# Style bashing



## Martial D

One point of view - You are bashing my style!

My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.


----------



## Headhunter

No it's none of your business what someone does. It's not all about fighting people can do whatever they want who are you to tell them what's good and what's not. You haven't got a duty you do what you do let others do what they want. Thinking you can tell anyone what they can or can't do is just simply arrogant in my eyes.


----------



## Martial D

Headhunter said:


> No it's none of your business what someone does. It's not all about fighting people can do whatever they want who are you to tell them what's good and what's not. You haven't got a duty you do what you do let others do what they want. Thinking you can tell anyone what they can or can't do is just simply arrogant in my eyes.


Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.

.......I think not.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.


If someone enjoys training there that's good for them again none of your business if I want to do something like aikido I'm gonna do it, if you tell me not to I'll tell you where to shove your opinion why would I listen to you how do I know your not the fraud as I said people can do whatever they want none of your business


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.



And as an addendum, its not even JUST that angle. Its also for the integrity of combat arts in general. The longer we, as MAists, turn a blind eye to nonfunctional martial arts being taught, and adopt the live and let live mentality about it, the entire game suffers. I think we should be trying to progress the thing as a whole, and part of that is identifying and cutting loose the fatty bits. Sure, some people that have invested years and decades into such nonsense might come away with hurt feelings (hi headhunter), but omelettes are worth the broken eggs.


----------



## Martial D

Headhunter said:


> If someone enjoys training there that's good for them again none of your business if I want to do something like aikido I'm gonna do it, if you tell me not to I'll tell you where to shove your opinion why would I listen to you how do I know your not the fraud as I said people can do whatever they want none of your business


Im not telling anyone not to do anything. I just think people should be educated. If you walk out of aikido class thinking you are equipt to deal with a street situation by it, you are worse off than if you had 0 training at all. False confidence kills a lot of people. I don't think its right to scam people at all, especially not as it could pertain to life or death.


----------



## Jenna

Martial D said:


> Im not telling anyone not to do anything. I just think people should be educated. If you walk out of aikido class thinking you are equipt to deal with a street situation by it, you are worse off than if you had 0 training at all. False confidence kills a lot of people. I don't think its right to scam people at all, especially not as it could pertain to life or death.


Aikido is a scam? sigh..


----------



## Andrew Green

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.




No, those days are ending anyways.  Information is free to anyone, anywhere at anytime.  If you think your instructor is teaching techniques wrong you can pull up 100 other instructors doing the same technique on your phone.  If a school lies and uses shady business practices online reviews will tell you.  

Martial arts is as diverse as team sports.  Some are functional in real world, others are combat sports, some are just to look pretty, some are just to improve your health.  

So much of the style bashing that goes on really comes across as Football players bashing basketball players because they are terrible at tackling each other.  Who cares, have fun, do what you do and recognize that not everyone has the same goals as you.  If they are achieving what they want to achieve then they are doing great, doesn't matter if they are failing miserably at doing something else.

Martial artists seem to want to be everything to everyone... and we can't.  We shouldn't try.  

It's just like any other industry, do what you do, deliver on the promises you make and don't try to create a product that is perfect for every possible need.  Think about it, try to make a car that is perfect for everyone.  Lamborghini's suck, they can't go off road, have very little ability to haul things and you can't fit a family in them.  SUV's suck, they won't win any races against even low end sports cars. etc.

Yet so many martial arts schools try to sell you on the fact that they are great for fitness... yet everyone is out of shape.  Or they are useful for self-defence, and teach no real self-defence.  Or they teach lifeskill ______, because that's what the mom wants when they have no real process of doing so.  

Deliver on the promises you make and all is good.  Don't sell me a sports car when I need something that can go off road because that's what you have though.


----------



## Andrew Green

Jenna said:


> Aikido is a scam? sigh..



The best instruction in any style, regardless of that style, is a scam IF they sell you on a promise they can't deliver.  I pull a Bill and Ted and bring Jigoro Kano back to run a school, it's a scam if I tell you he will make you a good boxer, or teach you sport karate because your studying acting and want to get into action movies / shows.


----------



## Jenna

Andrew Green said:


> The best instruction in any style, regardless of that style, is a scam IF they sell you on a promise they can't deliver.  I pull a Bill and Ted and bring Jigoro Kano back to run a school, it's a scam if I tell you he will make you a good boxer, or teach you sport karate because your studying acting and want to get into action movies / shows.


Has some one sold you on a promise they could not deliver?


----------



## Andrew Green

Jenna said:


> Has some one sold you on a promise they could not deliver?



Fortunately for me I run the school, I'm the one making the promises, so I try to only make the ones we deliver on.

But in our industry it's pretty common for schools teaching completely different things in completely different ways to have the exact same list of bullet points of benefits.  Hell a lot even use the same website company to give them the exact same website right down to the same testimonials.  

My belief is that we should celebrate our diversity, not try to be catch all solutions for everything.


----------



## MI_martialist

For example?



Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> Im not telling anyone not to do anything. I just think people should be educated. If you walk out of aikido class thinking you are equipt to deal with a street situation by it, you are worse off than if you had 0 training at all. False confidence kills a lot of people. I don't think its right to scam people at all, especially not as it could pertain to life or death.


And you think you have the right to tell people what to do because you're such an expert? Aren't you a Kung fu guy who doesn't even know his own lineage....how do you know what works and what doesn't have you trained the styles you're insulting or is it just guess work


----------



## Headhunter

Andrew Green said:


> No, those days are ending anyways.  Information is free to anyone, anywhere at anytime.  If you think your instructor is teaching techniques wrong you can pull up 100 other instructors doing the same technique on your phone.  If a school lies and uses shady business practices online reviews will tell you.
> 
> Martial arts is as diverse as team sports.  Some are functional in real world, others are combat sports, some are just to look pretty, some are just to improve your health.
> 
> So much of the style bashing that goes on really comes across as Football players bashing basketball players because they are terrible at tackling each other.  Who cares, have fun, do what you do and recognize that not everyone has the same goals as you.  If they are achieving what they want to achieve then they are doing great, doesn't matter if they are failing miserably at doing something else.
> 
> Martial artists seem to want to be everything to everyone... and we can't.  We shouldn't try.
> 
> It's just like any other industry, do what you do, deliver on the promises you make and don't try to create a product that is perfect for every possible need.  Think about it, try to make a car that is perfect for everyone.  Lamborghini's suck, they can't go off road, have very little ability to haul things and you can't fit a family in them.  SUV's suck, they won't win any races against even low end sports cars. etc.
> 
> Yet so many martial arts schools try to sell you on the fact that they are great for fitness... yet everyone is out of shape.  Or they are useful for self-defence, and teach no real self-defence.  Or they teach lifeskill ______, because that's what the mom wants when they have no real process of doing so.
> 
> Deliver on the promises you make and all is good.  Don't sell me a sports car when I need something that can go off road because that's what you have though.


Absolutely I mean I'm doing Jiu Jitsu now and I know it's more of a sport based setting and I know it's got limitations but I enjoy it and have fun doing it so who cares. To many people think they have the right to tell people what to do. I mean martial d says I shouldn't train my style I can say he shouldn't train his what makes his opinion worth more than mine


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.


That would be more useful if you were talking to the prospective student. Talking to the huckster doesn't do much.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> And as an addendum, its not even JUST that angle. Its also for the integrity of combat arts in general. The longer we, as MAists, turn a blind eye to nonfunctional martial arts being taught, and adopt the live and let live mentality about it, the entire game suffers. I think we should be trying to progress the thing as a whole, and part of that is identifying and cutting loose the fatty bits. Sure, some people that have invested years and decades into such nonsense might come away with hurt feelings (hi headhunter), but omelettes are worth the broken eggs.


Hurt feelings? Lol I'm more than happy with what I've done and do you really think I care about what you think of the styles I do. If you tried to tell me what I do is rubbish I'd just laugh at you because I wouldn't care less


----------



## MI_martialist

Well, your profile is limited, please tell us what your experience is.



Headhunter said:


> Hurt feelings? Lol I'm more than happy with what I've done and do you really think I care about what you think of the styles I do. If you tried to tell me what I do is rubbish I'd just laugh at you because I wouldn't care less


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.


This is one of those areas where there's a lot of grey. There are things that work (have even been found so by those who have to use them in live situations), which are foreign to others and seem problematic to them. Then there are things that are demonstrably incorrect. Where we can separate them, it's not an evil thing to call out the stuff that doesn't work, if only to get people thinking.

But if we get stuck in calling out anything that we don't like - without regard for what evidence there may be that it actually works - then we get into a murky area.

And, of course, there's also the problem of recognizing goals. As some folks have pointed out to me, not everyone trains for fighting ability. For those folks, anything that's not causing injury is okay, even if it's entirely ineffective (from a combat perspective).


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.



What are your qualifications for deciding what works and what doesn't? What if someone looking at you and what you do decides you are wrong and you are misleading students etc? Is an instructor who genuinely believes what he was taught works and so teaches his students a fraud then?  Is someone who does a softer style than yours a hucksters because you don't think it works? How do you prove what others teach doesn't work?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jenna said:


> Aikido is a scam? sigh..


There's a recurring issue with this. There are some schools that teach in a method that I can't see as producing effective technique in less than 2 years (not to mention some truly bad schools, as all MA will have, even if only briefly). And there are folks who have used Aikido (here, referring to Ueshiba's art) effectively in self-defense, LEO situations, and other live usage. Somewhere between those two are some real answers, including some number (a lot? - I don't know) of schools where good technique is taught in an effective way, but this middle is often ignored. Confirmation bias makes it pretty easy to argue both cases.


----------



## Andrew Green

MI_martialist said:


> Well, your profile is limited, please tell us what your experience is.



I always find it a little funny when people start demanding background info on others and at the same time aren't even using their real name...  This is a forum that allows anonymity, which means you have to debate the idea alone, not the person.  It has it's ups and downs, but just like schools, their are all sorts of options on places to discuss martial arts that have different rules and cultures.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.


If you go to a

- Judo forum and suggest that they should add no-gi wrestle,
- Taiji forum and suggest that they should add weight lifting,
- WC forum and suggest that they should add body rotation,
- SC forum and suggest that they should add ground game,
- ...

into their training, Some people may think that you like to discuss MA in general. Some people may think that you are "style basing".

If you are afraid to express your opinion, the internet is not for you.


----------



## MI_martialist

That's an awful high horse.  All I did was ask your background and experience.  I do believe that part of the debate involves understanding the qualifications to "judge"...if the qualifications are not there, then why discuss further?  If they are there, then a discussion can happen.

I am not going to debate the merits of quantum physics with my 1 year old granddaughter.



Andrew Green said:


> I always find it a little funny when people start demanding background info on others and at the same time aren't even using their real name...  This is a forum that allows anonymity, which means you have to debate the idea alone, not the person.  It has it's ups and downs, but just like schools, their are all sorts of options on places to discuss martial arts that have different rules and cultures.


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> What are your qualifications for deciding what works and what doesn't? What if someone looking at you and what you do decides you are wrong and you are misleading students etc? Is an instructor who genuinely believes what he was taught works and so teaches his students a fraud then?  Is someone who does a softer style than yours a hucksters because you don't think it works? How do you prove what others teach doesn't work?


As I said to him before he's a Kung fu guy. A lot of people will say Kung fu is ineffective and useless and full of frauds who can't fight so does he have the right to say anything about anyone else's style. It all becomes an ego game he can say my style sucks I can say his sucks. I can go tell someone do boxing not judo he could tell the same person do judo not boxing. There's to many arrogant people (the op included) who thinks they know what everyone needs to do with their life. In my eyes people can do what they want make their own mistakes if they are making mistakes and learn from them if need be that's life. If someone's enjoys a style that may or may not be effective what's that got to do with me who am I to spoil someone's enjoyment of something. 

But as we've seen multiple times has a high opinion of himself


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.



Depends on the style.If you look at this thread. They bashed it to death because it doesnt work.


Internal Power of Martial Arts (Breathing Technique)


----------



## Headhunter

MI_martialist said:


> Well, your profile is limited, please tell us what your experience is.


Boxing, kickboxing, kenpo black belt, Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu with a small amount of ishinryu, taekwondo and Kung fu (those ones are literally a few months of each so I don't count those as my main styles)


----------



## MI_martialist

That really doesn't tell anyone anything aside from the fact that you go to a lot of places.  The amount of time you spent training in each, where at, etc.  That is what is helpful.  Who was your instructor...those are the things that will help others form a good picture.



Headhunter said:


> Boxing, kickboxing, kenpo black belt, Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu with a small amount of ishinryu, taekwondo and Kung fu (those ones are literally a few months of each so I don't count those as my main styles)


----------



## Headhunter

MI_martialist said:


> That really doesn't tell anyone anything aside from the fact that you go to a lot of places.  The amount of time you spent training in each, where at, etc.  That is what is helpful.  Who was your instructor...those are the things that will help others form a good picture.


Umm..why do I need to form a picture of myself you asked my styles I told you, you don't need my life story


----------



## MI_martialist

Ok, whatever...my opinion of your credentials is complete now...did you say something?



Headhunter said:


> Umm..why do I need to form a picture of myself you asked my styles I told you, you don't need my life story


----------



## Headhunter

Andrew Green said:


> I always find it a little funny when people start demanding background info on others and at the same time aren't even using their real name...  This is a forum that allows anonymity, which means you have to debate the idea alone, not the person.  It has it's ups and downs, but just like schools, their are all sorts of options on places to discuss martial arts that have different rules and cultures.


Agreed I just answered the question of my styles and then told that's not enough information and I need to tell them how long I've trained and who ive trained with...um mind your own lol


----------



## Headhunter

MI_martialist said:


> Ok, whatever...my opinion of your credentials is complete now...did you say something?


What on earth are you on about


----------



## MI_martialist

HAHA!!! Headhunter agrees....that's funny!



Headhunter said:


> Agreed I just answered the question of my styles and then told that's not enough information and I need to tell them how long I've trained and who ive trained with...um mind your own lol


----------



## Headhunter

MI_martialist said:


> HAHA!!! Headhunter agrees....that's funny!


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Aikido is a scam? sigh..



Sometimes.





Sorry.


----------



## Headhunter

MI_martialist said:


> HAHA!!! Headhunter agrees....that's funny!


Seriously what on earth is your problem did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today or something


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> Sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.


Same can be said for any style


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

On the other hand, when you have seen a clip like this and you are afraid to say anything, you are not only untruthful to yourself, you are not doing MA community any good either.

It starts to get more interest after 2.00.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.



You are entitled to your opinion but in the end it's just that.....your opinion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.


At least there are "contact" in this clip. I just don't believe you can move a person without even make any contact.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Same can be said for any style



I agree.

But of course that would be style bashing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.


This, IMO, is meant to test a specific concept. We test it differently, but also in a not-quite-live approach. If this is purported to be a realistic assessment of multiple attacker defense, it isn't that. If it's meant to be a test for a specific kind of movement and control, it is that.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> I agree.
> 
> But of course that would be style bashing.


Not really its not about the style it's how the instructor teaches it and again even if the instructor isn't teaching to a great level and someone still enjoys learning there and training with them then that's great they're still getting out the house and staying active


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> On the other hand, when you have seen a clip like this and you are afraid to say anything, you are not only untruthful to yourself, you are not doing MA community any good either.
> 
> It starts to get more interest after 2.00.



The thing for me is I have trained reality systems that provides the same false feedback. 

And untill I got that strong tradie guy  who rocks up on his first day and did not know how to partner right so instead of a drill it became a fight. I never even realised that there were two different versions of training.

One is honest with honest feedback and falure and the other is a pleasant fantasy.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> That would be more useful if you were talking to the prospective student. Talking to the huckster doesn't do much.


Oh contraire Mon Ami.

Prospective students will often search for information first, and if just one of them reads this thread, or others like it, and it caused them to more closely evaluate their training decisions, then it was worthwhile to write.

I would say many if not most that have 0 experience in this would assume it's all effective, and that they are truly preparing themselves for something they aren't(self defense or combat).


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Not really its not about the style it's how the instructor teaches it and again even if the instructor isn't teaching to a great level and someone still enjoys learning there and training with them then that's great they're still getting out the house and staying active



Ok. the next time i see someone basically getting shafted by expending time effort and money on a system that will never deliver on its expectations. And the best we can hope for at the end of this is that the person never has to use it.

I wil use that encouragement.

"It is good to see you getting out of the house and staying active"


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.


I think it's funny that three individuals hit the little disagree button on this...effectively saying that it's perfectly fine to scam people.

QED.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Oh contraire Mon Ami.
> 
> Prospective students will often search for information first, and if just one of them reads this thread, or others like it, and it caused them to more closely evaluate their training decisions, then it was worthwhile to write.
> 
> I would say many if not most that have 0 experience in this would assume it's all effective, and that they are truly preparing themselves for something they aren't(self defense or combat).


A valid point, though I'm not sure most of the approaches used in discussing those issues with instructors would make as much sense to prospective students. Most aren't digging around on MA fora before they start (some are - we get several a year here). An informative video on YouTube and/or a blog article that will turn up in a search (good SEO) would reach more, and would be more directly communicative to the student.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> I think it's funny that three individuals hit the little disagree button on this...effectively saying that it's perfectly fine to scam people.
> 
> QED.


Oh dear  you're people are pressing dislike on you again?


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> Ok. the next time i see someone basically getting shafted by expending time effort and money on a system that will never deliver on its expectations. And the best we can hope for at the end of this is that the person never has to use it.
> 
> I wil use that encouragement.
> 
> "It is good to see you getting out of the house and staying active"


Like I said it's none of your business what people do. Get on with your own life you haven't got the right to tell anyone what to do with theirs


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This, IMO, is meant to test a specific concept. We test it differently, but also in a not-quite-live approach. If this is purported to be a realistic assessment of multiple attacker defense, it isn't that. If it's meant to be a test for a specific kind of movement and control, it is that.



Yeah. I was thinking that. Because we do a similar drill. And so you are not technically ninjering five guys. but just trying to shorten the time it takes to get feeds and hit them from a different angle and even use multiple guys to gas that one guy out.

