying to injure our opponent.


This may need some clarification 100% in what?  For me if I go 100% then people are going to get hurt regardless of any effort that I put forth to prevent injuries.  The faster the pace, the faster I must move, and in some cases, I would have to use more force.  If I want to stop my opponent's attack then I have to apply stopping power in my punches and kicks.

Compare the faces of boxer when sparring vs Boxers when they are fighting.  It's clear to see what 100% means and the effects of it.  I know I don't want to be laid out in practice with injuries that make me look like I've been in s street fight.

I'm not clear on what is being defined as 100%


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Perhaps I am missing the context of your statement.   I have knocked many people down but I hope they always get back up in training.


You are talking about sparring as a training in your own school. I'm talking about tournament that you fight against a total stranger.



Yokozuna514 said:


> we aren't trying to injure our opponent.


If you throw a 100% power roundhouse kick and your opponent blocks with his arm, one of you will get hurt no matter you like it or not.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> This may need some clarification 100% in what?  For me if I go 100% then people are going to get hurt regardless of any effort that I put forth to prevent injuries.  The faster the pace, the faster I must move, and in some cases, I would have to use more force.  If I want to stop my opponent's attack then I have to apply stopping power in my punches and kicks.
> 
> Compare the faces of boxer when sparring vs Boxers when they are fighting.  It's clear to see what 100% means and the effects of it.  I know I don't want to be laid out in practice with injuries that take make me look like I've been in s street fight.
> 
> I'm not clear on what is being defined as 100%


I was under the impression when I joined this thread that we were speaking about 100% power.   I was responding to a comment from Kung Fu Wang that a striker should ALWAYS use 100% on his first punch/kick.   I have been trying to understand the context of that comment since day 1 since I found it an interesting comment to make that would not necessarily fit the context I was thinking (ie:   training in a hall/dojo).  

The chances of someone getting hurt when you go 100% certainly becomes more likely and unless you train going 100% in a safe manner that you can repeatedly do say against a pad.  More than likely, the more you train at 100% power, the less chance you will have to injure yourself.

So to reiterate, I was speaking about 100% power of shots not 100% capability to cause destruction.  I am not sure who trains in that manner but it doesn't seem likely to me that the lineup to go 100%, risking life and limb every time you go to train, will be very long.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are talking about sparring as a training in your own school. I'm talking about tournament that you fight against a stranger.



I don't do many tournaments where I face a stranger that is essentially a grappler.   That is more in the arena of MMA and not knockdown.   However, if I was to enter in that type of tournament, I would certainly take some training in grappling so that I give myself options instead of relying on just striking to answer anything my opponent would do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I don't do many tournaments where I face a stranger that is essentially a grappler.   That is more in the arena of MMA and not knockdown.   However, if I was to enter in that type of tournament, I would certainly take some training in grappling so that I give myself options instead of relying on just striking to answer anything my opponent would do.


If you just try to compete in the golden gloves boxing, you will understand what I'm trying to say. Everybody you may have to fight, they all look like those guys who attacked the capital in 1/6.

You may not try to hurt your opponent, but you opponent will try to hurt you, and they will enjoy very much by doing so.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you just try to compete in the golden gloves boxing, you will understand what I'm trying to say. Everybody you may have to fight, they all look like those guys who attack the capital in 1/6.
> 
> You may not try to hurt your opponent, but you opponent will try to hurt you, and they will enjoy very much by doing so.


If you do a google search on knockdown karate, you will find many examples of what I am talking about.   In tournaments, we do tend to go 100% but not always on the first shot.   You need to consider range and entering strategies.  In knockdown we also tend to face more than one opponent in a given day so we also tend to pace ourselves accordingly and only go for a 100% shot when we see an opening.   All the shots that lead up to that one may be at varying strengths to disguise the real target.   That is knockdown though and essentially it is a sport.  

It seems like you are speaking about something else which I may not have very much to add because I am not really trying to hurt anyone.   As Daniel-san said in the Karate Kid, I train so I don't have to fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> In tournaments, we do tend to go 100% but not always on the first shot.


It's a mental game. If your opponent can feel your power in your initial 3 punches/kicks, after that, you can just move your arm/leg, your opponent will back up. After your opponent has respected your power, the rest of the fight will be easy.



Yokozuna514 said:


> I train so I don't have to fight.


I train so I can finish a fight ASAP if needed.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> John's point is that there's no striking analogy for takedowns in grappling. I can take you down with conviction without having to drop you hard, and we both know you were taken down. I can do that over and over with relatively low risk to you (same for submissions). But with striking, the only full evidence is hitting someone hard enough to knock them down, which you can't safely repeat over and over.
> 
> I think Tony covered this issue pretty well, though. If you and I both have experience with hard sparring (have been knocked down a few times), then you don't have to hit me hard enough to knock me down. We both know pretty well whether a given controlled hit would have been damaging.



I will body shot people I want to send a message to.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Similar in grappling (for me). If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore. This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student. Nothing good can come from this. Then I would ask the other student to do it again



There are levels to takedowns though. You can both be doing the right thing and he does the right thing better.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's a mental game. If your opponent can feel your power in your initial 3 punches/kicks, after that, you can just move your arm/leg, your opponent will back up. After your opponent has respected your power, the rest of the fight will be easy.
> 
> 
> I train so I can finish a fight ASAP if needed.