And it is still a fantasy approach to that because what is the point of upping the pressure if everyone just becomes extra collapsy to accommodate it.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> A valid point, though I'm not sure most of the approaches used in discussing those issues with instructors would make as much sense to prospective students. Most aren't digging around on MA fora before they start (some are - we get several a year here). An informative video on YouTube and/or a blog article that will turn up in a search (good SEO) would reach more, and would be more directly communicative to the student.


Fair enough, but there's no such thing as being too prepared. The standard tiptoing on eggshells to not offend anyone style that is super common here needs some yin to it's yang though, and I don't mind being one of the guys that splashes the cold water, even if it offends some of the more thin skinned among us.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Like I said it's none of your business what people do. Get on with your own life you haven't got the right to tell anyone what to do with theirs



Yes I do.

I am not at all sure where you got that idea from.

I mean you just told me what to do. And you have that right.


----------



## Streetfighter2

Martial D said:


> I think it's funny that three individuals hit the little disagree button on this...effectively saying that it's perfectly fine to scam people.
> 
> QED.


Here have another


----------



## Streetfighter2

Martial D said:


> Fair enough, but there's no such thing as being too prepared. The standard tiptoing on eggshells to not offend anyone style that is super common here needs some yin to it's yang though, and I don't mind being one of the guys that splashes the cold water, even if it offends some of the more thin skinned among us.


Just stick to talking **** on dead guys that seems to be your area of expertise


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. the next time i see someone basically getting shafted by expending time effort and money on a system that will never deliver on its expectations. And the best we can hope for at the end of this is that the person never has to use it.
> 
> I wil use that encouragement.
> 
> "It is good to see you getting out of the house and staying active"


In the end, that's one of the most important things most of us get out of our training, whether it is fight-effective or not. 

Now, this comes back to a recurring question of how much the system matters, and how much the training approach matters. And I think the answer (as with nature vs. nurture) is that they both matter more than some people think and less than others think. For the moment, let's assume all MA pursuits should end up with effective fighting (to remove argument about whether that's the case or not).

If I say "Karate is crap because of kata", that's a pretty clear bias against a training tool, not really supported by any specific evidence. Even if I could assert (with evidence) that kata were less effective than other means (which incidentally, I cannot), that wouldn't be evidence that there's something really wrong with kata. I might be able to make a similar assertion about a 50-pound heavy bag as opposed to a 75-pound one. But just because on is generally better, that doesn't make the other bad, so my evidence wouldn't be enough. And then we have to decide if the training method is actually the style. Some would argue it is, but there's no reason a style based on forms (kata) couldn't be taught without the forms, just by teaching what was in the forms. It would change the training, but not the system (if we define "system" as the collection of techniques, strategies, and tactics).

So, if a style includes some techniques that aren't effective, is that a bad style? I'd argue it depends how they are used, what percentage of the style/focus they are, and probably some other factors. Okay, if it's 50% ineffective (for fighting - remember our assumption here) techniques, that's probably a weak system. But what if it's 10%, or 25%? I'm not sure at what point it starts to become an actual problem. I expect if we looked into the entirety of every system, we'd find some things (perhaps not taught everywhere) that were less-than-optimal. And then we get the real confusion when some of those are actually quite good, but only under very limited circumstances - are those "ineffective" or "specialized"?

Of course, there are some things we can pretty universally agree are ineffective, in that none of us believe they'd work if we stepped in and let them try it on us. The problem is finding the right line between that and a few objectionable practices within a system - a line beyond which we consider the system "bad".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I was thinking that. Because we do a similar drill. And so you are not technically ninjering five guys. but just trying to shorten the time it takes to get feeds and hit them from a different angle and even use multiple guys to gas that one guy out.
> 
> And it is still a fantasy approach to that because what is the point of upping the pressure if everyone just becomes extra collapsy to accommodate it.


I'd tend to agree. I'd prefer it if this kind of test weren't expected to be 100%. How a person fails (and why) is a more certain test of their skill at something than how often they succeed. That latter measure can be inflated by over-cooperative partners.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Fair enough, but there's no such thing as being too prepared. The standard tiptoing on eggshells to not offend anyone style that is super common here needs some yin to it's yang though, and I don't mind being one of the guys that splashes the cold water, even if it offends some of the more thin skinned among us.


I think the issue is that some folks (and my memory is crap enough that I can't really recall if you've done this) come out too strong against specific practices and approaches, before finding out if they've produced positive results or if there's a good reason for them. I actually welcome folks (including my students) questioning why I do things the way I do. What I don't welcome is someone dismissing what has been effective for folks in the past, because it doesn't fit their image of what *should* work, or coming in aggressively, rather than starting a discussion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> This, IMO, is meant to *test* a specific concept.



I will say "to *train* a special concept" instead.

Train - your opponent cooperates with you.
Test - your opponent does not cooperate with you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I will say "to *train* a special concept" instead.
> 
> Train - your opponent cooperates with you.
> Test - your opponent does not cooperate with you.


Except that the video was actually a test. The over-cooperation was the point DB was making.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you put up a clip like this, you are not basing BJJ but to indicate that some BJJ guy has extended the "sport rule set" a bit too far.

IMO, this kind of comment is good for the BJJ in the long run.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> In the end, that's one of the most important things most of us get out of our training, whether it is fight-effective or not.
> 
> Now, this comes back to a recurring question of how much the system matters, and how much the training approach matters. And I think the answer (as with nature vs. nurture) is that they both matter more than some people think and less than others think. For the moment, let's assume all MA pursuits should end up with effective fighting (to remove argument about whether that's the case or not).
> 
> If I say "Karate is crap because of kata", that's a pretty clear bias against a training tool, not really supported by any specific evidence. Even if I could assert (with evidence) that kata were less effective than other means (which incidentally, I cannot), that wouldn't be evidence that there's something really wrong with kata. I might be able to make a similar assertion about a 50-pound heavy bag as opposed to a 75-pound one. But just because on is generally better, that doesn't make the other bad, so my evidence wouldn't be enough. And then we have to decide if the training method is actually the style. Some would argue it is, but there's no reason a style based on forms (kata) couldn't be taught without the forms, just by teaching what was in the forms. It would change the training, but not the system (if we define "system" as the collection of techniques, strategies, and tactics).
> 
> So, if a style includes some techniques that aren't effective, is that a bad style? I'd argue it depends how they are used, what percentage of the style/focus they are, and probably some other factors. Okay, if it's 50% ineffective (for fighting - remember our assumption here) techniques, that's probably a weak system. But what if it's 10%, or 25%? I'm not sure at what point it starts to become an actual problem. I expect if we looked into the entirety of every system, we'd find some things (perhaps not taught everywhere) that were less-than-optimal. And then we get the real confusion when some of those are actually quite good, but only under very limited circumstances - are those "ineffective" or "specialized"?
> 
> Of course, there are some things we can pretty universally agree are ineffective, in that none of us believe they'd work if we stepped in and let them try it on us. The problem is finding the right line between that and a few objectionable practices within a system - a line beyond which we consider the system "bad".



It has a lot to do with the feedback you receive inside the club. The feedback that the people who drive the concept of the club or style have received. There is a good video on resisted training that I cant find and have settled for Jocko Willik and his views on combatives for the military.

Which is a discussion on Martial arts for the use of getting fighters to win fights rather than getting people off the couch.






I have no issue with getting people off the couch. So long as they know that the effort they put in defines the result they get out. If they do a style where everyone just falls over. Then when somone fights back it is going to be hard.

I do a soft version of MMA myself. I miss days I dont do the fitness. there are drills I dont do. But if I was to compete. If I was to really have to use the style. I could not afford to do a soft version.

It is the understanding that effectivness really needs to be trained in a certain manner.

And that certain manner is honest.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Except that the video was actually a test. The over-cooperation was the point DB was making.


How can you call that "testing"? In that clip, nobody was trying to hurt him.

I try to knock your head off (or take you down). You try to knock my head off (or take me down). That's "testing".


----------



## Martial D

Streetfighter2 said:


> Here have another


That you stalk me around every thread on every subject and spam the disagree button because I hurt your feelings in some other thread 2 months ago speaks volumes about your character.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you put up a clip like this, you are not basing BJJ but to indicate that some BJJ guy has extended the "sport rule set" a bit too far.
> 
> IMO, this kind of comment is good for the BJJ in the long run.



The best result would be to compete some BJJ and compete other stuff. There is nothing wrong with facing a guy like that or even using that so long as it is not your whole thing.

Butt flopper submitted the other guy by the way. So laugh all you want at the concept. It worked.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I think the issue is that some folks (and my memory is crap enough that I can't really recall if you've done this) come out too strong against specific practices and approaches, before finding out if they've produced positive results or if there's a good reason for them. I actually welcome folks (including my students) questioning why I do things the way I do. What I don't welcome is someone dismissing what has been effective for folks in the past, because it doesn't fit their image of what *should* work, or coming in aggressively, rather than starting a discussion.


There is a difference between a style and the people teaching/ways it is taught, but it's razor thin in places.

If you have to climb a mountain in the himalayas to find the one master teaching the one effective version of some style while the other 99% are selling snake oil, it's hard to separate them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd tend to agree. I'd prefer it if this kind of test weren't expected to be 100%. How a person fails (and why) is a more certain test of their skill at something than how often they succeed. That latter measure can be inflated by over-cooperative partners.



You se it in krav and reality training a lot as well. Especially in scenario where you are in general likely to fail regardless what you do. Defending rear hugs is allways a good one because if you are of similar skill you probably wont get out.

I mean so much effort was put into realism here. Exept the actual realism of a partner really trying.






Actually it gets better as they go into sparring.


----------



## marques

There is "scam" in every business. MA is no special. People is happy with "fake" training and instructors are feeding his families with the money from this business. All happy. Let them go.

But more than that, not everyone is looking for the ultimate self defence method. Many people is looking for fitness, fun, relaxation, sociabilization, balance, coordination, improving self-esteem (by fake black belts?) improving mental skill... So the "scam" school may fit perfectly the someone needs.

Finally, if you still think there are "scam" schools (as I do), go ahead and launch yourself a proper school. I stopped complaining when I realised the others may have less than perfect schools, but they did something. I don't (well, nothing for long time). They are the ones in the market, not me. Perhaps I am just focusing on the (apparently) bad things, but unaware of the good things.

Complaining does not help. Make "better" schools yourself. 

PS: I am pretty sure more people is injured in training or competing than applying "bad" techniques in real life. Very few, if anything, will be used in real life. Perfect techniques also fail. Untrained moves are also effective at times. No big deal. Except if you are a perfectionist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can you call that "testing"? In that clip, nobody was trying to hurt him.
> 
> I try to knock your head off (or take you down). You try to knock my head off (or take me down). That's "testing".


I didn't say I thought it was a good test. But that was the purpose. And IMO that sort of test is not about defensive capability, in any case, but a movement concept.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The best result would be to compete some BJJ and compete other stuff. There is nothing wrong with facing a guy like that or even using that so long as it is not your whole thing.
> 
> Butt flopper submitted the other guy by the way. So laugh all you want at the concept. It worked.


This is where sport moves away from fighting effectiveness. What he did was effective for that context, but would get him in big trouble in MMA, and probably on the street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> There is a difference between a style and the people teaching/ways it is taught, but it's razor thin in places.
> 
> If you have to climb a mountain in the himalayas to find the one master teaching the one effective version of some style while the other 99% are selling snake oil, it's hard to separate them.


But does the difference have to be so difficult. Training methods can be changed, as surely as techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You se it in krav and reality training a lot as well. Especially in scenario where you are in general likely to fail regardless what you do. Defending rear hugs is allways a good one because if you are of similar skill you probably wont get out.
> 
> I mean so much effort was put into realism here. Exept the actual realism of a partner really trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it gets better as they go into sparring.


The biggest problem I've seen is a lack of differentiation between simulation (like you'd have someone feed a specific attack to practice a single-leg, rather than doing their best to bring down the person practicing) and sparring/live practice (where he does try his best). Too often, RBSD and self-defense training forgets to do the second part. It can be an easy trap to fall into. Also an easy one to get out of.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> But does the difference have to be so difficult. Training methods can be changed, as surely as techniques.


Well, 'can be' is worth less than the breath it takes to say it until it 'is'.

I can be a billionaire, but I'm not. 

The problem is nobody wants to admit the thing that THEY do is bullshido, which is fine up until they both;
A) resist,with rhetoric, any attempt to test it 

And 

B)Market it as useable fighting or self defense and sell it to others.

At that point it's fraud, even if they themselves believe their own hype.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> I think it's funny that three individuals hit the little disagree button on this...effectively saying that it's perfectly fine to scam people.
> 
> QED.



No we are disagreeing with the idea that it is your job to set people straight about their style.

Again, it might be your opinion that their style is flawed but most people do not care about your opinion on their style.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Oh goody...another faceless nameless self appointed savior of martial arts on a quest to set us all straight.....yup let those who know what's best for us rise and save us from ourselves.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I didn't say I thought it was a good test. But that was the purpose. And IMO that sort of test is not about defensive capability, in any case, but a movement concept.


Many MA discussions are as simple as "This MA style has plenty of skill developing but doesn't have enough skill testing." When you have pointed that out, some people may say that you are "style bashing".

One day I went back to my senior high school and met with my long fist young brothers, I suggested them that they should spar/wrestle as much as they could when they were still young. My long fist teacher didn't like my comment as if I was "style basing" my own long fist system.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Many are the people who believe a particular religion, and feel that they must not only share the good news of their belief, but tell non-believers what I'll is about to befall them if they continue their sinful ways. They truly believe they are doing good.

What they are doing is alienating people. Whether the person''s religion is right or wrong, no one likes to be told they're going to Hell, and such methods produce few converts.

You want to help people? Be the reason by example that others want to emulate you. And for those who don't see your greatness, well, it's a free country.


----------



## Martial D

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh goody...another faceless nameless self appointed savior of martial arts on a quest to set us all straight.....yup let those who know what's best for us rise and save us from ourselves.


Not all, but many. If you think the status quo of selling fantasy is ok, good for you. I find it reprehensible.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> Many are the people who believe a particular religion, and feel that they must not only share the good news of their belief, but tell non-believers what I'll is about to befall them if they continue their sinful ways. They truly believe they are doing good.
> 
> What they are doing is alienating people. Whether the person''s religion is right or wrong, no one likes to be told they're going to Hell, and such methods produce few converts.
> 
> You want to help people? Be the reason by example that others want to emulate you. And for those who don't see your greatness, well, it's a free country.


Who are you even talking to? 

There is certainly a parallel to religious beliefs here, but that ain't it. The difference is you can't actually disprove the existence of gods the way you can with bullshido, yet the believers remain stalwart.


----------



## BrendanF

Short of fighting every single individual you suspect of "selling fantasy"... it's perfectly analogous.

Four pages of people telling you "you ain't the MA police" and you still don't get it.  Yes, there is rubbish being peddled to the uninformed.  Yes, the bulk of MA training probably isn't truly combative.  Nothing you've pointed out is revolutionary.

Caveat emptor.  It is (much as it might stick in my craw to say it) exactly as Drop Bear said:



drop bear said:


> It is the understanding that effectivness really needs to be trained in a certain manner.
> 
> And that certain manner is honest.



It IS the 'understanding' that matters.  This is an entirely individual thing, that you (Martial D) have no control over, or responsibility for.

'Styles' don't train - individuals do.  Why waste time bashing styles?  I've seen some styles that I personally think are inefficient trained to the point of efficacy by dedicated individuals... training honestly.

Any unprovoked criticism speaks more to the insecurity of the critical than the validity of the criticism, for me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> There is certainly a parallel to religious beliefs here,...


That's a good way to look at it.

- You believe in your god. I believe in my god.
- You explain why you believe in your god. I explain why I believe in my god.
- You don't intend to change my opinion. I don't intend to change your opinion.

This way, the world will be peaceful, harmony, and balanced.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's a good way to look at it.
> 
> - You believe in your god. I believe in my god.
> - You explain why you believe in your god. I explain why I believe in my god.
> - You don't intend to change my opinion. I don't intend to change your opinion.
> 
> This way, the world will be peaceful, harmony, and balanced.


Yup, and this is why the middle East is a peaceful paradise.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Yup, and this is why the middle East is a peaceful paradise.


The problem in the middle East is some people try to "change" the others.

Confucius said, "If nobody agree with me on earth, I will get a boat and float in the ocean all by myself."


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> Short of fighting every single individual you suspect of "selling fantasy"... it's perfectly analogous.
> 
> Four pages of people telling you "you ain't the MA police" and you still don't get it.  Yes, there is rubbish being peddled to the uninformed.  Yes, the bulk of MA training probably isn't truly combative.  Nothing you've pointed out is revolutionary.
> 
> Caveat emptor.  It is (much as it might stick in my craw to say it) exactly as Drop Bear said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS the 'understanding' that matters.  This is an entirely individual thing, that you (Martial D) have no control over, or responsibility for.
> 
> 'Styles' don't train - individuals do.  Why waste time bashing styles?  I've seen some styles that I personally think are inefficient trained to the point of efficacy by dedicated individuals... training honestly.
> 
> Any unprovoked criticism speaks more to the insecurity of the critical than the validity of the criticism, for me.



You don't think that is all just a bit dogmatic though?


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Yup, and this is why the middle East is a peaceful paradise.



False equivalency, the Middle East actually has nothing to do with religion and all to do with power, wealth, land and water.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Martial D said:


> Not all, but many. If you think the status quo of selling fantasy is ok, good for you. I find it reprehensible.



yup..like I said....Oh goody...another faceless nameless self appointed savior of martial arts on a quest to set us all straight.....yup let those who know what's best for us rise and save us from ourselves. 

So glad you spent so many years training so many martial arts in order to be the chosen expert we have all been waiting for to show us all the error of our ways.......nuff time wasted on you....have a nice day


----------



## Martial D

Xue Sheng said:


> yup..like I said....Oh goody...another faceless nameless self appointed savior of martial arts on a quest to set us all straight.....yup let those who know what's best for us rise and save us from ourselves.
> 
> So glad you spent so many years training so many martial arts in order to be the chosen expert we have all been waiting for to show us all the error of our ways.......nuff time wasted on you....have a nice day


The fact that you are taking this personally when I've clearly pointed out this post is about scammers makes me wonder.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> False equivalency, the Middle East actually has nothing to do with religion and all to do with power, wealth, land and water.