Yes, I can understand the mental aspect and wanting to 'train' your opponent to get a Pavlovian response to a certain stimuli.  That is a tactic we use in knockdown and I suspect it's used in many combat sports where you can deliver a shot that induces pain.  Makes perfect sense but again delivering a 100% power shot at the beginning of every match makes you kind of predictable.   Tourney day might not be so long for you if this is your only strategy.   That is really my only point.  Always doing the same thing, no matter how good you are at it, is a recipe for making it easy to beat you.

I can appreciate what you are saying about finishing a fight ASAP.   Nothing wrong with being efficient.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

drop bear said:


> There are levels to takedowns though. You can both be doing the right thing and he does the right thing better.


He could be better or just faster getting to it.   Being able to improve the situation from that point is also important to know as well as for the opponent to practice their defence against shoots   Many teachable moments can be gained from letting the situation play out.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> He could be better or just faster getting to it.   Being able to improve the situation from that point is also important to know as well as for the opponent to practice their defence against shoots   Many teachable moments can be gained from letting the situation play out.



Yeah obviously we do. Jow gar has mentioned that he is basically untakedownable because of the low stance.

I think he would get eaten alive by a quality takedown guy using ankle picks.

But it isn't tested so we don't know.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Mar 31, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Yeah obviously we do. Jow gar has mentioned that he is basically untakedownable because of the low stance.
> 
> I think he would get eaten alive by a quality takedown guy using ankle picks.
> 
> But it isn't tested so we don't know.


Ankle picks, trips, or even taking someone's back for a suplex everyone can be taken down.     My old wrestling coach said it the best, "think about your opponent as a table.   Take a leg a way and the table can still stand but it won't be solid.    Take another leg away and down they go.....".    Analogy works for striking as well as grappling, imho.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I think he would get eaten alive by a quality takedown guy using ankle picks.


I don't understand why people like to use "ankle pick" instead of "knee seize"?

- You have to reach much lower to your opponent's ankle than just to reach behind his knee.
- If you drop your knee down on the ground, you lose your mobility.






His left hand only have to move 1/2 of the distance o reach behind his opponent's knee. If he drops his right knee into his opponent's groin with his body weight behind it, it can be a good finish move.






By using knee seize, you can take your opponent down and then take off. You can't do that by using ankle pick with knee dropping.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 31, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't understand why people like to use "ankle pick" instead of "knee seize"?
> 
> - You have to reach much lower to your opponent's ankle than just to reach behind his knee.
> - If you drop your knee down on the ground, you lose your mobility.
> ...


It's a trade-off. The ankle pick requires you to get lower and has some of the disadvantages you mention. On the other hand, it can give significantly more leverage for pulling someone's leg out from under them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's a trade-off. The ankle pick requires you to get lower and has some of the disadvantages you mention. On the other hand, it can give significantly more leverage for pulling someone's leg out from under them.


You can let your leg to do 1/2 of the ankle pick for you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's a trade-off. The ankle pick requires you to get lower and has some of the disadvantages you mention. On the other hand, it can give significantly more leverage for pulling someone's leg out from under them.


If punching is allowed, when you try to pick up your opponent's ankle, you want your head to be far away from his punch, but your hand still have to be able to reach to his ankle. This will put you in a very difficult body posture.






In the following clip, it's clear that his opponent's left hook can land on his head. If punching is allowed, what's the successful rate for the "ankle pick"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

drop bear said:


> a bad system will hold  back the development of the individual.


Also to train in a "pure striking art" (no respect to single leg), or a "pure grappling art" (no respect to head punch) will hold back the kick/punch/lock/throw/ground_game integration.

I don't think the following fighting stance will fit in the MMA environment. The more you train like this, the more bad habit that you will bring into your MMA.


----------



## BrendanF (Mar 31, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following clip, it's clear that his opponent's left hook can land on his head. If punching is allowed, what's the successful rate for the "ankle pick"?



They are already clinched - picker's right hand is behind op's head and would be well positioned to cover.

That said, for the obvious reasons you mention you don't see too many ankle picks in mma.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> They are already clinched - picker's right hand is behind op's head and would be well positioned to cover.
> 
> That said, for the obvious reasons you mention you don't see too many ankle picks in mma.


What I'm trying to say is before the clinch, there was no fist flying.

This is why I believe if you train MMA as your goal, you have to modify a lot of your technique training.

Is that a good idea, or a bad idea?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Similar in grappling (for me). If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore. This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student. Nothing good can come from this. Then I would ask the other student to do it again


My view is that things like this can happen in real fights. Whether it’s a mistake made or simply a better entry than the student could defend. I don’t stop it unless it’s a safety issue (or moves beyond the point of a specific drill, but that’s a different context). Problem solving skills are an important factor, and they only develop through problems.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If punching is allowed, when you try to pick up your opponent's ankle, you want your head to be far away from his punch, but your hand still have to be able to reach to his ankle. This will put you in a very difficult body posture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is very risky to punch from there as you give up the real estate around the legs and hips.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I'm trying to say is before the clinch, there was no fist flying.
> 
> This is why I believe if you train MMA as your goal, you have to modify a lot of your technique training.
> 
> Is that a good idea, or a bad idea?



You can use striking to enter the clinch. Either his or yours. 

You could wait for his left hook, cover and take the clinch before he gets his arm back.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't understand why people like to use "ankle pick" instead of "knee seize"?
> 
> - You have to reach much lower to your opponent's ankle than just to reach behind his knee.
> - If you drop your knee down on the ground, you lose your mobility.
> ...



We do a knee tap as part of a combination.





So say go for a single leg,  lose it. It goes to the ground. Hit the knee tap.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> My view is that things like this can happen in real fights. Whether it’s a mistake made or simply a better entry than the student could defend. I don’t stop it unless it’s a safety issue


To me it's a safety issue. I had a student who would never keep their guard up.  I stopped that student from sparring until they learn how to keep their guard up. It doesn't matter if it's light sparring or hard sparring.  Bad fundamentals have to be correct on the spot because they are so costly in a real fight.

If a students gets caught in this position then he has failed to solve the first problem which is  "How to never be in this position."  This position is so compromised that one can accurately guess that every solution that follows will be equally as bad or worse.  This is so fundamental that wrestlers and grapplers drill this to the point that it will "never happen to them" with a possibility near zero.  For me personally, I wouldn't train on top of bad fundamentals. Training to get out of bad situations is one thing.  Having broken fundamentals isn't a bad situation; it's a "No Go"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following clip, it's clear that his opponent's left hook can land on his head. If punching is allowed, what's the successful rate for the "ankle pick"?


I understand what you are saying but the clip is not a good reference.   When I was training the application of the lows horse stance I came to the same conclusion you are mentioning now.  I showed my BJJ partner and asked him how would he enter.  He said that he wouldn't because of the possibility of the strikes to the head.  What you are mentioning only works if the person defending is in a low stance.  It doesn't work if a person is in a high stance because the punching mechanics will be significantly weaker.  

There are also other positioning things that occur that aren't showing in this video.  A hook in this position will mean that defender will also need to do some evasive foot work that will allow him to land the hook.  this gif doesn't show that path or possibility


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 1, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> My view is that things like this can happen in real fights. Whether it’s a mistake made or simply a better entry than the student could defend. I don’t stop it unless it’s a safety issue (or moves beyond the point of a specific drill, but that’s a different context). Problem solving skills are an important factor, and they only develop through problems.


Well said.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> To me it's a safety issue. I had a student who would never keep their guard up.  I stopped that student from sparring until they learn how to keep their guard up. It doesn't matter if it's light sparring or hard sparring.  Bad fundamentals have to be correct on the spot because they are so costly in a real fight.
> 
> If a students gets caught in this position then he has failed to solve the first problem which is  "How to never be in this position."  This position is so compromised that one can accurately guess that every solution that follows will be equally as bad or worse.  This is so fundamental that wrestlers and grapplers drill this to the point that it will "never happen to them" with a possibility near zero.  For me personally, I wouldn't train on top of bad fundamentals. Training to get out of bad situations is one thing.  Having broken fundamentals isn't a bad situation; it's a "No Go"


I think I can see why you are saying a stoppage for safety here can become a teachable moment, however if that student "never" keeps their guard up can it be that he hasn't seen the consequence of his actions to learn from his mistake ?  I am not advocating that they have their head taken off but I am saying that if you allow the contest to play out longer, the student should eventually 'learn' the consequence for not keeping his guard up.   A practical tap given consistently should teach him the error of his ways.   If he can't learn through practice how will he be able to understand the verbal instruction ?  IE:  sometimes a picture can say a thousand words, imho.



JowGaWolf said:


> I understand what you are saying but the clip is not a good reference.   When I was training the application of the lows horse stance I came to the same conclusion you are mentioning now.  I showed my BJJ partner and asked him how would he enter.  He said that he wouldn't because of the possibility of the strikes to the head.  What you are mentioning only works if the person defending is in a low stance.  It doesn't work if a person is in a high stance because the punching mechanics will be significantly weaker.
> 
> There are also other positioning things that occur that aren't showing in this video.  A hook in this position will mean that defender will also need to do some evasive foot work that will allow him to land the hook.  this gif doesn't show that path or possibility


Just for clarification but are you suggesting hooks from a low horse stance ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I think I can see why you are saying a stoppage for safety here can become a teachable moment, however if that student "never" keeps their guard up can it be that he hasn't seen the consequence of his actions to learn from his mistake ? I am not advocating that they have their head taken off but I am saying that if you allow the contest to play out longer, the student should eventually 'learn' the consequence for not keeping his guard up.


At the time the student didn't learn.  I even warned "that if you can't protect yourself then I will restrict you from sparring."  Sometimes learning consequence the hard way will create a phobia.  It doesn't correct the issue at hand, but will have the effect of making the person not want to participate in sparring at all.  Where you would learn to keep your hands up.  There answer would be "don't do sparring."   When that happens now I have 2 problems, as a teacher.  The original problem and then the new problem of trying to have them over come the fear of sparring , because someone clocked them big time.  This is kind of what happened to the student that I'm speaking of.  But I was able to manage that fear by sparring with the student and only using taps on the head as a reminder vs punches.  



Yokozuna514 said:


> A practical tap given consistently should teach him the error of his ways. If he can't learn through practice how will he be able to understand the verbal instruction ?


There were a lot of taps lol.  It put me in a situation to try and understanding what was going on through the student's perspective. After many rounds, many taps, and many questions later.  I learned that she was too focused on trying to hit a specific spot.  In the school there were 2 approaches taught.
1. You pick a spot that you want to hit then go for it (this was the other instructor's approach)
2. You attack what your opponent gives you ( this was my approach.)

The student picked #1 to use and it was causing a sever case of tunnel vision and unawareness.  I would rank it on the scale of walking with while chatting on a phone, where you can see things in the area of your hand and phone, but are clueless to other things going on.