ROFL

If you say so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> Who are you even talking to?



I am speaking to you.  I would have thought that was clear.



> There is certainly a parallel to religious beliefs here, but that ain't it. The difference is you can't actually disprove the existence of gods the way you can with bullshido, yet the believers remain stalwart.



The similarity is that religious zealots and yourself are alike in that neither sees themselves as anything but the ultimate arbiter of truth.  You cannot prove or disprove anything, any more than the religious zealot can, yet you both claim to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff with unerring accuracy.  You say you can 'prove' validity, but the fact is you cannot prove anything of the sort.

Martial arts exist and serve many different purposes, some of which you may find useful and some which you may not.  But whether or not you find them meaningful, realistic, or non-bullshido, they appeal to those who practice them.  Whether the student is seeking self-defense training, sport competition, exercise, camaraderie, a hobby that keeps them active, inner peace, or whatever else gives their training meaning to them, it's valid - for them.  It's not your place to debunk, enlighten, or otherwise bash anyone over the head with your self-proclaimed knowledge about what is and what is not valid training.

You are not the first to breeze through here with similar statements.  You should have twigged to the fact by now that no one here wants to hear your nonsense.  You mentioned Bullshido, and that is precisely the forum that welcomes this sort of thing; go there and be among your kind.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> ROFL
> 
> If you say so.



I see you are an 'expert' in this as well as martial arts and therefore expect to be taken seriously but without turning this into a political argument I can safely say you know as much about Middle Eastern politics as you do martial arts. Therefore we will be taking as much notice of your historical knowledge as we do of your martial arts knowledge, that's to say none at all.
Your posts come across as ego driven rather than any wish to communicate which makes any discussions pointless, you will always value your opinion over anyone else's even if they happen to know far more than you do ( which isn't hard quite frankly).


----------



## Headhunter

Xue Sheng said:


> yup..like I said....Oh goody...another faceless nameless self appointed savior of martial arts on a quest to set us all straight.....yup let those who know what's best for us rise and save us from ourselves.
> 
> So glad you spent so many years training so many martial arts in order to be the chosen expert we have all been waiting for to show us all the error of our ways.......nuff time wasted on you....have a nice day


As I said before this is a Kung fu guy who doesn't know his lineage how does that make him an expert in all martial arts


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> The fact that you are taking this personally when I've clearly pointed out this post is about scammers makes me wonder.


In my experience the ones who talk the loudest and have to tell everyone what to do are the ones with the most to prove because they feel they need to impress people and feel good about themselves


----------



## KenpoBoxer

How do I know you're not a fraud you may be a fraud who trash talks everyone to sound intelligent prove you're not or shut up


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> I see you are an 'expert' in this as well as martial arts and therefore expect to be taken seriously but without turning this into a political argument I can safely say you know as much about Middle Eastern politics as you do martial arts. Therefore we will be taking as much notice of your historical knowledge as we do of your martial arts knowledge, that's to say none at all.
> Your posts come across as ego driven rather than any wish to communicate which makes any discussions pointless, you will always value your opinion over anyone else's even if they happen to know far more than you do ( which isn't hard quite frankly).


You have no idea what you are talking about. Just another emotional outburst from 'tez', big surprise.


----------



## Martial D

KenpoBoxer said:


> How do I know you're not a fraud you may be a fraud who trash talks everyone to sound intelligent prove you're not or shut up


Ever heard of punctuation?


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> You don't think that is all just a bit dogmatic though?



Not sure exactly which part of my post you think is dogmatic.

To my mind.. 'style' = dogma. No?  

So again, you have people who choose to adhere to a particular 'style'.  And some who don't.

My only point I suppose was why bother bashing styles?  There are crazy cults out there that believe in superpowers and the like - are you going to waste your time and energy 'bashing' them, and every other idiotic group out there?

I've got more important things to do with my time is all.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. Just another emotional outburst from 'tez', big surprise.


Just another bunch of arrogant and ego filled commens from martial D big surprise


----------



## KenpoBoxer

Martial D said:


> Ever heard of punctuation?


So you can't say anything back to the comment. Point proven


----------



## Xue Sheng

Martial D said:


> The fact that you are taking this personally when I've clearly pointed out this post is about scammers makes me wonder.



The fact you think I take the personally shows you rate yourself way to high.

It is just there are so many of you out there and they all seem to show up here on a quest to save us all that it grow tiresome.....

So...how many styles have you actually trained for an appreciable amount of time that makes you an expert on this type of thing?

...or is it like many who come to web forums on similar quest that you are simply a master of YouTubeFu just like the majority who show up as self professed saviors of martial arts.....

You may want to familiarize yourself with the following rules of MT before you continue your quest to save us all..... at least you will know why you were banned when it happens

MartialTalk.com Forum Rules and Procedures
1.10 Forum and Art Bashing
1.10.1 No forum bashing
1.10.2 No Art bashing. 
1.10.3 No Individual Bashing / Fraud Busting.

and now, without further adieu

Like I said before...I have wasted enough time on you...feel free to rail at my post, make gross generalizations and wrong assumptions to make yourself look more like the expert you are not...I shall not reply here again....have fun storming the castle


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. Just another emotional outburst from 'tez', big surprise.



Emotional?  Oh dear, you flatter yourself bigly. What is there about you to elicit emotion, well other than boredom.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> Emotional?  Oh dear, you flatter yourself bigly. What is there about you to elicit emotion, well other than boredom.


Sure.


----------



## Martial D

Xue Sheng said:


> The fact you think I take the personally shows you rate yourself way to high.
> 
> It is just there are so many of you out there and they all seem to show up here on a quest to save us all that it grow tiresome.....
> 
> So...how many styles have you actually trained for an appreciable amount of time that makes you an expert on this type of thing?
> 
> ...or is it like many who come to web forums on similar quest that you are simply a master of YouTubeFu just like the majority who show up as self professed saviors of martial arts.....
> 
> You may want to familiarize yourself with the following rules of MT before you continue your quest to save us all..... at least you will know why you were banned when it happens
> 
> MartialTalk.com Forum Rules and Procedures
> 1.10 Forum and Art Bashing
> 1.10.1 No forum bashing
> 1.10.2 No Art bashing.
> 1.10.3 No Individual Bashing / Fraud Busting.
> 
> and now, without further adieu
> 
> Like I said before...I have wasted enough time on you...feel free to rail at my post, make gross generalizations and wrong assumptions to make yourself look more like the expert you are not...I shall not reply here again....have fun storming the castle



LOL

It's always funny when the fantasy fighting clique bands together.


----------



## Martial D

KenpoBoxer said:


> So you can't say anything back to the comment. Point proven



You didn't make any point, or even address the topic. You made a bunch of baseless accusations in the form of an incoherent run on sentence.

Good for you for figuring out periods, though. That's progress.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> LOL
> 
> It's always funny when the fantasy fighting clique bands together.


You haven't actually answered the question of what your experience is...you talk big but don't actually tell us what your training is. All I've seen is you did Kung fu for a while without knowing who your lineage is. Maybe you can tell us your vast expertise


----------



## Xue Sheng

Headhunter said:


> You haven't actually answered the question of what your experience is...you talk big but don't actually tell us what your training is. All I've seen is you did Kung fu for a while without knowing who your lineage is. Maybe you can tell us your vast expertise



I'm guessing armchair martial arts with a healthy dose of Youtubefu


----------



## ShortBridge

Headhunter said:


> You haven't actually answered the question of what your experience is...you talk big but don't actually tell us what your training is. All I've seen is you did Kung fu for a while without knowing who your lineage is. Maybe you can tell us your vast expertise



Right. Someone else on the internet claiming perfect knowledge of a subject who will never have to back it up.

Tedious.


----------



## Tez3

Headhunter said:


> You haven't actually answered the question of what your experience is...you talk big but don't actually tell us what your training is. All I've seen is you did Kung fu for a while without knowing who your lineage is. Maybe you can tell us your vast expertise



I wouldn't hold your breath waiting though. He's just sitting at his keyboard making personal attacks on people, it's his idea of fun. He thinks he can 'trigger' ( I believe that's the 'in' word these days lol) people into hysterics by posting what he thinks are witty and clever remarks. he could be right but we'd be hysterical with laughter, nought else. 
To paraphrase someone else, he's a good... bigly good martial artist, the best, he's going to make martial arts great again!!


----------



## MI_martialist

I am curious...why the dislikes and disagrees??



MI_martialist said:


> Ok, whatever...my opinion of your credentials is complete now...did you say something?


----------



## MI_martialist

This was perfect until you said Adieu and not ado....



Xue Sheng said:


> The fact you think I take the personally shows you rate yourself way to high.
> 
> It is just there are so many of you out there and they all seem to show up here on a quest to save us all that it grow tiresome.....
> 
> So...how many styles have you actually trained for an appreciable amount of time that makes you an expert on this type of thing?
> 
> ...or is it like many who come to web forums on similar quest that you are simply a master of YouTubeFu just like the majority who show up as self professed saviors of martial arts.....
> 
> You may want to familiarize yourself with the following rules of MT before you continue your quest to save us all..... at least you will know why you were banned when it happens
> 
> MartialTalk.com Forum Rules and Procedures
> 1.10 Forum and Art Bashing
> 1.10.1 No forum bashing
> 1.10.2 No Art bashing.
> 1.10.3 No Individual Bashing / Fraud Busting.
> 
> and now, without further adieu
> 
> Like I said before...I have wasted enough time on you...feel free to rail at my post, make gross generalizations and wrong assumptions to make yourself look more like the expert you are not...I shall not reply here again....have fun storming the castle


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Sure.


----------



## Xue Sheng

MI_martialist said:


> This was perfect until you said Adieu and not ado....



I was saying goodbye to the fine fellow..... there was no fuss, trouble or difficulty


----------



## Martial D

Yet none of you have the wherewithal to address the points made, and many of you would rather speculate about my leet youtubefu than actually read what was said.

And it is the prevalence of that very attitude and behaviour that explains the facticity of my opening post. A mutual admiration society hostile to any sort of criticism.

Rarely does a thread come full circle so elequently.


----------



## JR 137

@Martial D 

I'm the guy on the right, testing for my 5th degree black belt.  Who are you to make the rule that your can't train with these guys anymore?


----------



## Martial D

JR 137 said:


> @Martial D
> 
> I'm the guy on the right, testing for my 5th degree black belt.  Who are you to make the rule that your can't train with these guys anymore?


What are you talking about?


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Yet none of you have the wherewithal to address the points made, and many of you would rather speculate about my leet youtubefu than actually read what was said.
> 
> And it is the prevalence of that very attitude and behaviour that explains the facticity of my opening post. A mutual admiration society hostile to any sort of criticism.
> 
> Rarely does a thread come full circle so elequently.



Aw, do you think nobody loves you my pet?


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 20957



Mark Twain said something to the effect that it is better to let everyone think you are a fool rather than open your mouth and prove it.  

Isn't it interesting how the saying you posted, and Mark Twain's, get proven so easily by some people.


----------



## Martial D

QED



I couldn't script this any better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> QED
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't script this any better.


Has it ever occurred to you that your chosen method of approach affects the response you get? Steve challenges me far more directly than you do to these folks, yet that only dissolves into frustration when we cannot manage to communicate clearly. Why? Because Steve seems to start from a more neutral, objective position, even when he and I disagree.


----------



## MI_martialist

That could be but the usage of Adieu was inaccurate for that sentence....unless you wanted a play on words.



Xue Sheng said:


> I was saying goodbye to the fine fellow..... there was no fuss, trouble or difficulty


----------



## MI_martialist

Let us go to the point of your post...you are correct...but what makes it that you can dispel these myths...that is the question we are coming back with.



Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.


----------



## Tez3

I've been in martial arts for decades, more than I care to think about really and I don't think that in all that time I've come across someone who was teaching fake martial arts for the money. For one thing there is little money to be made in martial arts here and another that faking your style seems a lot of work just to con people out of a few quid. Now I've seen instructors whose classes were _to my mind, _too easy or not robust enough, or they didn't teach what _I consider_ practical self defence. Some classes might be too fitness orientated or not enough, they might be too macho/soft for my idea of what should be taught. That's in my opinion. I've seen a 'Samurai' fighting class that was more a historical recreation club than a martial arts class but while I though some of the stuff they taught was silly they were doing it out of genuine beliefs not with an eye to con anyone. They were actually lovely people who thought if they were attacked they could uncoil a piece of wire and stab their attacker's femoral artery, perhaps but not likely, however they weren't fake. 
I'm sure there's fakes out there, just like the Walts ( people who fake a military career) but to come on here, rant and rave because we don't hunt them down ( isn't there a site for that..... ?) then make personal attacks on people who disagree simply makes no sense unless you are trolling for whatever reason people do that for.... I imagine it's to do with the size of a piece of their anatomy...yes their little hands! what did you think I meant )
Ah well, I'm assuming this thread will shortly be locked.


----------



## CB Jones

oftheherd1 said:


> Mark Twain said something to the effect that it is better to let everyone think you are a fool rather than open your mouth and prove it.
> 
> Isn't it interesting how the saying you posted, and Mark Twain's, get proven so easily by some people.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Things are getting a bit tense on this thread. Take some time to just relax:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> You didn't make any point, or even address the topic. You made a bunch of baseless accusations in the form of an incoherent run on sentence.
> 
> Good for you for figuring out periods, though. That's progress.



Why do you want to start a thread and argue with everybody. Do you suppose to encourage people to express their different opinions instead?

IMO, if you started a thread, you should put yourself in "listen mode", and not like the following pattern.

A: What do you think about ...?
B: My opinion is ...
A: You are wrong ...
C: My opinion is ...
A: You are wrong too ...
D: ...
A: ...


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.



I have no problem with an informed criticism of any styles training methods, techniques or philosophy.

I do have a problem with people regurgitating the junk they read on a forum or article because their style is legit and they need to show everyone else how inferior their styled are. Or deciding that after 6 months they know the style well enough to trash it because their new style is soo much better.

The trouble is you can't do the former without drawing out the latter and since the ignorant always outnumber the informed it can be hard to not get overwhelmed.

So I get why the site has a zero tolerance policy, though in actuality it seems pretty relaxed.

The biggest problem with style bashing is that it suffers the same pitfall of all group based generalised denigration: it doesn't hold up to critical assessment (as The Any style Can Work, thread demonstrates).

Most of the evils attributed to style are just poor training practices. So the fix is to find a school with better practices or to take charge of your own development and supplement classes with informal sessions or other classes where you can work the skills from your first art in a more effective manner.

Non training related flaws like inefficient mechanics should not offend people when raised, and discussion of such things is informative. But is it sufficient reason to abandon a style that you enjoy??

Ultimately your crusade to inform is fine, IF people want to know. But then you have to acknowledge that your opinion is just that and the more uncritical and derogatory your approach the less your message will get across.


----------



## pgsmith

Martial D said:


> Im not telling anyone not to do anything. I just think people should be educated. If you walk out of aikido class thinking you are equipt to deal with a street situation by it, you are worse off than if you had 0 training at all. False confidence kills a lot of people. I don't think its right to scam people at all, especially not as it could pertain to life or death.



  I just think people should be educated. ... OK, let's educate. I personally know and have had conversations with hundreds of martial artists, some of whom have been practicing for three or four decades. Out of these hundreds, If you discount those that are in law enforcement, I can count the number that have had to use their training to fight for their lives on my fingers. The truth is that unless you are involved in private security, or are a LEO by trade, you will most likely never have to use any of the fighting skills you've learned. I was forced to fight for my life several times in my youth due to where I grew up. Based on that experience, most of what is taught in any martial art is irrelevant.

   False confidence kills people ... really? Do you have proof of this, or is this simply what you would like to believe? I've never seen false confidence kill anyone. I have, however, personally seen people *not* get harassed because they walked like they knew what they were doing.

  I don't think its right to scam people at all, ... Really? If this was the case, you would be much more dedicated to stopping the supplements industry, or the used car industry. These two industries scam many millions of people every day, far and away more than have ever been scammed by the martial arts industry. Yet I feel confident in saying that you've done nothing at all about those. 

  The fact is that you, as a lot of other people do, feel good about putting down martial arts that you feel aren't effective because it makes you feel better about your own arts and your own skills. The truth is that there are as many reasons for practicing martial arts as there are people practicing. The odds of anyone having to actually depend upon their martial arts skills to survive in our society today are almost infinitesimal. Worrying about what someone else does affecting your own training is simply a sign of your own insecurities. If you keep training long enough, you'll gain enough confidence to realize that mostly, what other people do has no effect on your own training and who you are as a person.

  Just my (lengthy) two cents on it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

DaveB said:


> they need to show everyone else how inferior their styled are.


10 years ago, when someone said that my MA style does not have ground game, I would defend my style and argued with that person about "how important the mobility is". Today when someone said that, I would just say, "I agree with you 100% there."

If we don't address those style weakness, how to evolve, and correct it, what other meaningful discussion can we have in a MA forum?

For example, When discussing the CMA Bagua system, I had addressed the following "style weakness" that made Bagua guys unhappy.

- To cross legs when you are in your opponent's kicking range can give your opponent a chance to sweep you down.
- To turn your back into your opponent without controlling his arms can give your opponent a chance to put his arm around your waist, spin with you, and drag you down.
- ...


----------



## Xue Sheng

MI_martialist said:


> That could be but the usage of Adieu was inaccurate for that sentence....unless you wanted a play on words.



Okie dokie.... not willing to take this silliness any further.....

My mistake...thank you for the correction.... are we done?


----------



## Tez3

Adieu is also an exclamation ie  O God! probably a cry of tedium induced by this thread.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> Yet none of you have the wherewithal to address the points made, and many of you would rather speculate about my leet youtubefu than actually read what was said.
> 
> And it is the prevalence of that very attitude and behaviour that explains the facticity of my opening post. A mutual admiration society hostile to any sort of criticism.
> 
> Rarely does a thread come full circle so elequently.


And yet again you're refusing to answer the main question about what your experience is you have a lot to say on every subject apart from that...that's convenient isn't it. Also what points you never made any points all you said is about how it's your duty to tell people they're wrong that's literally all you've said


----------



## Headhunter

MI_martialist said:


> I am curious...why the dislikes and disagrees??


Because it was a pretty stupid comment and you never answered what your problem was


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> QED
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't script this any better.


Ah so you're trolling. Right got it


----------



## gerardbu07059

Martial art styles effectiveness is can not be judged simply on what martial art beats another martial art. They are probably all effective against a common assailant. Besides health benefits alone are worth it regardless of the style.  People should lighten up in regards what style is macho or more macho

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 10 years ago, when someone said that my MA style does not have ground game, I would defend my style and argued with that person about "how important the mobility is". Today when someone said that, I would just say, "I agree with you 100% there."
> 
> If we don't address those style weakness, how to evolve, and correct it, what other meaningful discussion can we have in a MA forum?
> 
> For example, When discussing the CMA Bagua system, I had addressed the following "style weakness" that made Bagua guys unhappy.
> 
> - To cross legs when you are in your opponent's kicking range can give your opponent a chance to sweep you down.
> - To turn your back into your opponent without controlling his arms can give your opponent a chance to put his arm around your waist, spin with you, and drag you down.
> - ...



Sadly we don't have the detail of the responses you got, but I'm willing to bet that at least one person challenged your understanding of bagua. Now while that can be a way of deflecting it is also an acknowledgement that the things you suggest are bad are indeed undesirable. Which means that at least that student takes some form of action not to end up in those positions, which in turn shows the problem with criticising a whole style rather than individual practices.


----------



## Martial D

It's funny that so many of you are self identifying with this and getting offended. I didn't single out any style other than one comment on aikido not preparing you for combat, and otherwise have been very specific about who and what I am talking about(which I stand by).

Quite revealing. I wonder how many of you are pulling a paycheck from selling fantasy. More than a couple I'd wager.


----------



## Ironbear24

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.



But what makes you an authority on what is ******** and what is not ********? That's where the problem comes in. If someone is happy with their tai chi or jazz cardio boxing class then who are we to tell them they are full of ****? 

If that is what they are enjoying then good for them. It's all about about what their needs are.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> It's funny that so many of you are self identifying with this and getting offended. I didn't single out any style other than one comment on aikido not preparing you for combat, and otherwise have been very specific about who and what I am talking about(which I stand by).
> 
> Quite revealing. I wonder how many of you are pulling a paycheck from selling fantasy. More than a couple I'd wager.


And I wonder who's sitting behind a computer with minimal training and talking trash. Just one I'd wager.

Again as people have said a million times on here. Yes there's frauds out there but.....now pay attention and try and let it sink in this time WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> Not sure exactly which part of my post you think is dogmatic.
> 
> To my mind.. 'style' = dogma. No?
> 
> So again, you have people who choose to adhere to a particular 'style'.  And some who don't.
> 
> My only point I suppose was why bother bashing styles?  There are crazy cults out there that believe in superpowers and the like - are you going to waste your time and energy 'bashing' them, and every other idiotic group out there?
> 
> I've got more important things to do with my time is all.



I will certainly question the validity of super powers and the healthyness of cults.

I consider it part of an intrest in martial arts to be able to tell good from bad.


----------



## JR 137

Martial D said:


> It's funny that so many of you are self identifying with this and getting offended. I didn't single out any style other than one comment on aikido not preparing you for combat, and otherwise have been very specific about who and what I am talking about(which I stand by).
> 
> Quite revealing. I wonder how many of you are pulling a paycheck from selling fantasy. More than a couple I'd wager.


I've never been paid a dime.


Martial D said:


> What are you talking about?


Let me put it another way...

Why should I stop training like that just because you think it's not effective?

Who are you to judge what people should and shouldn't train?

As you come off as an expert in your own mind in the field of what are and aren't effective martial arts, what are your credentials?

My teacher unleashing his chi on us...





Why is it your mission to tell me I shouldn't be his student?

Regardless of everything in this thread...

How do you propose to expose all the alleged nonsense out there?  What makes you think anyone gives a damn about your alleged expertise?  What are your credentials again?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that your chosen method of approach affects the response you get? Steve challenges me far more directly than you do to these folks, yet that only dissolves into frustration when we cannot manage to communicate clearly. Why? Because Steve seems to start from a more neutral, objective position, even when he and I disagree.



The resposes went into fanaticism though. Which is really hard to respond with logic.

I mean who do you think you are to question martial arts? 

You are not enlightened in my style.

And this dislike bombing nonsense.

Unfortunately the responses does justify the concept that people are more emotionally attached to martial arts than logically deciding the best tool for the job.

Which to a certain degree is fair enough but can go too far if you are not aware of it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> deciding the best tool for the job.



Usually easy to tell which is the tool.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Usually easy to tell which is the tool.



Only if you dont look closely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The resposes went into fanaticism though. Which is really hard to respond with logic.
> 
> I mean who do you think you are to question martial arts?
> 
> You are not enlightened in my style.
> 
> And this dislike bombing nonsense.
> 
> Unfortunately the responses does justify the concept that people are more emotionally attached to martial arts than logically deciding the best tool for the job.
> 
> Which to a certain degree is fair enough but can go too far if you are not aware of it.


The tone of the initial post probably helped that. I agree that a different response is possible, and might facilitate discussion - I just wanted to help the OP out, in case he hadn't considered how he was contributing to the mess that happened. I think most people are more open to being questioned with some respect in the question (you do this most of the time, unless you're looking to poke someone into a reaction, I think).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The tone of the initial post probably helped that. I agree that a different response is possible, and might facilitate discussion - I just wanted to help the OP out, in case he hadn't considered how he was contributing to the mess that happened. I think most people are more open to being questioned with some respect in the question (you do this most of the time, unless you're looking to poke someone into a reaction, I think).



The issue for me is dogmatic stupidity pokes a reaction in me.

So while they think they are imparting some enlightenment on me I just think they are being an idiot.

Hey by the way did you know if my style doesn't work it is the fault of the student?

Because it is the individual not the style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The issue for me is dogmatic stupidity pokes a reaction in me.
> 
> So while they think they are imparting some enlightenment on me I just think they are being an idiot.
> 
> Hey by the way did you know if my style doesn't work it is the fault of the student?
> 
> Because it is the individual not the style.


I've always read that the other way around (which is essentially the same thing): The only reason your style works is that student.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> The tone of the initial post probably helped that. I agree that a different response is possible, and might facilitate discussion - I just wanted to help the OP out, in case he hadn't considered how he was contributing to the mess that happened. I think most people are more open to being questioned with some respect in the question (you do this most of the time, unless you're looking to poke someone into a reaction, I think).



I realize that wearing kid gloves and tiptoing around people's feeling while delivering my message probably would have at least delayed the inevitable gush of emotional outbursts, but only delayed it. As the lions share of the responses show, this issue is not grounded in any sort of rational or logic for many people.

I realized that my very first day here. People that invest years and decades into something generally become very emotionally invested, and don't like to hear anything outside of their canon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I realize that wearing kid gloves and tiptoing around people's feeling while delivering my message probably would have at least delayed the inevitable gush of emotional outburst, but only delayed it. As the lions share of the responses show, this issue is not grounded in any sort of rational or logic for many people.
> 
> I realized that my very first day here. People that invest years and decades into something generally become very emotionally invested, and don't like to hear anything outside of their canon.


This is what I was talking about. Being respectful isn't the same thing as "wearing kid gloves and tiptoing around". And being direct isn't the same thing as being harsh, which isn't the same thing as being inconsiderate, which isn't the same thing as being rude.

I tell people things they don't want to hear as a part of my profession. They rarely argue with me about it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is what I was talking about. Being respectful isn't the same thing as "wearing kid gloves and tiptoing around". And being direct isn't the same thing as being harsh, which isn't the same thing as being inconsiderate, which isn't the same thing as being rude.
> 
> I tell people things they don't want to hear as a part of my profession. They rarely argue with me about it.



Have you set up an environment where arguing about it is discouraged?

I mean I do workplace training. And that is all about people telling me things I don't want to hear. I don't argue because I am not allowed to.


----------



## DaveB

Headhunter said:


> Ah so you're trolling. Right got it


Which when you get right down to it is the real purpose for style bashing.

Your not going to change anyone's mind with it, any instructor worth his salt should be better able to answer questions about his/her style better than a random forum post so where is the real value?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Which when you get right down to it is the real purpose for style bashing.
> 
> Your not going to change anyone's mind with it, any instructor worth his salt should be better able to answer questions about his/her style better than a random forum post so where is the real value?



You would be surprised. The Facebook wing chun forum I am now on thanks to that video I wanted to see is all about MMA BJJ ground concepts and expanding the wing chun idea.

You keep assuming instructors are worth their salt. There is no standard for martial arts instructor.

The purpose of style bashing is to challenge accepted belief. The people who benefit from that belief would consider it rude and uncomfortable.


----------



## Steve

TRUMP: Well I do think there’s blame. Yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it. And you don’t have doubt about it either.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> This is what I was talking about. Being respectful isn't the same thing as "wearing kid gloves and tiptoing around". And being direct isn't the same thing as being harsh, which isn't the same thing as being inconsiderate, which isn't the same thing as being rude.
> 
> I tell people things they don't want to hear as a part of my profession. They rarely argue with me about it.


Read this thread again and tell me with a straight face I am the disrespectful one. Seriously. I dare you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Have you set up an environment where arguing about it is discouraged?
> 
> I mean I do workplace training. And that is all about people telling me things I don't want to hear. I don't argue because I am not allowed to.


That depends how you mean that. I build a relationship that leads them to listen, and present my findings with respect for them and their people. They don't always take precisely the action I advise, but they generally don't get argumentative about the findings.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Read this thread again and tell me with a straight face I am the disrespectful one. Seriously. I dare you.


Your tone in the OP is awfully harsh for a conversation opener. Your first response to the first reply is not respectful.


----------



## pgsmith

Martial D said:


> It's funny that so many of you are self identifying with this and getting offended. I didn't single out any style other than one comment on aikido not preparing you for combat, and otherwise have been very specific about who and what I am talking about(which I stand by).



  Hmmmm ... I thought out a serious answer to your original post, and posted my points and beliefs based upon my experiences. You then proceeded to totally ignore it in favor of posting inflammatory garbage like an angst-filled teenager. How about answering the points presented rather than simply trolling. You'd get a lot more respectable responses that way.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Your tone in the OP is awfully harsh for a conversation opener. Your first response to the first reply is not respectful.


If this to you seems harsh -

*My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.*

We certainly come from different neighborhoods.

The only reason one might find this harsh is if they recognize themselves in the statement. Oh there I go, being harsh again.

_This_ is something I believe in, and yes, I'll admit it, I think many 'styles' are complete fantasy bs, and furthermore, largely the very idea of crystalized style is largely bs.
People have asked for my background. It's the internet, anyone can claim anything but it's always been about combat for me. I've been obsessed with combat since I made my first set of nunchucks when I was 8. As for 'styles' I've done Wing Chun, I've boxed my whole life. I did years of Mui Thai, some BJJ, some Arnis, some fencing, some kendo, some hung gar;but so what? Style loyalty is counterproductive. I've sparred for realistically over 1000 hours with just about every type of 'style' you can name, and it's from this that I largely form my opinions about what works. When I say works I mean 'works on me' Simple, right?

I am not Bruce Lee and I get my *** handed to me all the time, but I could list off a number of 'styles' (lol) that simply when executed in no way resemble real fighting.

Now feel free to call BS on all of that. I really don't care.


----------



## Steve

Can we all agree that this:





... is not ever... Never... Never ever... Going to be effective in a fight.  BUT, takes some serious athleticism and looks like it might be fun.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Can we all agree that this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is not ever... Never... Never ever... Going to be effective in a fight.  BUT, takes some serious athleticism and looks like it might be fun.



And in all honesty that dude would probably kill both of us if we tried to harm him or his family. Not because of frog form kung fu, but judging by his athleticism he very well may know tons of applicable arts.

And if he doesn't well, who gives a damn it is very impressive anyway. This is clearly more art then martial and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> And in all honesty that dude would probably kill both of us if we tried to harm him or his family. Not because of frog form kung fu, *but judging by his athleticism he very well may know tons of applicable arts*.


That's an incredibly tenuous leap.  I could say the same thing about a b-boy.





> And if he doesn't well, who gives a damn it is very impressive anyway. This is clearly more art then martial and there is nothing wrong with that.


Totally agree.  

What if this guy started speaking with authority about martial arts, based on his background as a frog kung fu master, and that he's worked and "trained with" a lot of guys who have extensive experience in security and law enforcement?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> The purpose of style bashing is to challenge accepted belief.


Some "accepted belief" are

If you train

- slow all your life, you can be fast in fighting.
- soft, you can be hard when needed.
- solo form only, you can be a good fighter.
- tree hugging, you can develop something.
- sitting meditation, you will get health benefit from it.
- ...


----------



## Ironbear24

Then I would call him a shithead.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> *It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.*


All my life I believe that my duty are to

- preserve the "world peace".
- maintain the "new world order".
- help the weaker to fight against the stronger.
- help all good guys to go to heaven, and help all bad guys to go to hell.
- ...

I do believe that "With *great power* comes *great responsibility*".


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All my life I believe that my duty are to
> 
> - preserve the "world peace".
> - maintain the "new world order".
> - help the weaker to fight against the stronger.
> - help all good guys to go to heaven, and help all bad guys to go to hell.
> - ...
> 
> I do believe that "With *great power* comes *great responsibility*".


I believe the children are our future.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> I believe the children are our future.









Teach them well and let them lead the way


----------



## JR 137

CB Jones said:


> Teach them well and let them lead the way


It's like you read my mind.  With every messed up reply you post, I ask myself how you beat me to it.

Edit:  You posted a picture, whereas I was going to go with the video...






SEXUAL CHOCOLATE!!!  They play so fine, don't you agree?


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> Can we all agree that this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is not ever... Never... Never ever... Going to be effective in a fight.  BUT, takes some serious athleticism and looks like it might be fun.


At this point, I'd be surprised.


----------



## Kiron

Martial D said:


> Im not telling anyone not to do anything. I just think people should be educated. If you walk out of aikido class thinking you are equipt to deal with a street situation by it, you are worse off than if you had 0 training at all. False confidence kills a lot of people. I don't think it's right to scam people at all, especially not as it could pertain to life or death.



You are telling that Aikido is worse?! Do you know what you are talking? Studying Aikido makes people calmer and aware of its surrounding! Martial art comes in different forms!


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> If this to you seems harsh -
> 
> *My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.*
> 
> We certainly come from different neighborhoods.
> 
> The only reason one might find this harsh is if they recognize themselves in the statement. Oh there I go, being harsh again.
> 
> _This_ is something I believe in, and yes, I'll admit it, I think many 'styles' are complete fantasy bs, and furthermore, largely the very idea of crystalized style is largely bs.
> People have asked for my background. It's the internet, anyone can claim anything but it's always been about combat for me. I've been obsessed with combat since I made my first set of nunchucks when I was 8. As for 'styles' I've done Wing Chun, I've boxed my whole life. I did years of Mui Thai, some BJJ, some Arnis, some fencing, some kendo, some hung gar;but so what? Style loyalty is counterproductive. I've sparred for realistically over 1000 hours with just about every type of 'style' you can name, and it's from this that I largely form my opinions about what works. When I say works I mean 'works on me' Simple, right?
> 
> I am not Bruce Lee and I get my *** handed to me all the time, but I could list off a number of 'styles' (lol) that simply when executed in no way resemble real fighting.
> 
> Now feel free to call BS on all of that. I really don't care.


You did Muay Thai but you can't even spell it. Okay sounds legit


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - soft, you can be hard when needed.


I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> maintain the "new world order".



Probably not a good time to post that.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> Probably not a good time to post that.


Yeah I was wondering about that...

Maybe he needs to Google it.
Possible he meant it as a joke or doesn't know the common nomenclature.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You would be surprised. The Facebook wing chun forum I am now on thanks to that video I wanted to see is all about MMA BJJ ground concepts and expanding the wing chun idea.
> 
> You keep assuming instructors are worth their salt. There is no standard for martial arts instructor.
> 
> The purpose of style bashing is to challenge accepted belief. The people who benefit from that belief would consider it rude and uncomfortable.



No, style bashing is about ego. Effective communication of criticism is only bashing to the most highly strung and they don't last.

To paraphrase Gpseymour, one does not have to be rude to be honest.

If you (any you) are too ignorant to communicate without respect why should anyone give a fig about your opinions? Worse still, when you communicate in such a lax and imprecise way as happens when "bashing" something, your arguments are usually rubbish anyway. 

An easy example is your sarcasm about your student being at fault if your style doesn't work:
How much does your style weigh?
What colour is it? 
How tall is it?
Is it detectable on the E.M. spectrum?

...oh it only exists as information.
Which only exists within the storage of whatever is processing that information, in this case the student. 

The student who chooses whether to train or watch tv. The student who decides to step back and kick or step in and punch etc etc. 

You see where your sarcasm fails to produce anything meaningful. So perhaps it is better to ditch the snark, think through your concerns and present them without the attitude. Then perhaps not only might you get a better response, you might learn something about the art your questioning rather than just thinking you know because you've had a few fights and did ok.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> No, style bashing is about ego. Effective communication of criticism is only bashing to the most highly strung and they don't last.
> 
> To paraphrase Gpseymour, one does not have to be rude to be honest.
> 
> If you (any you) are too ignorant to communicate without respect why should anyone give a fig about your opinions? Worse still, when you communicate in such a lax and imprecise way as happens when "bashing" something, your arguments are usually rubbish anyway.
> 
> An easy example is your sarcasm about your student being at fault if your style doesn't work:
> How much does your style weigh?
> What colour is it?
> How tall is it?
> Is it detectable on the E.M. spectrum?
> 
> ...oh it only exists as information.
> Which only exists within the storage of whatever is processing that information, in this case the student.
> 
> The student who chooses whether to train or watch tv. The student who decides to step back and kick or step in and punch etc etc.
> 
> You see where your sarcasm fails to produce anything meaningful. So perhaps it is better to ditch the snark, think through your concerns and present them without the attitude. Then perhaps not only might you get a better response, you might learn something about the art your questioning rather than just thinking you know because you've had a few fights and did ok.