#2 would be like going to a store and trying to fart in an area where people wouldn't know that you were the one who did it.  So you are more aware of your environment and the timing in which you let it go.  You also tend to take the opportunity vs having a predetermined place where you'll let your fart out.  If you can get to the bathroom then great.  But most people scan the environment and take the opportunity.

When sparring the student wasn't "scanning the environment" an as a result had really bad tunnel vision.  I literally could leave an opening and just wait to see how long it would take for the student to go for it.  When asked "Why didn't you go for the spot I left open?"  the answer was "I didn't see it."

But like you stated.  The taps are better than the punches in this case.  If a person has tunnel vision like that then getting hit in the head isn't associated with "Keep your hands up."  To this day I don't think the students spars.  The other instructor would hit the student in the head and it basically demoralized the student.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Just for clarification but are you suggesting hooks from a low horse stance ?


Yes you can throw hooks from a low horse stance, but it's done in the context of someone going for a single leg  take down.  It's possible to throw hooks, palm strikes, tiger's claw, slaps, jabs, and uppercuts with no problem.  I know it sounds crazy, but you have to keep it in context.  Like it's possible to throw jabs, hooks, and elbows while on your knees. Just saying it like that sounds stupid, but in the context of being in mount, it makes sense.

edit:  The only thing that some people will have trouble with is driving power.  If you are used to driving power by pivoting on your foot, then this will be difficult.  If you are the type that drives power by pushing the rear leg then you shouldn't have too much trouble with making the shots count.  In low stances the punches are done with flat feet, because you are in a stance height for use against grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 1, 2021)

drop bear said:


> We do a knee tap as part of a combination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love seeing things like this. There are some techniques I learned in NGA that don't make much application sense to me in their "classical" form (the formal teaching version). But this really looks like it might be the same principle as one of them...need to remember this the next time I have a training partner to play with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> To me it's a safety issue. I had a student who would never keep their guard up.  I stopped that student from sparring until they learn how to keep their guard up. It doesn't matter if it's light sparring or hard sparring.  Bad fundamentals have to be correct on the spot because they are so costly in a real fight.
> 
> If a students gets caught in this position then he has failed to solve the first problem which is  "How to never be in this position."  This position is so compromised that one can accurately guess that every solution that follows will be equally as bad or worse.  This is so fundamental that wrestlers and grapplers drill this to the point that it will "never happen to them" with a possibility near zero.  For me personally, I wouldn't train on top of bad fundamentals. Training to get out of bad situations is one thing.  Having broken fundamentals isn't a bad situation; it's a "No Go"


I guess I look at it from the other side. I want them to solve the problem all the way through, then we can go back and work on what they could have done to stay out of it. My approach comes from seeing people develop a habit of stopping when they make a mistake, rather than finding a way out of the mess. A bad habit to have in a fight, whether that's competitive or a self-defense situation. There are likely other ways to keep that habit from developing.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> At the time the student didn't learn.  I even warned "that if you can't protect yourself then I will restrict you from sparring."  Sometimes learning consequence the hard way will create a phobia.  It doesn't correct the issue at hand, but will have the effect of making the person not want to participate in sparring at all.  Where you would learn to keep your hands up.  There answer would be "don't do sparring."   When that happens now I have 2 problems, as a teacher.  The original problem and then the new problem of trying to have them over come the fear of sparring , because someone clocked them big time.  This is kind of what happened to the student that I'm speaking of.  But I was able to manage that fear by sparring with the student and only using taps on the head as a reminder vs punches.
> 
> There were a lot of taps lol.  It put me in a situation to try and understanding what was going on through the student's perspective. After many rounds, many taps, and many questions later.  I learned that she was too focused on trying to hit a specific spot.  In the school there were 2 approaches taught.
> 1. You pick a spot that you want to hit then go for it (this was the other instructor's approach)
> ...


Hey, it's easy for me as an outsider and not being there to make suggestions to do this or do that or take this approach.   There is usually more to it than that when you spend the time to get to know what is really the issue with that particular student.   One approach to fixing a problem does not always render the same result.  Corrections in class (or any attention) can get some people to just shut down to the point they no longer pay attention.   These folks may do better in a smaller group setting where things can be less formal and they are more open to 'listening' and 'understanding' instructions.    Just a different way of learning but that has been my experience.  Not everyone learns the same way and as a man I have to be cognizant that my voice and tone can be received totally differently from the way I believe I am sending the message.  

I've dealt with men, women and children who are handi-able as well as handi-capped (physically, mentally and sometimes both).  It is not always easy to get to their level and make them understand that you are there to help improve their experience but they also must be willing to put in the effort to be open and try.   Persistence and ingenuity pay off so good luck and keep trying.   When they get their 'aha' moment you will be amazed at what kind of doors that opens for them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> They are already clinched ...


Agree at least that clip starts with a clinch (even if it doesn't start with fist flying).

The following clip doesn't start with a clinch. IMO, it's a mistake to attack with single leg while your opponent's arms are free.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 1, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I guess I look at it from the other side. I want them to solve the problem all the way through, then we can go back and work on what they could have done to stay out of it. My approach comes from seeing people develop a habit of stopping when they make a mistake, rather than finding a way out of the mess. A bad habit to have in a fight, whether that's competitive or a self-defense situation. There are likely other ways to keep that habit from developing.