So when you say it is about ego.

It is about protecting your ego. 

I mean if you don't want sarcasm don't post arguments with gigantic logic holes in them. I find that offensive.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> So when you say it is about ego.
> 
> It is about protecting your ego.
> 
> I mean if you don't want sarcasm don't post arguments with gigantic logic holes in them. I find that offensive.


LOL.  I just tried to picture you being offended by something, and couldn't do it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> LOL.  I just tried to picture you being offended by something, and couldn't do it.



I think you need a big ego to be offended easily.


----------



## Kiron

RTKDCMB said:


> I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.



I agree with you and I'm waiting for Spongebob to say that it was just your "IMAGINATION"


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So when you say it is about ego.
> 
> It is about protecting your ego.
> 
> I mean if you don't want sarcasm don't post arguments with gigantic logic holes in them. I find that offensive.



When you find this gaping hole be sure to let me know. It took 20+ pages of discussion to come up with one cogent argument (which frankly I was on the verge of handing you to dispel the boredom and move things along and you've yet to deal with the response.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I think you need a big ego to be offended easily.



It depends what you find offensive doesn't it. Does being offended by paedophilia, Nazis, race hate etc make you weaker or does it drive you to oppose and protect people? Does being offended by the actions of a child abuser who has just tortured and murdered a baby make you weak? How does one achieve 'peace' by not being offended by these things?

When it comes to MT, far fewer people are offended than some think. When you put up an opposing argument often the person being disagreed with will make comments just as you have which try to equate that disagreement with the person being 'offended' or 'emotional' or 'upset' when they really aren't, it's a way of trying to diminish the person who disagreed with you. It's saying 'I'm right' you are just being 'triggered or a snowflake or emotional' so I don't have to actually consider that it might just be a disagreement over opinions. When you look at all conversations as 'sparring' and that there has to be a 'winner' then nothing is achieved, there's no communication or even learning others opinions because as you read them you aren't taking in what the other is saying you are already forming an opposing view to post.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Whether you think that style bashing is offensive or a moral imperative, the fact remains that this forum has rules which forbid it. Those rules were put in place so that practitioners of different styles could have friendly conversations without every discussion devolving into repeated iterations of "your style sucks" "no, _your_ style sucks!" Everyone posting here had to agree to those rules in order to create an account. If your conscience won't allow you to refrain from style bashing, their are other forums devoted to that sort of discourse.

If you are actually concerned about saving students from being misled by "fraudulent" instruction, then you need to think about how to do that effectively.

Let's pretend for a minute that you are the ultimate expert in combative effectiveness and can rate with perfect accuracy the quality of a given martial art or instructor. Let's say that you are talking to a student of WWMA (Worlds Worst Martial Art) and you want to convince him that he is going down the wrong path.

*You*: _WWMA sucks. It's totally ineffective. You'll get killed if you ever try to use that on the street._
*WWMA Student*: _Nonsense. It's the best art around. My teacher is amazing. He tells me that your training is what sucks.
_
At the end of the conversation, have you saved anyone from ineffective training? Nope. The person you are talking to has absolutely no reason to accept your evaluation of his art over his own.

That's even if you are 100% objectively correct.

Someone who is really devoted to learning and progressing will always keep open the possibility that their judgment is not always 100% correct.

I've been training martial arts for 36 years. I have a black belt in BJJ, an instructor's license in Muay Thai, some assorted ranks in other arts, and a fair amount of experience training with a wide variety of representatives of different systems. I regularly discover useful concepts, techniques, and training methods from other systems - even when I personally consider those systems to have significant flaws.

So - how do you effectively influence others when you have strong opinions about what works and you want to help people avoid going down the wrong path? I can understand the urge. I often see examples of training which I consider to range from suboptimal to downright useless or counterproductive. There's definitely a temptation to say "_for crying out loud, stop that crap_," but doing so is unlikely to convince anyone of anything.

Here are my general guidelines for offering criticism:


Wait until feedback is asked for. If someone isn't in the market for critique, they are unlikely to listen to it.
Ask questions to understand the purpose of a given training method. Sometimes you'll see something that looks completely wrong from a combative perspective, but fail to realize that it's intended to build a particular attribute or isolate a certain skill and it's not intended to represent anything directly combative. Other times it might actually be combatively effective, but only in a specific context which you aren't familiar with.
Keep criticisms specific and concrete and constructive. "_Your art sucks_" is unlikely to get a helpful response. "_I notice that in this drill uke is feeding a punch from too far away. This changes the timing and angling needed by the partner responding to the attack and will likely lead to bad habits_" is more likely to start a productive conversation.
Be open about your qualifications for offering a given critique. If I were to say that a certain mount escape being presented is low percentage then I can say that is based on my experience as a BJJ black belt who has spent thousands of hours doing live grappling on the ground with partners having a huge range of body types, experience levels, and martial arts backgrounds. If I were to say a certain sword fighting technique is questionable, then my level of confidence and authority would be much lower, because my experience with swords is much more limited than my grappling experience.
Be polite and respectful and listen with an open mind.  People are much more likely to listen to you respectfully when you listen to them respectfully.


----------



## hoshin1600

this is the equivalent of style bashing.


----------



## hoshin1600

bash·ing
ˈbaSHiNG/
_noun_
informal

violent physical assault.
"nine incidents of gay bashing were reported to the police"
severe criticism.
"press bashing"


bashing some one or something is not beneficial to anyone.    

Why Are People Mean? Part 1

_"Decades of research indicates that there is much truth in the popular belief that people are mean to others in order to feel better about themselves".

"Researchers have discovered that it is threatened self-esteem that drives a lot of aggression"_


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> bashing some one or something is not beneficial to anyone.



Weeell..there is bashing the bishop........................  that's considered beneficial.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> Wait until feedback is asked for. If someone isn't in the market for critique, they are unlikely to listen to it.


That's an excellent point. This remind me the following:

A: You told me that you have solutions for the emperor's problem. Why didn't you mention to him?
B: He didn't ask me.

IMO, information should be shared among those who deserves to be shared.


----------



## hoshin1600

Bashing is not thoughtful discussion. It is an attempt to impose ones own thoughts, biases and values onto other people.  In actuality it has less to do with styles and more to do with the choices of individuals.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hoshin1600 said:


> Bashing is not thoughtful discussion. It is an attempt to impose ones own thoughts, biases and values onto other people.  In actuality it has less to do with styles and more to do with the choices of individuals.


But when someone said, "The long fist system doesn't have ground game". It has to do with the long fist style. It has nothing to do with the person who said that. I'm a long fist guy, when I heard that, I don't feel being offended. It reminds me what is missing in my long fist system.

A; I train long fist system.
B: It's an excellent MA system. Good for you.
C: +1
D: +2
E: +3
F: There are something missing in your long fist system such as ...

IMO, F's opinion can help me more than the others.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> It depends what you find offensive doesn't it. Does being offended by paedophilia, Nazis, race hate etc make you weaker or does it drive you to oppose and protect people? Does being offended by the actions of a child abuser who has just tortured and murdered a baby make you weak? How does one achieve 'peace' by not being offended by these things?
> 
> When it comes to MT, far fewer people are offended than some think. When you put up an opposing argument often the person being disagreed with will make comments just as you have which try to equate that disagreement with the person being 'offended' or 'emotional' or 'upset' when they really aren't, it's a way of trying to diminish the person who disagreed with you. It's saying 'I'm right' you are just being 'triggered or a snowflake or emotional' so I don't have to actually consider that it might just be a disagreement over opinions. When you look at all conversations as 'sparring' and that there has to be a 'winner' then nothing is achieved, there's no communication or even learning others opinions because as you read them you aren't taking in what the other is saying you are already forming an opposing view to post.



No it is when you are looking at conversations as kata that there is no result. When you lecture people without expecting feedback you are not forming an opposing view you just dont allow one to happen.

Conversation as sparring is much more sensible. It is something you have never understood.


Otherwise If you look at the post I responded to it is a complaint about the harshness of my reply. And that is taking offence.

If there was no offence he would have played the ball not the man. When you play the man. You are taking offence. I mean you are not arguing the topic you are just **** stirring.

You do it all the time. Then say you don't


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But when someone said, "The long fist system doesn't have ground game". It has to do with the long fist style. It has nothing to do with the person who said that. I'm a long fist guy, when I heard that, I don't feel being offended. It reminds me what is missing in my long fist system.
> 
> A; I train long fist system.
> B: It's an excellent MA system. Good for you.
> C: +1
> D: +2
> E: +3
> F: There are something missing in your long fist system such as ...
> 
> IMO, F's opinion can help me more than the others.


I think his point was that that observation wouldn't actually be bashing. Bashing - with the connotation the word carries - is more directly negative than objective.

So, if you say to me that NGA has a weak ground game, that's pretty objective. If you tell me you think we have a weak response to single-leg takedowns and present your informed reasons why you think so, that's still pretty objective, whether it ends up being correct or not. If you tell me NGA is a fraud because it has a weak ground game and would be useless for self-defense, that's bashing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I think his point was that that observation wouldn't actually be bashing. Bashing - with the connotation the word carries - is more directly negative than objective.
> 
> So, if you say to me that NGA has a weak ground game, that's pretty objective. If you tell me you think we have a weak response to single-leg takedowns and present your informed reasons why you think so, that's still pretty objective, whether it ends up being correct or not. If you tell me NGA is a fraud because it has a weak ground game and would be useless for self-defense, that's bashing.


Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?

Should we just talk about the good part of any MA style and not the bad part? What kind of discussion is allowed?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?


I don't see anything inherently negative or confrontational in the suggestion. It's just a suggestion, whether useful or not I don't know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think to suggest Taiji guys to lift weight is "style bashing"?
> 
> Should we just talk about the good part of any MA style and not the bad part? What kind of discussion is allowed?


As I said in my example, if you tell me NGA has a weak ground game, that's objective, so not bashing. If you tell me it's trash because it has a weak ground game, that's bashing.

So, we can discuss the weaknesses in a style without getting into bashing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think his point was that that observation wouldn't actually be bashing. Bashing - with the connotation the word carries - is more directly negative than objective.
> 
> So, if you say to me that NGA has a weak ground game, that's pretty objective. If you tell me you think we have a weak response to single-leg takedowns and present your informed reasons why you think so, that's still pretty objective, whether it ends up being correct or not. If you tell me NGA is a fraud because it has a weak ground game and would be useless for self-defense, that's bashing.



How about week evidence that it is useful for self defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> How about week evidence that it is useful for self defence.


It's no weaker than the evidence used against it.


----------



## hoshin1600

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But when someone said, "The long fist system doesn't have ground game". It has to do with the long fist style. It has nothing to do with the person who said that. I'm a long fist guy, when I heard that, I don't feel being offended. It reminds me what is missing in my long fist system.
> 
> A; I train long fist system.
> B: It's an excellent MA system. Good for you.
> C: +1
> D: +2
> E: +3
> F: There are something missing in your long fist system such as ...
> 
> IMO, F's opinion can help me more than the others.



Gerry got it correct.  Thoughtful conversation and debate is not bashing.  Pointing out weeknesses within a logical argument is  not bashing.  This is why I posted the definition. Bashing is at the extreme point of being violently abusive in your language and tone.
So if I said your long fist is stupid and usless. Anyone  who does long fist is a moron, your a moron and you all are fake martial artists.

That is just abusive, makes no logical point to support my opinion and is not constructive in anyway. Statements like that are not made with the goal of enlightening the reader. They are made for the sake of making the poster feel validated while diminishing the object of the slander. It is by definition nothing more than an attack.

I would also add that style bashing is an attempt to invalidate the entire package.  This is totally different than making a logical argument on an aspect of a specific art or a training methodology.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hoshin1600 said:


> Pointing out weeknesses within a logical argument is  not bashing.


Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## drop bear

Just in case anybody is intrested in the concept played out.


----------



## drop bear

Aftermath.






At least at the end of the day everybody kind of knows where they are at.

Personally I think it worked out kind of well.


----------



## MA_Student

In my eye if you spend your time insulting other arts you're not focusing enough on your own training and need to get a life instead of worrying about everyone else's


----------



## JP3

I'm surprised you are all still going on in this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I'm surprised you are all still going on in this thread.


Why? It's only 10 pages long. We can do better than that.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Just in case anybody is intrested in the concept played out.


Did he lose because ninja or because never fights?   If having little to no actual fighting experience is a salient characteristic of the style, is saying so considered bashing?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Did he lose because ninja or because never fights?   If having little to no actual fighting experience is a salient characteristic of the style, is saying so considered bashing?


I don't think so. It's not a part of the style, IMO. Any individual could, without changing the style (any style), spar/fight with people from other styles. This is where common (even consistent) training methods get confused with the style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> Did he lose because ninja or because never fights?


There was an ninja instructor who challenged me in the park. IMO, he fought just like any other Karate guy.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Did he lose because ninja or because never fights?   If having little to no actual fighting experience is a salient characteristic of the style, is saying so considered bashing?



He lost because he had no idea what sort of level of martial artist he was or what sort of level of martial artist his oponant was.

I come across this a lot. The look at a professional fighter and really not think there can be that big a jump in skills.

And there just is.

It is why guys like tony describe themselves as hobbyists.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't think so. It's not a part of the style, IMO. Any individual could, without changing the style (any style), spar/fight with people from other styles. This is where common (even consistent) training methods get confused with the style.



Yeah but trashing all his mates in sparring still wouldn't have helped him.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There was an ninja instructor who challenged me in the park. IMO, he fought just like any other Karate guy.




I would demand at least one smoke bomb.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but trashing all his mates in sparring still wouldn't have helped him.


Getting trashed by one would have.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> He lost because he had no idea what sort of level of martial artist he was or what sort of level of martial artist his oponant was.
> 
> I come across this a lot. The look at a professional fighter and really not think there can be that big a jump in skills.
> 
> And there just is.
> 
> It is why guys like tony describe themselves as hobbyists.


Yeah, those who haven't trained with professional fighters typically don't realize the real gap between a pro and a hobbyist.

I've been training martial arts for 36 years. With all due humility, I don't feel I'm boasting to say that my skills and knowledge are well above the average martial artist. Maybe even a teensy bit above the average martial arts instructor. However, I've also done enough training and sparring with professional fighters to recognize my limits.

My _knowledge_ is _adequate_ for a mid-level pro fighter.
My _skills_ are _barely adequate_ for an entry level pro fighter.
My _strength and conditioning_ are _completely inadequate_ for any kind of pro fighter or even any sort of serious amateur competitor.

Most people also don't realize the huge gulf between the bottom tier of professionals and the top tier. That gap is possibly even greater than the distance between the average hobbyist and an entry-level pro.


----------



## Buka

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, those who haven't trained with professional fighters typically don't realize the real gap between a pro and a hobbyist.
> 
> I've been training martial arts for 36 years. With all due humility, I don't feel I'm boasting to say that my skills and knowledge are well above the average martial artist. Maybe even a teensy bit above the average martial arts instructor. However, I've also done enough training and sparring with professional fighters to recognize my limits.
> 
> My _knowledge_ is _adequate_ for a mid-level pro fighter.
> My _skills_ are _barely adequate_ for an entry level pro fighter.
> My _strength and conditioning_ are _completely inadequate_ for any kind of pro fighter or even any sort of serious amateur competitor.
> 
> Most people also don't realize the huge gulf between the bottom tier of professionals and the top tier. That gap is possibly even greater than the distance between the average hobbyist and an entry-level pro.



Yeah, that's right, I hit the disagree button on your post. You ain't no hobbyist. 

Your conditioning might not be currently pro fight ready, nor should it be, you aren't currently training for a pro fight. Just like any pro fighter who isn't currently training for an upcoming fight isn't "condition ready". [also because you're a seriously old F.] 

If we were to hook up I'd be hounding you to teach me everything and anything you know how, about any and every damn thing in the Martial Arts. 
I don't do that with "hobbyists". Nice try, humble old guy.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Buka said:


> Yeah, that's right, I hit the disagree button on your post. You ain't no hobbyist.
> 
> Your conditioning might not be currently pro fight ready, nor should it be, you aren't currently training for a pro fight. Just like any pro fighter who isn't currently training for an upcoming fight isn't "condition ready". [also because you're a seriously old F.]
> 
> If we were to hook up I'd be hounding you to teach me everything and anything you know how, about any and every damn thing in the Martial Arts.
> I don't do that with "hobbyists". Nice try, humble old guy.


Well, I did say that my _knowledge_ was at the level of a mid-level professional. My actual skills are a little bit lower than that.

Anyway, hobbyists can be very good at things. Not usually as good as the people who do it full time for a living, but still pretty darn good if they spend enough decades working on their hobby.

Also, if we can ever get to the same geographic area, I'm going to be busy picking _your_ brain for all the tidbits I can learn.


----------



## Steve

I know more than someone who knows nothing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I know more than someone who knows nothing.


I sometimes make that claim. The evidence is kinda sketchy, though.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, those who haven't trained with professional fighters typically don't realize the real gap between a pro and a hobbyist.
> 
> I've been training martial arts for 36 years. With all due humility, I don't feel I'm boasting to say that my skills and knowledge are well above the average martial artist. Maybe even a teensy bit above the average martial arts instructor. However, I've also done enough training and sparring with professional fighters to recognize my limits.
> 
> My _knowledge_ is _adequate_ for a mid-level pro fighter.
> My _skills_ are _barely adequate_ for an entry level pro fighter.
> My _strength and conditioning_ are _completely inadequate_ for any kind of pro fighter or even any sort of serious amateur competitor.
> 
> Most people also don't realize the huge gulf between the bottom tier of professionals and the top tier. That gap is possibly even greater than the distance between the average hobbyist and an entry-level pro.



Someone once explained where the word amature came from.

From French _amateur_, from Latin _amātōr_ (“lover”), from _amāre_ (“to love”).


----------



## FighterTwister

People overlook so many things here a key word -  "Attributes"

We all have different body types what works for someone might not work so well for another.

Allot of good points above though really makes you think they all have merit and value.