Osu, I've adapted my approach to teaching/coaching throughout the years exactly for this reason.   The last thing I want to see is a player make a mistake and throw their hands up (or look at the coach/teacher) for the answer WHILE play is going on.   If stuff happens and your plan doesn't work, then look for something else you can do instead of throwing your hands up and basically giving up.   This is more of an issue when training kids but I have also seen adults that get stymied on the tatami and have no idea on how to recover without looking at their coach.   There may be situations where this can work but I haven't seen too many that make me want to change my approach.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I guess I look at it from the other side. I want them to solve the problem all the way through, then we can go back and work on what they could have done to stay out of it. My approach comes from seeing people develop a habit of stopping when they make a mistake, rather than finding a way out of the mess. A bad habit to have in a fight, whether that's competitive or a self-defense situation. There are likely other ways to keep that habit from developing.


I'm probably like this because I train Kung Fu.  There's tons of stuff where if you get step 1 wrong then everything else that follows will be degraded.  If I get my high sweep wrong, then someone will take my back, if I get my long punches wrong, then I might get kicked in the face, after that point.  I'm either going to be trying to recover from being dazed, or KO.  If you take a look at many of the Kung Fu people getting man handled, you'll discover that it's not Step 2 that puts them such a bad situation, It's Step 1.  

I only stop things for foundational errors.  If you get Step 1 correct then I will let students try to work everything else.  Step 1 for me is always foundational basics.  How I stand facing my opponent, before strikes or attacks occur is a foundational process. So as long as the student gets the foundation stuff, they can learn from other mistakes, which are more of errors with technique application or deployment.  If you stand in front of your opponent with locked knees then I will stop you right there. lol.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree at least that clip starts with a clinch (even if it doesn't start with fist flying).
> 
> The following clip doesn't start with a clinch. IMO, it's a mistake to attack with single leg while your opponent's arms are free.



That may look like a silly defence mechanically. But listening to the commentary he is using magic to make it work. So therefore it is justified.

It is better to attack the single leg while their arms are free. And this is because while the punching is all happening at your head. You should move your head to where the punching isn't happening to attempt the grab.

This also means they are  not defending their legs with any sort of cross face.





So here for example he changes levels.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Also to train in a "pure striking art" (no respect to single leg), or a "pure grappling art" (no respect to head punch) will hold back the kick/punch/lock/throw/ground_game integration.
> 
> I don't think the following fighting stance will fit in the MMA environment. The more you train like this, the more bad habit that you will bring into your MMA.


You would think so, but in fact a large percentage of top MMA fighters come from precisely that sort of wrestling background where they are used to working from that kind of stance. It appears the benefits of dedicated wrestling experience outweigh the drawbacks of having to learn different stances and entries for a context where striking is involved.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree at least that clip starts with a clinch (even if it doesn't start with fist flying).
> 
> The following clip doesn't start with a clinch. IMO, it's a mistake to attack with single leg while your opponent's arms are free.


It can be done effectively. Check out this footage of former UFC champion Daniel Cormier:




The real problem with the video you posted is that the guy feeding the attack has no clue about how to do a single leg correctly. When the attack is that incompetent, almost any defense will work.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes you can throw hooks from a low horse stance, but it's done in the context of someone going for a single leg  take down.  It's possible to throw hooks, palm strikes, tiger's claw, slaps, jabs, and uppercuts with no problem.  I know it sounds crazy, but you have to keep it in context.  Like it's possible to throw jabs, hooks, and elbows while on your knees. Just saying it like that sounds stupid, but in the context of being in mount, it makes sense.
> 
> edit:  The only thing that some people will have trouble with is driving power.  If you are used to driving power by pivoting on your foot, then this will be difficult.  If you are the type that drives power by pushing the rear leg then you shouldn't have too much trouble with making the shots count.  In low stances the punches are done with flat feet, because you are in a stance height for use against grappling.


Oh yes I know you CAN throw hooks from a low horse stance but I would question how effective they would be.   All things being equal, if I shoot on you and you go into a low horse stance and start punching, dollars to donuts you are going to get the worst of that exchange.   What's available to me are a myriad ways to put you down (eg:  single leg, ankle picks, trips or simply just tackling you down if I have superior weight).   If you do manage to land blows to my body, I can easily shift to a fireman's carry and tag your privates with impunity before I put you down and take a superior position.  

I'm sure we can go back and forth detailing what both of us can do but my point is hooks from a low horse stance where you hips are essentially taken out of the equation means you are using just arms and shoulders to punch.  Also you aren't really defending the takedown by doing things that will prevent you from being thrown.  Maybe it's my flavour but I think I would forget about hooks and look to stuff the shoot first.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Oh yes I know you CAN throw hooks from a low horse stance but I would question how effective they would be.   All things being equal, if I shoot on you and you go into a low horse stance and start punching, dollars to donuts you are going to get the worst of that exchange.   What's available to me are a myriad ways to put you down (eg:  single leg, ankle picks, trips or simply just tackling you down if I have superior weight).   If you do manage to land blows to my body, I can easily shift to a fireman's carry and tag your privates with impunity before I put you down and take a superior position.
> 
> I'm sure we can go back and forth detailing what both of us can do but my point is hooks from a low horse stance where you hips are essentially taken out of the equation means you are using just arms and shoulders to punch.  Also you aren't really defending the takedown by doing things that will prevent you from being thrown.  Maybe it's my flavour but I think I would forget about hooks and look to stuff the shoot first.