Martial arts for me has been a journey of learning and studying different methods of movement and what works for my body type.

I embrace all teachings and take what works for me into tools where I dip into when needed.

In simple MMA


----------



## Balrog

Martial D said:


> Ya, who am I to try to help people, and dispel ********. We should just let hucksters and frauds take peoples money, because its nobodies business.
> 
> .......I think not.


So.........who or what appointed you the karate kop?  How do you determine whether someone is being taught BS?  Are you an expert in that style?  If you're not, you really have no basis whatsoever for commenting on that style, IMNSHO.


----------



## Martial D

Balrog said:


> So.........who or what appointed you the karate kop?  How do you determine whether someone is being taught BS?  Are you an expert in that style?  If you're not, you really have no basis whatsoever for commenting on that style, IMNSHO.


I don't care about style, only what works. Style is only a label.

There's good Karate, and useless karate. It's about what and how people are taught, and more importantly what they are led to believe they are buying with their monthly fee. If you are being led to believe by an instructor that you are being prepared for a combat or self defense situation, yet your training involves 0 actual combat, it's a scam.

As much as people here seem to think this sort of thing is anomolous to the reality, my experience tells me otherwise.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> So.........who or what appointed you the karate kop?  How do you determine whether someone is being taught BS?  Are you an expert in that style?  If you're not, you really have no basis whatsoever for commenting on that style, IMNSHO.



That also means the only people who could judge the effectiveness of a style also have a vested intrest in that style.

Self regulating is kind of the issue here.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> I don't care about style, only what works. Style is only a label.
> 
> There's good Karate, and useless karate. It's about what and how people are taught, and more importantly what they are led to believe they are buying with their monthly fee. If you are being led to believe by an instructor that you are being prepared for a combat or self defense situation, yet your training involves 0 actual combat, it's a scam.
> 
> As much as people here seem to think this sort of thing is anomolous to the reality, my experience tells me otherwise.



Dude, you keep on and on and on about this one criteria, actual combat in the school. 

Who are these armies of deluded people that don't think fighting practice is useful??? 
When and where are you encountering them? Because I'm yet to encounter this view in MT. 

And what makes you think that the class teaching is the be all and end all of the style??

For example, for maybe a year we didn't free spar in my karate class, not because my sensei was against it, but because we just ran out of time from the other drills he wanted us to learn.

So my friends and I went to each other's homes or the nearby park after class and beat each other up. But there were a number of older students who held their own when attacked on the street who only fought in class.

So what do you deduce about Shotokan karate from that?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> That also means the only people who could judge the effectiveness of a style also have a vested intrest in that style.
> 
> Self regulating is kind of the issue here.


Not really.

The issue isn't that only those invested can judge, rather that the people who want to judge are happy to do so from a position of ignorance. 

If you really want to be judge arbiter of the martial arts then go out and spend some time training with various schools in the style you want to "bash".

Ask questions, learn different approaches, raise your concerns with someone in a position to address them. Try and demo what you feel is wrong. If you shaft every convoluted technique and run circles around the seniors, people would be more inclined to listen. 

This may sound like a lot but it is really just basic research. The fact that you want folks to take your word for it online without an honest attempt to learn what is going on I think puts more people off you and thus your approach than any style bias could.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Not really.
> 
> The issue isn't that only those invested can judge, rather that the people who want to judge are happy to do so from a position of ignorance.
> 
> If you really want to be judge arbiter of the martial arts then go out and spend some time training with various schools in the style you want to "bash".
> 
> Ask questions, learn different approaches, raise your concerns with someone in a position to address them. Try and demo what you feel is wrong. If you shaft every convoluted technique and run circles around the seniors, people would be more inclined to listen.
> 
> This may sound like a lot but it is really just basic research. The fact that you want folks to take your word for it online without an honest attempt to learn what is going on I think puts more people off you and thus your approach than any style bias could.


If you aren't skeptical,of a self defense teacher who has no personal or professional experience outside of training in self defense, you're either not concerned about self defense (ie training for some other reason) or you're being misled. 

You don't have to be an expert in that style to see the problem any more than you need to be a doctor to understand that the guy teaching people how to perform heart surgery should have logged some hours in the ER performing heart surgery.  No amount of training will prepare a person so well as a cardio thoracic surgeon that it can in any way replace actual experience such that he can competently train others. 

This continues to be such obvious common sense, I don't understand how it is so often ignored when it comes to martial arts.  It is accepted as a given in literally every other tphysical human activity.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> If you aren't skeptical,of a self defense teacher who has no personal or professional experience outside of training in self defense, you're either not concerned about self defense (ie training for some other reason) or you're being misled.
> 
> You don't have to be an expert in that style to see the problem any more than you need to be a doctor to understand that the guy teaching people how to perform heart surgery should have logged some hours in the ER performing heart surgery.  No amount of training will prepare a person so well as a cardio thoracic surgeon that it can in any way replace actual experience such that he can competently train others.
> 
> This continues to be such obvious common sense, I don't understand how it is so often ignored when it comes to martial arts.  It is accepted as a given in literally every other tphysical human activity.



It is belief. The whole system works more as a religion than a science. That is why all these basic discussion on dogma keep popping up.

In this case. "Who are you to question god?"

But we also get this idea that martial arts dont need to provide proof the sceptics do.

Actually. Here we go. Lets just look at a link of dogmatic arguments and see how many traps we are falling in to.

Dogmatic Close Quarter Battle (CQB)


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Not really.
> 
> The issue isn't that only those invested can judge, rather that the people who want to judge are happy to do so from a position of ignorance.
> 
> If you really want to be judge arbiter of the martial arts then go out and spend some time training with various schools in the style you want to "bash".
> 
> Ask questions, learn different approaches, raise your concerns with someone in a position to address them. Try and demo what you feel is wrong. If you shaft every convoluted technique and run circles around the seniors, people would be more inclined to listen.
> 
> This may sound like a lot but it is really just basic research. The fact that you want folks to take your word for it online without an honest attempt to learn what is going on I think puts more people off you and thus your approach than any style bias could.


I
So the kung fu full system trope.  You know the one that makes Bruce Lees opinion of chun invalid.

I mean of course it is B.S. But you are going to fight these to the death.

But you know what contradicts this argument and what makes this twisted tangle of made up logic so funny.

It is not the style it is the individual. Didn't you bang on about all styles having a comon meta element. That there are these meta concept that make all styles work and the individual and the training make the martial artist.

But if it is not the style. Why do I need to know the style to judge?

I mean I'm an individual. You can't fool me.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Dude, you keep on and on and on about this one criteria, actual combat in the school.
> 
> Who are these armies of deluded people that don't think fighting practice is useful???
> When and where are you encountering them? Because I'm yet to encounter this view in MT.
> 
> And what makes you think that the class teaching is the be all and end all of the style??
> 
> For example, for maybe a year we didn't free spar in my karate class, not because my sensei was against it, but because we just ran out of time from the other drills he wanted us to learn.
> 
> So my friends and I went to each other's homes or the nearby park after class and beat each other up. But there were a number of older students who held their own when attacked on the street who only fought in class.
> 
> So what do you deduce about Shotokan karate from that?


I don't deduce anything about whole styles from anything. Like anything else, I'm sure some schools strive to make it effective, while others sell fantasy for money.

If you want to be a good cook, you practice cooking. If someone try to sell you cooking lessons without ever turning on an oven, chances are you aren't learning what you think you are learning.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> It is belief. The whole system works more as a religion than a science. That is why all these basic discussion on dogma keep popping up.
> 
> In this case. "Who are you to question god?"
> 
> But we also get this idea that martial arts dont need to provide proof the sceptics do.
> 
> Actually. Here we go. Lets just look at a link of dogmatic arguments and see how many traps we are falling in to.
> 
> Dogmatic Close Quarter Battle (CQB)


I agree but want to be clear that this isn't to say that some folk's teacher is a fraud.   He might be the best whatever in history.  Point is that it's reasonable to be skeptical of any claims, and no, you don't need to know anything about that style to acknowledge this.  We know that true prodigies exist in history, who learn things in a fraction of the time that other people need.   Chances are, however, your martial arts instructor isn't one.   And even then, prodigies still do the thing, whatever that thing is.   

Some guys get very upset around here, believing that logic like this is directed at them as a personal I sult.   They will say, "who cares what you think.  I will train what works for me.  It's not your business.". This isn't at all about that.   its about appropriate skepticism and a reasonable belief that someone with experience limited to practice and training is probably not the best person to train others.  And if you know and accept this and are still getting what you need, knock yourself out.

  If, however, you resort to arguments which distort logic and belie everything we intuitively understand about how human beings learn to do things, you are perpetuating the problem.


----------



## Steve

Consider this.   Is ashida Kim an expert? I'd say he is.  Question is, what is his area of expertise?  He is an expert in what he does.  Is that self defense?  Or is that something else?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I agree but want to be clear that this isn't to say that some folk's teacher is a fraud.   He might be the best whatever in history.  Point is that it's reasonable to be skeptical of any claims, and no, you don't need to know anything about that style to acknowledge this.  We know that true prodigies exist in history, who learn things in a fraction of the time that other people need.   Chances are, however, your martial arts instructor isn't one.   And even then, prodigies still do the thing, whatever that thing is.
> 
> Some guys get very upset around here, believing that logic like this is directed at them as a personal I sult.   They will say, "who cares what you think.  I will train what works for me.  It's not your business.". This isn't at all about that.   its about appropriate skepticism and a reasonable belief that someone with experience limited to practice and training is probably not the best person to train others.  And if you know and accept this and are still getting what you need, knock yourself out.
> 
> If, however, you resort to arguments which distort logic and belie everything we intuitively understand about how human beings learn to do things, you are perpetuating the problem.



I think because martial arts relies so heavily on mysticism it creates this problem.


----------



## FighterTwister

I just want to interject here and say that the post I made earlier was about what I needed out of martial arts and what I was looking for as a package,

However having said that there needs to be people doing and mastering the one martial art we cant have half baked cakes if you know what I mean.

These days some MMA training center's create personal development plans and get you to go through an assessment testing first:-


Competition Fighting
Mastering a Martial Arts - BBJ, Karate, Kung-Fu, Tai-Chi, Tae Kwoon do, etc

MMA - Only

Boxing - Only

Fitness - Regimes and Body Building

or other add to the list all which provides choice.
But point is we need people to stick to one martial art and master it also others mat have a tailored solution or plan.

It all depends on a cost and time value and commitment to the objective you want to achieve.

Some people want to be Grand Masters others want a Mix of Tools others want a Tailored Solution others want to be Coaches and Trainers etc

There  is also the need for specialized martial arts in the one art like any of these.........  List of martial arts - Wikipedia

Its about personal direction, ambition and also creating balance in the industry.


----------



## FighterTwister

To further add, its also important to preserve all martial art types for future students and interest's from any of these in the list: List of martial arts - Wikipedia  .......as an example.

Some are classical martial arts forms that focus on many other valuable aspects and techniques like energy, movement, power etc

Other martial arts are developed from roots and modernized for practical use or specialized environments like the military so on.

So you can see that there is always a big picture where everyone fits in and does their thing so to speak.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I
> So the kung fu full system trope.  You know the one that makes Bruce Lees opinion of chun invalid.
> 
> I mean of course it is B.S. But you are going to fight these to the death.
> 
> But you know what contradicts this argument and what makes this twisted tangle of made up logic so funny.
> 
> It is not the style it is the individual. Didn't you bang on about all styles having a comon meta element. That there are these meta concept that make all styles work and the individual and the training make the martial artist.
> 
> But if it is not the style. Why do I need to know the style to judge?
> 
> I mean I'm an individual. You can't fool me.


If you want to use my argument against me you need to use the whole thing, not just half.

Yes it is skill in the universal elements of combat that determines an individual's effectiveness. So any trained individual can judge the training of another in terms of their grasp of the universal elements. 

One could even judge the individual teaching of an instructor based on such things. 

But as I have said again and again these universal elements are not the fighting style it's self. If you are judging them you are not judging the fighting style.

If you want to judge the strategy and tactics whose successful execution are dependent on the core combative skills, that is when you are judging a fighting style. And to do that you need to spend some time researching the art. 

I never said anything about needing to be a master, though I'm sure some people will. 

However, I think there is a difference between someone who went to a class for 6 months and stops, thinking he knows all there is to know and someone who actively researches multiple schools, asks pertinent questions based on prior ma experience and tests the concepts being put forward both in the class and in other training environments, then brings his findings back to the instructors to see what he might be doing wrong or if he's actually found a hole even the teacher can't fill.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> I don't deduce anything about whole styles from anything. Like anything else, I'm sure some schools strive to make it effective, while others sell fantasy for money.
> 
> If you want to be a good cook, you practice cooking. If someone try to sell you cooking lessons without ever turning on an oven, chances are you aren't learning what you think you are learning.



So you want to style bash, but you don't make judgements about whole styles?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> So you want to style bash, but you don't make judgements about whole styles?


Where have I 'style bashed'? If you refer to the thread title, it refers to the fact that any criticism of the sort offered in the op  is often received as 'style bashing'. I think the general reception it got serves as pretty good evidence of this.

fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
_adjective_

treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Where have I 'style bashed'? If you refer to the thread title, it refers to the fact that any criticism of the sort offered in the op  is often received as 'style bashing'. I think the general reception it got serves as pretty good evidence of this.
> 
> fa·ce·tious
> fəˈsēSHəs/
> _adjective_
> 
> treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
> synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous


Ok. That still sits in conflict with your comments on the Any style can work thread, but whatever.

So it's your duty to point out unworkable b.s. in the martial arts. And you think the reactions to this thread prove that any such criticism is automatically taken as style bashing?

My main takeaway has been that a) it's not your business and b) if you must say something then how you say it will dictate the responses you get.

The fact that we've seen such different views in the same set of responses should help you understand the predicament you describe.

But I do have to ask: if your point is a whole style is unworkable b.s. and it's said from a position of ignorance; that is, without first having done significant research, then how is that not style bashing?

I am a firm believer in the principle, those too ignorant to speak politely do not deserve to be heard.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Ok. That still sits in conflict with your comments on the Any style can work thread, but whatever.
> 
> So it's your duty to point out unworkable b.s. in the martial arts. And you think the reactions to this thread prove that any such criticism is automatically taken as style bashing?
> 
> My main takeaway has been that a) it's not your business and b) if you must say something then how you say it will dictate the responses you get.
> 
> The fact that we've seen such different views in the same set of responses should help you understand the predicament you describe.
> 
> But I do have to ask: if your point is a whole style is unworkable b.s. and it's said from a position of ignorance; that is, without first having done significant research, then how is that not style bashing?
> 
> I am a firm believer in the principle, those too ignorant to speak politely do not deserve to be heard.


No, no conflict. No, I don't believe every single person to invent a style and teach it to others got it right, no. That's an illogical position, and beside the point as presented in this thread. 

Style is largely a name. Anyone can teach anything and label it karate or Kung Fu or whatever, and they certainly aren't all equal by default. I would say that within any 'style' there is a spectrum of effectiveness, it just isn't the same spectrum from style to style.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> No, no conflict. No, I don't believe every single person to invent a style and teach it to others got it right, no. That's an illogical position, and beside the point as presented in this thread.
> 
> Style is largely a name. Anyone can teach anything and label it karate or Kung Fu or whatever, and they certainly aren't all equal by default. I would say that within any 'style' there is a spectrum of effectiveness, it just isn't the same spectrum from style to style.



So what precisely do you observe that needs criticising/outing?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> So what precisely do you observe that needs criticising/outing?


Well, if you read the thread I've laid it out in a pretty straight forward fashion several times.

But once more; if you are being sold on the idea that what you are learning will prepare you for a fight or to defend yourself, yet your training involves no actual combat or sparring, you are being scammed.

It is with this brand of charlatan I take issue. The ones selling bs.

If no such claim is made, no such false promises made, no problem. This transcends styles into the realm of shady business practices.


----------



## DaveB

I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?


Only anecdotal, so nothing you can weigh and measure I guess. I train out of a mixed bag sort of gym, about 20 of us of all different styles, most also attend some actual classes, mostly mma guys but we also have a few karate guys, cma guys, couple boxers, one guy that owns his own taekwondo school, etc etc. We mostly just spar and do pad work.We often get guys we jokingly refer to as one offs, of various styles and lineages. Invariably, they talk up their own skills, instructor, school, and invariably they get murked the first go of it. 
It's these sorts that made me feel how I do about this subject. What if one of these guys, with their false confidence, instead of finding us thought they would use these imaginary skills when it was life or death? Who is responsible for selling them this fake confidence?


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?


Sure.   Everyone who trained with Frank Dux is one example that is well known.   The key isn't that he is a fraud because he teaches Dux Ryu Ninjutsu,.  That's his thing and it can be anything he wants.  He's a fraud because he asserts that it imparts skills to students that it doesn't.

The kung fu guys who agree to test their arts (bravo to them) seem to believe they have learned skills that they have not.   Whoever thought them certainly is an example.  possibly, if these guys are teachers, they are also examples.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I agree but want to be clear that this isn't to say that some folk's teacher is a fraud.   He might be the best whatever in history.  Point is that it's reasonable to be skeptical of any claims, and no, you don't need to know anything about that style to acknowledge this.  We know that true prodigies exist in history, who learn things in a fraction of the time that other people need.   Chances are, however, your martial arts instructor isn't one.   And even then, prodigies still do the thing, whatever that thing is.
> 
> Some guys get very upset around here, believing that logic like this is directed at them as a personal I sult.   They will say, "who cares what you think.  I will train what works for me.  It's not your business.". This isn't at all about that.   its about appropriate skepticism and a reasonable belief that someone with experience limited to practice and training is probably not the best person to train others.  And if you know and accept this and are still getting what you need, knock yourself out.
> 
> If, however, you resort to arguments which distort logic and belie everything we intuitively understand about how human beings learn to do things, you are perpetuating the problem.



If your teacher isn't a fraud. There is still no reason not to be skeptical. This is all part of the realistic feedback that is needed to make martial arts work.

Feed back in thought as well as action.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I meant can you point to a specific instance of this?



Prove it doesn't happen. That is your thing isn't it?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> If your teacher isn't a fraud. There is still no reason not to be skeptical. This is all part of the realistic feedback that is needed to make martial arts work.
> 
> Feed back in thought as well as action.


If my coach tells me something I've seen him do many times, I would believe him.  But you're exactly right.  As much as I like and respect my coaches, I wouldn't not just accept as true everything they say.   I know one guy who is an elite level grappler, but I've never heard him allege to be a self defense expert.  Conversely, one of the assistant instructors was a street level narcotics officer.  I would take his word.  Another guy had three or four UFC fights.   I know he can fight, and take that for what it is.   Maybe not self defense, but certainly a very tough dude.   A fourth guy was a marine.  All are legit, high level black belts in BJJ.  There is no one siZe fits all, and I'm too much of an a-hole to have man crushes or hero worship (unless you're Colonel Steve Austin, the bionic man, who is still my hero).


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Prove it doesn't happen. That is your thing isn't it?


Why? I didn't say it doesn't happen I just asked for an example. I am trying to understand his position since it is not something I recognise from this forum.

And asking that people support claims that they treat as plain obvious truth, with either evidence or sound argument surely falls into your idea of appropriate scepticism?


----------



## ballen0351




----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Well, if you read the thread I've laid it out in a pretty straight forward fashion several times.
> 
> But once more; if you are being sold on the idea that what you are learning will prepare you for a fight or to defend yourself, yet your training involves no actual combat or sparring, you are being scammed.
> 
> It is with this brand of charlatan I take issue. The ones selling bs.
> 
> If no such claim is made, no such false promises made, no problem. This transcends styles into the realm of shady business practices.


your talking in absolutes again, and that automatically makes it untrue.

any physical improvement will make you more able to defend yourself, if this is coupled with sound techniques of how to apply your new physical improvement, then you are undoubtedly more able to defend yourself than you were previously,

there is a fair point that this will be limited by a lack of live action, but its not true to say that the whole thing is a,scam if it doesn't involve life action


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> your talking in absolutes again, and that automatically makes it untrue.
> 
> any physical improvement will make you more able to defend yourself, if this is coupled with sound techniques of how to apply your new physical improvement, then you are undoubtedly more able to defend yourself than you were previously,
> 
> there is a fair point that this will be limited by a lack of live action, but its not true to say that the whole thing is a,scam if it doesn't involve life action


I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)

I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too. 

I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)
> 
> I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too.
> 
> I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.


but again with the,absolutes, untrained people successfully defend themselves against attack every where everyday of the week. So the above would only be true if studying tma had,actually remove some of their,self defence capability so they always loose


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)
> 
> I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too.
> 
> I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.


I'll add this to Jobo's point. While - clearly - training without some sparring at intensity (which could include competition) is not optimal, I've run into some folks who developed some fighting competence without it. In some cases, they were getting that intensity elsewhere (working the door, etc.), but it wasn't really training intensity, nor the kind of regularity we'd expect to be optimal for developing that competence. A few even seemed to have not gotten any sort of regular intense live, resisted training. And yet, when I sparred with them, they were competent. It seems logical (though not testable) that they'd be significantly more competent with the addition of that resisted training (very sporadic sparring with friends every year or so). It's also possible (again, not testable) that either they or their instructors were exceptional people. All I know is that they managed to develop some competency without it. When I speak of competency in this case, I'm simply evaluating them against what an untrained person would normally bring. An untrained person (except for exceptional people) doesn't usually cause me any problems in sparring, and these folks were able to present some problems of various levels, in spite of their lack of resisted training.

Again, perhaps exceptions/exceptional. I don't know how to figure that out.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'll add this to Jobo's point. While - clearly - training without some sparring at intensity (which could include competition) is not optimal, I've run into some folks who developed some fighting competence without it. In some cases, they were getting that intensity elsewhere (working the door, etc.), but it wasn't really training intensity, nor the kind of regularity we'd expect to be optimal for developing that competence. A few even seemed to have not gotten any sort of regular intense live, resisted training. And yet, when I sparred with them, they were competent. It seems logical (though not testable) that they'd be significantly more competent with the addition of that resisted training (very sporadic sparring with friends every year or so). It's also possible (again, not testable) that either they or their instructors were exceptional people. All I know is that they managed to develop some competency without it. When I speak of competency in this case, I'm simply evaluating them against what an untrained person would normally bring. An untrained person (except for exceptional people) doesn't usually cause me any problems in sparring, and these folks were able to present some problems of various levels, in spite of their lack of resisted training.
> 
> Again, perhaps exceptions/exceptional. I don't know how to figure that out.


I have a problem with how you're using the term "competence."  I would say there is a spectrum of skill development between a lay/untrained person and a competent person, where someone is neither one nor the other (or more accurately, somewhere in between).  Some professions call this person an apprentice. 

And further, a journeyman is competent, but may not be an expert.  Or more accurately, there are layers of journey level expertise.  A journeyman electrician who just passed the tests and is certified is, by definition, competent.  But there are advanced certifications and just the value of experience that distinguishes one journey level person from another. 

All this to say, I'm not sure that measuring skill against what an untrained person would bring in is very helpful in this context.  Competence should really be an objective standard, and I think it's reasonable to expect that everyone comes in somewhere on the spectrum.  If they have some previous training, that could be good or it could be bad, depending on what they learned.


----------



## Martial D

Some people are naturally physically gifted, and/or possess a fearless attitude and/or are naturally aggressive, etc.

Some of the toughest guys I have met didn't have any actual ma training. But all of them had their share of practical experience.

But that's really beside the point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I have a problem with how you're using the term "competence."  I would say there is a spectrum of skill development between a lay/untrained person and a competent person, where someone is neither one nor the other (or more accurately, somewhere in between).  Some professions call this person an apprentice.
> 
> And further, a journeyman is competent, but may not be an expert.  Or more accurately, there are layers of journey level expertise.  A journeyman electrician who just passed the tests and is certified is, by definition, competent.  But there are advanced certifications and just the value of experience that distinguishes one journey level person from another.
> 
> All this to say, I'm not sure that measuring skill against what an untrained person would bring in is very helpful in this context.  Competence should really be an objective standard, and I think it's reasonable to expect that everyone comes in somewhere on the spectrum.  If they have some previous training, that could be good or it could be bad, depending on what they learned.


I'm okay with that disagreement, Steve. I used "competence" because I can't think of a better term to use - I'd be open to a suggestion of a better term. They had some level of ability to apply the skills they'd trained. I'm not sure where to draw the line for either "competent" or "skilled", much less "expert" - it's a pretty subjective distinction, and we won't find a good universal, objective standard to use, I think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Some people are naturally physically gifted, and/or possess a fearless attitude and/or are naturally aggressive, etc.
> 
> Some of the toughest guys I have met didn't have any actual ma training. But all of them had their share of practical experience.
> 
> But that's really beside the point.


I'm assuming this is in response to my post. If not, just ignore me. 

What I found was some folks who could execute what they were trained in (at least some of it). So it wasn't just a matter of them being fearless enough (though that's surely part of what most of us gain in sparring) or being naturally aggressive (though that certainly also helps). They had learned the physical skill and were able to execute.

Of course, it's also possible they would have developed that balance, posture, etc. without the training they experienced, but probably only if they'd had some other experience to lead them to it. My point was simply that there's some evidence that at least some people develop usable skills from training that lacks what I think we can all (okay, almost all - someone will be able to present a contrary opinion) agree are components of an optimal training approach.

And, clearly, there are other approaches that work for folks. Especially for those with natural (or otherwise developed) toughness and aggression. That includes just getting in enough fights, though that's also not an optimal approach, as it leaves the individual to work out what does and doesn't work all on their own, rather than starting from what others have already experienced.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Sure.   Everyone who trained with Frank Dux is one example that is well known.   The key isn't that he is a fraud because he teaches Dux Ryu Ninjutsu,.  That's his thing and it can be anything he wants.  He's a fraud because he asserts that it imparts skills to students that it doesn't.
> 
> The kung fu guys who agree to test their arts (bravo to them) seem to believe they have learned skills that they have not.   Whoever thought them certainly is an example.  possibly, if these guys are teachers, they are also examples.


Another view is that Dux is a fraud because he claims a biography and accomplishments which are completely fictional. For all I know, some of his students might actually be able to fight. (I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.) Even if he was successful in teaching students to fight, that wouldn't make him honest.

Hmm ... that might be a violation of the MartialTalk fraudbusting ban. Mods, feel free to delete if so.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I'm assuming this is in response to my post. If not, just ignore me.
> 
> What I found was some folks who could execute what they were trained in (at least some of it). So it wasn't just a matter of them being fearless enough (though that's surely part of what most of us gain in sparring) or being naturally aggressive (though that certainly also helps). They had learned the physical skill and were able to execute.
> 
> Of course, it's also possible they would have developed that balance, posture, etc. without the training they experienced, but probably only if they'd had some other experience to lead them to it. My point was simply that there's some evidence that at least some people develop usable skills from training that lacks what I think we can all (okay, almost all - someone will be able to present a contrary opinion) agree are components of an optimal training approach.
> 
> And, clearly, there are other approaches that work for folks. Especially for those with natural (or otherwise developed) toughness and aggression. That includes just getting in enough fights, though that's also not an optimal approach, as it leaves the individual to work out what does and doesn't work all on their own, rather than starting from what others have already experienced.


Well, it was to you and jobo, as you guys were pointing out the same thing, and I don't totally disagree.

As for executing things you learned in a purely cooperative manner in a non cooperative situation, I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but I would say it's highly unlikely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Well, it was to you and jobo, as you guys were pointing out the same thing, and I don't totally disagree.
> 
> As for executing things you learned in a purely cooperative manner in a non cooperative situation, I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but I would say it's highly unlikely.


At the very least, is probably takes a lot longer to reach that point than if it's trained with some resistance.


----------



## Martial D

Would it though? To know if you've had 'enough' cooperative training your would need to test it non cooperatively, right? It seems to me the summation of those non cooperative tests(fights/spars) would be the more likely cause of whatever you are doing to start working when the opponent  doesn't want it to than endless cooperative drilling. Not to say such drilling has no place, but on it's own it's got no wheels.

Im not convinced that even a lifetime of doing one thing(regardless of what it is) can prepare you for a totally different thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Would it though? To know if you've had 'enough' cooperative training your would need to test it non cooperatively, right? It seems to me the summation of those non cooperative tests(fights/spars) would be the more likely cause of whatever you are doing to start working when the opponent  doesn't want it to than endless cooperative drilling. Not to say such drilling has no place, but on it's own it's got no wheels.
> 
> Im not convinced that even a lifetime of doing one thing(regardless of what it is) can prepare you for a totally different thing.


That's the real issue (IMO) with not having any non-cooperative training. You might be fabulous against a resisting partner or you might be awful, but you can't really know until you actually have a resisting partner.


----------



## Martial D

I don't know of anyone that's fabulous at something they've never actually done, but I can't say it's impossible.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Another view is that Dux is a fraud because he claims a biography and accomplishments which are completely fictional. For all I know, some of his students might actually be able to fight. (I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.) Even if he was successful in teaching students to fight, that wouldn't make him honest.
> 
> Hmm ... that might be a violation of the MartialTalk fraudbusting ban. Mods, feel free to delete if so.


I appreciate the comment and see your point.   There may be things he's alleged that are untrue.   Those are the things that are dishonest and fraudulent.   My thought is that, those are not his made up style of martial arts.   People invent systems all the time, and then train people in those systems.   Not just martial arts.   You take training and become certified to varying degrees in that system.   Franklin Covey, jack Canfield and many others make gazillions of dollars doing this.  The concern would be in false claims.   They are very specific about what you will learn and what you will be able to do. Martial arts folks are often more cavalier.  


Martial D said:


> I don't know of anyone that's fabulous at something they've never actually done, but I can't say it's impossible.


Agreed.  Prodigies do exist, but by definition, their abilities are extraordinary,.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's the real issue (IMO) with not having any non-cooperative training. You might be fabulous against a resisting partner or you might be awful, but you can't really know until you actually have a resisting partner.


Speaking for myself, I'm less concerned with students than with instructors.   Being an expert in Dux Ryu might make you very qualified to teach Dux Ryu.   But it doesn't necessarily make you well qualified to teach self defense or fighting skills, even if you don't completely stink at sparring with a resisting partner.  

the real key is in specificity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Speaking for myself, I'm less concerned with students than with instructors.   Being an expert in Dux Ryu might make you very qualified to teach Dux Ryu.   But it doesn't necessarily make you well qualified to teach self defense or fighting skills, even if you don't completely stink at sparring with a resisting partner.
> 
> the real key is in specificity.


Being an expert in any skill doesn't make you qualified to teach that skill (so being an expert in Dux-Ryu doesn't necessarily make you qualified to teach that system, as application and teaching aren't the same skill set. 

Whether being qualified to teach Dux-Ryu makes you qualified to teach fighting skills depends whether Dux-Ryu is a valid toolbox for fighting (do the techniques work as taught), and whether you understand the principles and issues of the context being trained for.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Being an expert in any skill doesn't make you qualified to teach that skill (so being an expert in Dux-Ryu doesn't necessarily make you qualified to teach that system, as application and teaching aren't the same skill set.
> 
> Whether being qualified to teach Dux-Ryu makes you qualified to teach fighting skills depends whether Dux-Ryu is a valid toolbox for fighting (do the techniques work as taught), and whether you understand the principles and issues of the context being trained for.


I used the term "might" on purpose.   Being an expert in dux ryu might make you very qualified to teach dux ryu.   Not being an expert in Dux ryu should certainly disqualify you.   Right?

Edit: I ragree with the second part, but I suspect that when you say it you mean something slightly less specific than I.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I used the term "might" on purpose.   Being an expert in dux ryu might make you very qualified to teach dux ryu.   Not being an expert in Dux ryu should certainly disqualify you.   Right?


As long as we leave room in "expert" for someone who is okay, but not great. I'd take BJJ classes from a blue belt in a second, if they are good at teaching. I might not even need them to be a blue belt - just need them to be able to improve on my ability. 



> Edit: I ragree with the second part, but I suspect that when you say it you mean something slightly less specific than I.


Probably. I think we share a concept, though we have a standing disagreement within it.


----------



## ShortBridge

Martial D said:


> I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)
> 
> I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too.
> 
> I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.



I see that you missed this thread, which contains exactly the type of evidence that you say you are lacking.

Self Defense from rape

It is a real story about a real person who's training was tested in a potentially life and death circumstance this year a few miles from my house. Not that I expect it will change your worldview one bit. You believe in what you do, you're surrounded by people and postings that confirm that belief and you look down upon the poor, misguided rest of the world, including the lady in this article, who if we're all honest wouldn't last one round in the octagon with Chuck Liddell.

If you are interested in getting out of your echo chamber of confirmation bias on the very complex problem of personal safety, there are other examples to be found, this one just happened to be local to me, so I didn't have to go looking for it.

There are some other good sources of advice, complete with some "evidence" that an interested party might want to check out. The book "Strong on Defense" by Sanford Strong, for example. My copy is loaned out right now, but used copies can be found on eBay. If you were teaching people to follow your training path to personal saftey and didn't want to be (un)intentionally deceiving them, you might also check out "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker. Those two books and NO TRAINING, in my opinion, may well make certain people safer than 5 days a week of sparring.

Or stick to the same argument and keep assuming that you know the one truth and everyone else is delusional. You'll get some likes from your people and might even influence a few others, while pissing off the rest of us, but what difference does that make, we're all brain washed snake oil salesman anyway, right?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> As long as we leave room in "expert" for someone who is okay, but not great. I'd take BJJ classes from a blue belt in a second, if they are good at teaching. I might not even need them to be a blue belt - just need them to be able to improve on my ability.
> 
> 
> Probably. I think we share a concept, though we have a standing disagreement within it.


Like competence, expertise is a spectrum.   Provided the blue belt is not misrepresenting the skills and sticks with what he/she knows, great.  And is teaching you something he or she is competent to teach.  The key is that the blue belt is teaching what he or she actually knows and can do.  If that blue belt also happens to have 20 years experience working as a bouncer, maybe he or she has more to offer you with regards to self defense than BJJ fundamentals. 

@ShortBridge , I couldn't agree more.  But knowing what will make people actually more safe is something that requires data.  For civilians, in every instance I have seen, fighting skills are among the least critical skills to learn.

That said, there is still a huge disconnect between what self defense programs teach and what we understand will actually help people be safe.  The miscommunication that often arises in threads like this is not malicious (I don't think).  It's the result of seeing what self defense programs tend to spend a lot of time teaching, and not a lot of time teaching things that will actually help people be safer.  So, when you see a martial arts program that purports to teach people "self defense," but focuses on dubious fighting skills, there is an understandable skepticism that results.

I see your comments and martial D's as approaching the same disconnect but from completely different directions.


----------



## ShortBridge

Steve said:


> ...
> @ShortBridge , I couldn't agree more.  But knowing what will make people actually more safe is something that requires data.  For civilians, in every instance I have seen, fighting skills are among the least critical skills to learn.



I agree! And the books I referenced make those same points as well. MMA gyms don't teach "self defense" either and sparring isn't about personal safety, it's about controlled hand to hand combat. I freely admit that teaching people forms or blade hand strikes to the neck don't make them action heros. But, that's neither how I represent those things nor the limits of what we do. I think it's fascinating that people who "spar" in submission wrestling every week say that "classical training" is a scam and should be exposed and at the same time equate the training they do with personal safety from violent crime in 2017. No one can see past their own blinders.



Steve said:


> That said, there is still a huge disconnect between what self defense programs teach and what we understand will actually help people be safe.  The miscommunication that often arises in threads like this is not malicious (I don't think).  It's the result of seeing what self defense programs tend to spend a lot of time teaching, and not a lot of time teaching things that will actually help people be safer.  So, when you see a martial arts program that purports to teach people "self defense," but focuses on dubious fighting skills, there is an understandable skepticism that results.
> 
> I see your comments and martial D's as approaching the same disconnect but from completely different directions.