The problem with punching, and especially hooks is two parts.

You defend a double or single by creating space between them and your hips. And the general practice is to get your arms in the way to do this. Now if you are throwing hooks your arms are up. Your elbows are up and they free access to your hips. 

And you need your hips to strike. They need to rotate to throw hooks they need to drop to throw downward elbows. And the other guy is hanging on to your hips. 

If we looked at the position of the single leg and the direction he is trying to go. And you add a bunch of momentum in that same direction by trying to strike. You are going to be in trouble.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 1, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The problem with punching, and especially hooks is two parts.
> 
> You defend a double or single by creating space between them and your hips. And the general practice is to get your arms in the way to do this. Now if you are throwing hooks your arms are up. Your elbows are up and they free access to your hips.
> 
> ...


Hey you are preaching to the choir .   The only hooks I would go for are the under hook kind but that would be after I stuff the shoot.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Hey you are preaching to the choir .   The only hooks I would go for are the under hook kind but that would be after I stuff the shoot.



Yeah Mabye some sort of goofy inside forearm strike or something.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree at least that clip starts with a clinch (even if it doesn't start with fist flying).
> 
> The following clip doesn't start with a clinch. IMO, it's a mistake to attack with single leg while your opponent's arms are free.


I don't like the video.  This is taken out of context.  It doesn't factor the strikes that the defender will eat before the take down attempt.  Have someone give a little more mobility and use some punches to set up the take down, and you'll quickly see the idea of that application not working.   For example, that Feint jab was thrown 3 miles out.  

The raised knee technique works but in application it doesn't look like that. There a lot more struggle in the application.  Which goes back to the abrasiveness.
The picture below goes to my point about messing up that Foundational Step 1.  If this is what you look like when you do a single leg take down then you have already screwed up before the life.  The only option at this point is to keep the leg from touching the ground (don't lift) but run through your opponent so his leg won't find the root.  Drive forward.as fast as you can.  Trying  to lift at this point is going to be a bad lift.  I know from experience because I did the same entry after a foot hook to a single leg and the only way I could recover was to drive my sparring partner back, but I ran out of room and was afraid that if I kept pushing he would have made a hole in the wall or my head would have made one.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Hey, it's easy for me as an outsider and not being there to make suggestions to do this or do that or take this approach.   There is usually more to it than that when you spend the time to get to know what is really the issue with that particular student.   One approach to fixing a problem does not always render the same result.  Corrections in class (or any attention) can get some people to just shut down to the point they no longer pay attention.   These folks may do better in a smaller group setting where things can be less formal and they are more open to 'listening' and 'understanding' instructions.    Just a different way of learning but that has been my experience.  Not everyone learns the same way and as a man I have to be cognizant that my voice and tone can be received totally differently from the way I believe I am sending the message.
> 
> I've dealt with men, women and children who are handi-able as well as handi-capped (physically, mentally and sometimes both).  It is not always easy to get to their level and make them understand that you are there to help improve their experience but they also must be willing to put in the effort to be open and try.   Persistence and ingenuity pay off so good luck and keep trying.   When they get their 'aha' moment you will be amazed at what kind of doors that opens for them.


I probably should have taped a small radio on the students gloves and stated, "if you can't hear the music then your hands are in the wrong place." lol





But in all seriousness.  The most abused foundational required is "keep your hands up" How many times have we seen experienced fighters pay the price for ignoring that foundation


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I probably should have taped a small radio on the students gloves and stated, "if you can't hear the music then your hands are in the wrong place." lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the message but what we tend to forget is that the recipient is more than likely focusing on something else (like the sound of their heart pounding in their ears  ).   If I see someone constantly have this issue, I would go and have a chat with them after class to see if they realize that their hands are too low.  Do they understand the consequences of keeping their hands low.  Are they interested in working on additional drills on their own time to correct this problem.   Would they be interested in pairing up with a more advanced student that can guide them during real time sparring so that they can understand context as well as form.   I am sure there you can think of and have already tried tons of other things to correct this.   Eventually they will figure it out or get tagged a few times and decide this is just not for them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Oh yes I know you CAN throw hooks from a low horse stance but I would question how effective they would be.


They are effective so long as you drive the power with the leg and not a pivot.  If I can remember (probably won't but, if I do). I will do a video of me punching pads from a low horse stance so you can hear the punches sound off.



Yokozuna514 said:


> All things being equal, if I shoot on you and you go into a low horse stance and start punching, dollars to donuts you are going to get the worst of that exchange.


 Hasn't happened yet.  Tested it against various people, including people with good take down skills and people with bad take down skills.  Like I always say.  I have it on tape. (well at least some of it)



Yokozuna514 said:


> What's available to me are a myriad ways to put you down (eg: single leg, ankle picks, trips or simply just tackling you down if I have superior weight).


 Ankle pick will put you at risk of being punched or kick in the face.  Dropping down in a low horse stance doesn't mean it's static horse stance.  Footwork is always in the picture.

Physically impossible to be in these position if I'm in low horse stance









You can tackle me if you want but it's not going to play out like you think.  This guy is going in for the tackle, He did this when I was in a low stance.  My hook isn't going to land.  Because I'm in a horse stance my rear hand is in a good position for an under hook.  The guys that are good won't mess with me when I'm in a low stance like that.  They'll play it safe by kicking my lead leg until I'm tired of the punishment.




This is the result of his plan




Second attempt I'm in low stance again.




He charges in punching.  I don't back up




This is the result of his plan







Yokozuna514 said:


> but my point is hooks from a low horse stance where you hips are essentially taken out of the equation means you are using just arms and shoulders to punch.


When I do hooks, I generate power in this manner . *Foot flat - Leg -> waist -> arm*
If you generate a power for a hook like this *Ball of foot> hip> arm>*  Then you won't be able to drive the power while in horse stance






Here's the power that you don't think is there


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> or get tagged a few times and decide this is just not for them.


I try to do my best to keep people from reaching this point.  Sometimes that "light bulb of understanding" just takes a long time to turn on.  And often times it happens off the mat doing something totally unrelated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 1, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Osu, I've adapted my approach to teaching/coaching throughout the years exactly for this reason.   The last thing I want to see is a player make a mistake and throw their hands up (or look at the coach/teacher) for the answer WHILE play is going on.   If stuff happens and your plan doesn't work, then look for something else you can do instead of throwing your hands up and basically giving up.   This is more of an issue when training kids but I have also seen adults that get stymied on the tatami and have no idea on how to recover without looking at their coach.   There may be situations where this can work but I haven't seen too many that make me want to change my approach.


Agreed. I started the change by simply telling them they aren't allowed to just give up on a technique. If it isn't working, do SOMETHING. Since we cover punches, elbows, and knees before they learn their first grappling technique, I encourage a (simulated) strike, just to get in the habit of using those strikes to keep the other guy on the defensive (and themselves moving) when a technique fails.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 1, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm probably like this because I train Kung Fu.  There's tons of stuff where if you get step 1 wrong then everything else that follows will be degraded.  If I get my high sweep wrong, then someone will take my back, if I get my long punches wrong, then I might get kicked in the face, after that point.  I'm either going to be trying to recover from being dazed, or KO.  If you take a look at many of the Kung Fu people getting man handled, you'll discover that it's not Step 2 that puts them such a bad situation, It's Step 1.
> 
> I only stop things for foundational errors.  If you get Step 1 correct then I will let students try to work everything else.  Step 1 for me is always foundational basics.  How I stand facing my opponent, before strikes or attacks occur is a foundational process. So as long as the student gets the foundation stuff, they can learn from other mistakes, which are more of errors with technique application or deployment.  If you stand in front of your opponent with locked knees then I will stop you right there. lol.


I can see that. And I'm not saying I wouldn't go back and fix the issue at step 1. I just want them to keep that problem-solving mindset so when things go south, they are used to dealing with that. But once they've done what they can to keep things moving, I'll stop it and go back to work on what they initially messed up.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I started the change by simply telling them they aren't allowed to just give up on a technique. If it isn't working, do SOMETHING.


I like this one.  This is pretty much the reality for all of us.  There will be a time where a technique doesn't work and we have to move to the next one.

The idea is to flow into the next technique but we all know the reality of that one.  Easier said than done, and it gets more difficult as your opponent's skill level increases..


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 2, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I started the change by simply telling them they aren't allowed to just give up on a technique. If it isn't working, do SOMETHING. Since we cover punches, elbows, and knees before they learn their first grappling technique, I encourage a (simulated) strike, just to get in the habit of using those strikes to keep the other guy on the defensive (and themselves moving) when a technique fails.


Do SOMETHING!
I love that. It forces a person to use the blob in their skull for more than just the expected conditions to process and come with exceptions/solutions to the problem at hand. 
This adds a much more real world element to training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Do SOMETHING!
> I love that. It forces a person to use the blob in their skull for more than just the expected conditions to process and come with exceptions/solutions to the problem at hand.
> This adds a much more real world element to training.


And it takes away the tendency to just stop at the point of error and tell their partner to "start over". I want students to get used to making at least one move past where the error occurred, so they aren't in the habit of just stopping. It's like getting someone who has done a lot of common dojo sparring to stop attacking once and then backing off (what I call "my turn, your turn" sparring).


----------



## O'Malley (Apr 2, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree at least that clip starts with a clinch (even if it doesn't start with fist flying).
> 
> The following clip doesn't start with a clinch. IMO, it's a mistake to attack with single leg while your opponent's arms are free.



I lost it after a few seconds. Countering someone lunging at your groin with "golden cock" and "repulse monkey" is just too funny.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Apr 2, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> They are effective so long as you drive the power with the leg and not a pivot.  If I can remember (probably won't but, if I do). I will do a video of me punching pads from a low horse stance so you can hear the punches sound off.
> 
> Hasn't happened yet.  Tested it against various people, including people with good take down skills and people with bad take down skills.  Like I always say.  I have it on tape. (well at least some of it)
> 
> ...



A picture is worth a thousand words as they say.   I see you use your 'low horse stance' like what I would call a 'side stance'.  I can also see why opponents would have more of tendency to punish the lead leg before attempting a shoot.  These are not meant as criticisms and obviously it is easy to get the wrong idea just from a picture.   I am surprised that people that did attempt shoots on you, didn't go for your back (as in fake a single leg to take your back).   Perhaps you are fast enough to keep cover that attack but it is again difficult to see with just a still motion photo.   

One of the issues I see with a low horse stance is it has a tendency to take away mobility and freeze the hips.  The wider and lower the stance, the more difficult to move the feet.  Standing sideways also means to me that you are taking away the use of two of your weapons especially if your opponents constantly circles to your back.   I coached basketball for years and when I would teach defence and defensive stances to young kids I would start with showing them what the proper form was and then work a simple side to side, back and front drill.  Next I would tell them to widen their stance by one foot distance and do the same drill.   The intent was to show them that the wider the feet got, the slower they were to move.  I would also do the inverse to show them how difficult it was to keep their balance the narrower their stance.  However, since everyone's body is different, they needed to find the right distance for themselves.  I found this translates to fighting as well.  Sure, there are people that use wider stances (Shotokan point sparring) and have mobility but that kind of movement doesn't seem to translate well into practical fighting where power generation into your strikes is desired.

In the Mike Tyson videos, I can see how he generates his power but his feet are essentially shoulder width apart and he stance is more forward.   He has full range of motion from his hips in this fashion.  If you can do the same from a low horse stance from the side, you must have really flexible hip joints.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> A picture is worth a thousand words as they say. I see you use your 'low horse stance' like what I would call a 'side stance'.


  I try to show pictures or video when possible.  Alot of time we visualize something different than what the person is saying.



Yokozuna514 said:


> I am surprised that people that did attempt shoots on you, didn't go for your back (as in fake a single leg to take your back).


 My rear leg was safe. It was too far for them to shoot for it. Depending on where they start it's about a  6ft drive to reach my back leg and you have to get through my hands and other defenses.



Yokozuna514 said:


> Perhaps you are fast enough to keep cover that attack but it is again difficult to see with just a still motion photo.


I'm quick enough but speed doesn't factor in it for the person standing in horse.  The distance that it takes for people to reach my rear leg adds time to the shoot so it takes longer for the shoot than it normally would.  I have video I just figure people who have seen it are probably sick of seeing it.



Yokozuna514 said:


> One of the issues I see with a low horse stance is it has a tendency to take away mobility and freeze the hips


 You still have mobility but it's not striking mobility. The low horse stance addresses grappling and not striking. What you lose in mobility you gain in stability and defense.



Yokozuna514 said:


> The wider and lower the stance, the more difficult to move the feet.


Which is why works good with grappling.  Again It's still possible to move quickly, but it's different from how one moves when in a higher stance.  Different stance heights serve different purposes. 
Here's an example of quick movements while in low stance.  As you can see she has quite a bit of mobility.







Yokozuna514 said:


> Standing sideways also means to me that you are taking away the use of two of your weapons especially if your opponents constantly circles to your back.


These are the things I can do from a low stance. 
lead hand jab
lead hand hook
lead hand block
lead hand upper cut
lead hand  back fist
lead foot front kick
lead foot side kick. 
lead foot sweep
lead foot hook.
Front kick
Side kick
sweep
rear hand punch which is.  Transition from horse to bow.
Back feast
Rear long fist 
Cut angles,
Step back
shuffle left shuffle right.

I won't be able to move fast enough or far enough to run circles around you but I'll be able to move quickly to defend and attack and set up.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2021)

@Yokozuna514 
The best way to understand this is to do a couple of long fist, Jow Ga, Choi Li Fut, Hung Ga or any system that use long fist punches.  What you'll discover is that you can't draw enough power from the hips without breaking the structure.  But if you use the waist you can generate a significant amount.  Once you experience that, then you will understand the difference.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 2, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> They are effective so long as you drive the power with the leg and not a pivot.  If I can remember (probably won't but, if I do). I will do a video of me punching pads from a low horse stance so you can hear the punches sound off.
> 
> Hasn't happened yet.  Tested it against various people, including people with good take down skills and people with bad take down skills.  Like I always say.  I have it on tape. (well at least some of it)
> 
> ...







__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=3796459370366494


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2021)

drop bear said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=3796459370366494


That angle cut at the 17 mark is the same foot work that we Jow Ga uses to drive on of our hooks.  Push of the legs, and into the hook.. That same movement can be done in a lower stance as well. 

He's got some nice footwork


----------



## Damien (Apr 2, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> That's the message but what we tend to forget is that the recipient is more than likely focusing on something else (like the sound of their heart pounding in their ears  ).   If I see someone constantly have this issue, I would go and have a chat with them after class to see if they realize that their hands are too low.  Do they understand the consequences of keeping their hands low.  Are they interested in working on additional drills on their own time to correct this problem.   Would they be interested in pairing up with a more advanced student that can guide them during real time sparring so that they can understand context as well as form.   I am sure there you can think of and have already tried tons of other things to correct this.   Eventually they will figure it out or get tagged a few times and decide this is just not for them.



My Preferred tactic for students that don't keep their hands up is to do pad work with them. Every time they drop their hands I tap them in the head with a pad. Occasionally means I get punched in the arm rather than the pad, but wearing gloves it's not so bad! 5 minutes of that and they generally get the idea, and are much better afterwards. 

Of course everyone drops their hands sometimes, some styles are even built on it, but start with the basics and go from there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2021)

Yokozuna514 said:


> if they realize that their hands are too low.


Sometime I like to drop my hands low, invite my opponent's punch to come toward my head, I then knock his punch down, and ...

When my opponent punches me, I like to punch back at the same time. I don't like to block his punch and put myself in defense mode.







A circular punch can knock down a straight punch. The starting point of a circular punch is usually from a lower position. If you keep swing left hook and right hook in front of you, no jab and cross can go through.

If you can shoot down your enemy missile in the ocean, it's better to shoot it down on top of your capital.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 2, 2021)

You don't hold your hands up you hold your elbows in. And your hands follow.


----------