The other thing that makes me want to unplug from these discussions entirely is that NONE OF YOU, know how or who I teach, but guys like our friend here assume that they do and openly disapprove.To them, unless it conforms to their worldview, it is invalid. That's not going to change and I don't need for it to, so I shouldn't even be getting involved in these stupid arguments, but then we have the "where are all of the CMA guys? Why isn't there more discussion with them?"


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Like competence, expertise is a spectrum.   Provided the blue belt is not misrepresenting the skills and sticks with what he/she knows, great.  And is teaching you something he or she is competent to teach.  The key is that the blue belt is teaching what he or she actually knows and can do.  If that blue belt also happens to have 20 years experience working as a bouncer, maybe he or she has more to offer you with regards to self defense than BJJ fundamentals.
> 
> @ShortBridge , I couldn't agree more.  But knowing what will make people actually more safe is something that requires data.  For civilians, in every instance I have seen, fighting skills are among the least critical skills to learn.
> 
> That said, there is still a huge disconnect between what self defense programs teach and what we understand will actually help people be safe.  The miscommunication that often arises in threads like this is not malicious (I don't think).  It's the result of seeing what self defense programs tend to spend a lot of time teaching, and not a lot of time teaching things that will actually help people be safer.  So, when you see a martial arts program that purports to teach people "self defense," but focuses on dubious fighting skills, there is an understandable skepticism that results.
> 
> I see your comments and martial D's as approaching the same disconnect but from completely different directions.



Provided we approach that with the same intrest in evidence based training.

Unfortunately it is the area most likley to be hodo magic make stuff up as we go along.

Who are the experts in these fields? And what makes them experts?

I mean imagine if we took the method of deescalation and trained it as comprehensively as these guys do pick up techniques.

Mystery Method - The Easiest Way To Pick-up


----------



## pgsmith

Martial D said:


> If this to you seems harsh -
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.
> .



  I just thought this was so funny that it bore repeating for the giggle factor. 

  You seem to have a tremendous false sense of confidence about your own ability to know what is useful and what isn't. You also seem to have a false sense of confidence in your knowledge of what gets people hurt or killed, as you keep repeating that line with no facts to back it up.

  I just see someone trying desperately to boost their own ego.



Steve said:


> I couldn't agree more. But knowing what will make people actually more safe is something that requires data. For civilians, in every instance I have seen, fighting skills are among the least critical skills to learn



  I agree wholeheartedly, based upon my personal experiences. Both self defense and "combat" as the OP keeps saying, have very little to do with personal fighting skills.


----------



## drop bear

pgsmith said:


> I just thought this was so funny that it bore repeating for the giggle factor.
> 
> You seem to have a tremendous false sense of confidence about your own ability to know what is useful and what isn't. You also seem to have a false sense of confidence in your knowledge of what gets people hurt or killed, as you keep repeating that line with no facts to back it up.
> 
> I just see someone trying desperately to boost their own ego.



So we are back to this idea of how do you know there is no Santa clause. Have you met him?


----------



## Martial D

pgsmith said:


> I just thought this was so funny that it bore repeating for the giggle factor.
> 
> You seem to have a tremendous false sense of confidence about your own ability to know what is useful and what isn't. You also seem to have a false sense of confidence in your knowledge of what gets people hurt or killed, as you keep repeating that line with no facts to back it up.
> 
> I just see someone trying desperately to boost their own ego.


Eisegesis




> I agree wholeheartedly, based upon my personal experiences. Both self defense and "combat" as the OP keeps saying, have very little to do with personal fighting skills.


Combat (fighting)has little to do with  fighting skills eh? Well I guess that says it all.


----------



## Martial D

ShortBridge said:


> I see that you missed this thread, which contains exactly the type of evidence that you say you are lacking.
> 
> Self Defense from rape
> 
> It is a real story about a real person who's training was tested in a potentially life and death circumstance this year a few miles from my house. Not that I expect it will change your worldview one bit. You believe in what you do, you're surrounded by people and postings that confirm that belief and you look down upon the poor, misguided rest of the world, including the lady in this article, who if we're all honest wouldn't last one round in the octagon with Chuck Liddell.
> 
> If you are interested in getting out of your echo chamber of confirmation bias on the very complex problem of personal safety, there are other examples to be found, this one just happened to be local to me, so I didn't have to go looking for it.
> 
> There are some other good sources of advice, complete with some "evidence" that an interested party might want to check out. The book "Strong on Defense" by Sanford Strong, for example. My copy is loaned out right now, but used copies can be found on eBay. If you were teaching people to follow your training path to personal saftey and didn't want to be (un)intentionally deceiving them, you might also check out "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker. Those two books and NO TRAINING, in my opinion, may well make certain people safer than 5 days a week of sparring.
> 
> Or stick to the same argument and keep assuming that you know the one truth and everyone else is delusional. You'll get some likes from your people and might even influence a few others, while pissing off the rest of us, but what difference does that make, we're all brain washed snake oil salesman anyway, right?


That was a swell rant, but didn't in any way address what I actually said.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Yet none of you have the wherewithal to address the points made,


And you have yet, 14 pages in, have not yet had the wherewithal to address the points made by others on page one:-

_What are your qualifications for deciding what works and what doesn't? 

What if someone looking at you and what you do decides you are wrong and you are misleading students etc? 

Is an instructor who genuinely believes what he was taught works and so teaches his students a fraud then? 

How do you prove what others teach doesn't work?_



jobo said:


> your talking in absolutes again, and that automatically makes it untrue.
> 
> any physical improvement will make you more able to defend yourself


Says absolutes are automatically wrong, then makes a statement that's an absolute  


Reading what has gone on while have been away, I am disappointed (if not surprised) that the cumulative IQ of the forum continues to be dragged down by the same 4-5 posters.

maybe I'l try again in the new year ........ or 2019.

Get well soon MT, wishing you a speedy recovery.


----------



## ShortBridge

Oh! 2019! Please, 2019!


----------



## jobo

ShortBridge said:


> I agree! And the books I referenced make those same points as well. MMA gyms don't teach "self defense" either and sparring isn't about personal safety, it's about controlled hand to hand combat. I freely admit that teaching people forms or blade hand strikes to the neck don't make them action heros. But, that's neither how I represent those things nor the limits of what we do. I think it's fascinating that people who "spar" in submission wrestling every week say that "classical training" is a scam and should be exposed and at the same time equate the training they do with personal safety from violent crime in 2017. No one can see past their own blinders.
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing that makes me want to unplug from these discussions entirely is that NONE OF YOU, know how or who I teach, but guys like our friend here assume that they do and openly disapprove.To them, unless it conforms to their worldview, it is invalid. That's not going to change and I don't need for it to, so I shouldn't even be getting involved in these stupid arguments, but then we have the "where are all of the CMA guys? Why isn't there more discussion with them?"


but you are as involved in absolutes as the guy you are criticizesing  .

this same polarized  self defence/ personal safety argument gets done again and again.
of course mma s about self defence, those very same,skills will give you a marked advantage in any attack, plus and its a big plus there is a very good chance that you are,fitter than your attacker. That doesn't make you unbeatable but does move the odds in your,favour. The same should be true of any ma, perhaps less so, but it should still improve your odds or reduce the % of the population that can just over power you

part of the reason for doing ma, must be to remove or,at least reduce the fear factor, if as it seems to often happen it increases it, then its counter productive or you are doing it wrong


----------



## ShortBridge

I have not spoken in absolutes and I don't think in absolutes. 

Training for fighting, regardless of what type of training or what label you put on it should improve your chances of success at fighting. I have no issue with MMA training, I admire it. I did it, in fact, for years roughly 1/2 my life ago. I'm not against it or sparring or anything else, but I don't see them as the panacea (how's that for some forum IQ?) that I keep reading that they are. 

But, while fighting and personal safety are related, they are different things. The OP started out by saying, essentially, the anyone who didn't teach the way he trains is actually making their students less safe. Sorry, but that's ********. It's short sighted and it shows a broad lack of understanding of what makes people safe and what might make them more likely to get hurt in the actual real world.

There is also very little consideration in these discussion about WHO you teach. Context matters and anyone who teaches any subject knows that what one person needs can be quite different than what another person needs. One size fits all solutions sell well, but also come and go as people realize that they aren't magic.


----------



## Martial D

ShortBridge said:


> I have not spoken in absolutes and I don't think in absolutes.
> 
> Training for fighting, regardless of what type of training or what label you put on it should improve your chances of success at fighting. I have no issue with MMA training, I admire it. I did it, in fact, for years roughly 1/2 my life ago. I'm not against it or sparring or anything else, but I don't see them as the panacea (how's that for some forum IQ?) that I keep reading that they are.
> 
> But, while fighting and personal safety are related, they are different things. The OP started out by saying, essentially, the anyone who didn't teach the way he trains is actually making their students less safe. Sorry, but that's ********. It's short sighted and it shows a broad lack of understanding of what makes people safe and what might make them more likely to get hurt in the actual real world.
> 
> There is also very little consideration in these discussion about WHO you teach. Context matters and anyone who teaches any subject knows that what one person needs can be quite different than what another person needs. One size fits all solutions sell well, but also come and go as people realize that they aren't magic.


I understand perfectly well there is far more to self defense than fighting skills, and it's quite disingenuous for you to assert or assume otherwise. Quote me saying otherwise.

What I am saying, yet again, is that if you are selling a product and labelling it 'fighting skills', yet you don't train anything approaching fighting, you are selling dreams, and are knowingly, or unknowingly, a fraud.


----------



## ShortBridge

Yeah, okay, but I'm not selling anything and you have no idea what our training looks like, so I guess I should look away because you aren't talking to me, right?

Good luck on your crusade to expose all of the charlatans and rid the world of martial arts that don't meet your standards. I predict that you'll be wildly successful and statues will be erected in your image.

But, wait, didn't you rage-quit last night after insulting all of our IQs? Why are you still here?


----------



## Martial D

ShortBridge said:


> Yeah, okay, but I'm not selling anything and you have no idea what our training looks like, so I guess I should look away because you aren't talking to me, right?
> 
> Good luck on your crusade to expose all of the charlatans and rid the world of martial arts that don't meet your standards. I predict that you'll be wildly successful and statues will be erected in your image.
> 
> But, wait, didn't you rage-quit last night after insulting all of our IQs? Why are you still here?


If you feel like I am talking directly to you, that's something for you to look at. As for your bit about rage quitting and personal insults, I have no idea what you are talking about. The only one I see here trying to make this personal and getting upset is you. 
I don't know you from Adam.


----------



## ShortBridge

Martial D said:


> If you feel like I am talking directly to you, that's something for you to look at. As for your bit about rage quitting and personal insults, I have no idea what you are talking about. The only one I see here trying to make this personal and getting upset is you.
> I don't know you from Adam.




Sorry, looking back, Paul D rage quit. Maybe I was just being hopeful. I don't know Paul, maybe he's a loss, driven away about bad conversation, that is a thing that happens in forums.



Martial D said:


> If you feel like I am talking directly to you, that's something for you to look at.



No, it isn't.



Martial D said:


> I don't know you from Adam.



You're right, you don't.


----------



## Martial D

ShortBridge said:


> Sorry, looking back, Paul D rage quit. Maybe I was just being hopeful. I don't know Paul, maybe he's a loss, driven away about bad conversation, that is a thing that happens in forums.



Don't worry about Paul, he'll be ok.





> No, it isn't.


Well I guess neither one of us care then. So why'd you bring it up?



> You're right, you don't.


Likewise.


----------



## jobo

ShortBridge said:


> I have not spoken in absolutes and I don't think in absolutes.
> 
> Training for fighting, regardless of what type of training or what label you put on it should improve your chances of success at fighting. I have no issue with MMA training, I admire it. I did it, in fact, for years roughly 1/2 my life ago. I'm not against it or sparring or anything else, but I don't see them as the panacea (how's that for some forum IQ?) that I keep reading that they are.
> 
> But, while fighting and personal safety are related, they are different things. The OP started out by saying, essentially, the anyone who didn't teach the way he trains is actually making their students less safe. Sorry, but that's ********. It's short sighted and it shows a broad lack of understanding of what makes people safe and what might make them more likely to get hurt in the actual real world.
> 
> There is also very little consideration in these discussion about WHO you teach. Context matters and anyone who teaches any subject knows that what one person needs can be quite different than what another person needs. One size fits all solutions sell well, but also come and go as people realize that they aren't magic.


his point that i don't necessarily agree with is that encouraging people in to believing they are better than they are may cause them to put themselves in danger , where as th fact seems to be, that the more people are exposed to ma, the less safe they feel

but you have brought in the old self defence self preservation argument, i see them as opposite ends of a spectrum, the more you have of one, the less you need of the other


----------



## ballen0351

Good Thing we got rid of Political Talk to keep the forums civilized lol................


----------



## pgsmith

Martial D said:


> Combat (fighting)has little to do with fighting skills eh? Well I guess that says it all.


  What it says is that I have actually been in combat. Have you? Combat is about fields of fire, awareness of the enemy, and coordinated movements with your squad-mates. If you are forced to engage in hand to hand, you've seriously screwed up.
Judging by the tenor of your posts, I would hazard a guess that you have never been in the military, so your idea of "combat" is probably closer to a drunken bar fight. Drunken bar fights are nowhere near actual combat.  

  While it's been fun laughing at your ridiculous arguments, you obviously have very little knowledge, and even less desire to gain any knowledge. Therefore, I will withdraw as most others have.  

  Have fun with your ego stroking!


----------



## jobo

pgsmith said:


> What it says is that I have actually been in combat. Have you? Combat is about fields of fire, awareness of the enemy, and coordinated movements with your squad-mates. If you are forced to engage in hand to hand, you've seriously screwed up.
> Judging by the tenor of your posts, I would hazard a guess that you have never been in the military, so your idea of "combat" is probably closer to a drunken bar fight. Drunken bar fights are nowhere near actual combat.
> 
> While it's been fun laughing at your ridiculous arguments, you obviously have very little knowledge, and even less desire to gain any knowledge. Therefore, I will withdraw as most others have.
> 
> Have fun with your ego stroking!


the defintion of combat doesnt require you to be in the army


----------



## Martial D

pgsmith said:


> What it says is that I have actually been in combat. Have you? Combat is about fields of fire, awareness of the enemy, and coordinated movements with your squad-mates. If you are forced to engage in hand to hand, you've seriously screwed up.
> Judging by the tenor of your posts, I would hazard a guess that you have never been in the military, so your idea of "combat" is probably closer to a drunken bar fight. Drunken bar fights are nowhere near actual combat.
> 
> While it's been fun laughing at your ridiculous arguments, you obviously have very little knowledge, and even less desire to gain any knowledge. Therefore, I will withdraw as most others have.
> 
> Have fun with your ego stroking!


You do realize that the word combat also applies to..physical combat(combat sports?), and not just modern warfare right?

The fact that you randomly inserted that as if it were relevant to the conversation is frankly a bit strange.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> his point that i don't necessarily agree with is that encouraging people in to believing they are better than they are may cause them to put themselves in danger , where as th fact seems to be, that the more people are exposed to ma, the less safe they feel
> 
> but you have brought in the old self defence self preservation argument, i see them as opposite ends of a spectrum, the more you have of one, the less you need of the other


Agreed. This is an area where vocabulary sometimes causes some conflict. When I hear "self-defense", I think of the physical defense once an attack happens. Self-preservation (or personal safety, or self-protection - the term I usually use) is IMO a larger topic, which can include self-defense. When someone asks if I teach self-defense, then asks how much time I spend on home safety, I tell them that's not the same topic. I don't claim to be highly knowledgeable about the techniques of home security. I do have significant knowledge about physical defensive tactics and techniques, and that's what I (mostly) teach. I also cover some of the closely related areas of the larger topic - things like threat avoidance, threat recognition, basic target hardening (personal more than home), etc.

Of course, others use the terms differently, and I'm okay with that, so long as they don't accuse me of making claims I don't make. I've never had a student think I was promising other than what I teach.

None of that is black-and-white to me. There's grey areas in that, which it's hard to draw a distinction.


----------



## ShortBridge

Martial D said:


> You do realize that the word combat also applies to..physical combat(combat sports?), and not just modern warfare right?
> 
> The fact that you randomly inserted that as if it were relevant to the conversation is frankly a bit strange.



If your argument is that classical martial arts training doesn't properly prepare you for combat sports. I agree. As a matter of fact, that's been proven a million times over. I can't imagine any rational person at this point disagreeing. 

But, "combat sports" didn't actually prepare Colin McGreggor for boxing the way that he was sure they did. 

The thing about the internet is that you have no idea who you are criticizing. Combat veterans and LEO (for example) find your assertiveness that combat sports equates in any way to what they have seen and done in the world as absurd as you seem to think everyone who isn't you is.

You and a couple of other trolls are convinced that you know best and hop into every thread and even start your own to say, as you did at the beginning of this, that it's your obligation to expose everyone who doesn't think like you as a fake and you don't see how lovely ridiculous that is.

I'm done. I'll just grow my ignore list a bit and take a break from trying to contribute to these fora. The kudzu has taken over the garden.


----------



## Martial D

ShortBridge said:


> If your argument is that classical martial arts training doesn't properly prepare you for combat sports. I agree. As a matter of fact, that's been proven a million times over. I can't imagine any rational person at this point disagreeing.
> 
> But, "combat sports" didn't actually prepare Colin McGreggor for boxing the way that he was sure they did.
> 
> The thing about the internet is that you have no idea who you are criticizing. Combat veterans and LEO (for example) find your assertiveness that combat sports equates in any way to what they have seen and done in the world as absurd as you seem to think everyone who isn't you is.
> 
> You and a couple of other trolls are convinced that you know best and hop into every thread and even start your own to say, as you did at the beginning of this, that it's your obligation to expose everyone who doesn't think like you as a fake and you don't see how lovely ridiculous that is.
> 
> I'm done. I'll just grow my ignore list a bit and take a break from trying to contribute to these fora. The kudzu has taken over the garden.


Few things..
a)It's Conor not Collin

b) Boxing is also a combat sport

c)I didn't equate anything 'what soldiers have seen and done'. That other guy took issue with the word combat as if it somehow only referred to war, which is patently false. Nowhere else in this thread is war or soldiering mentioned or referred to, least of all by me. 

d) I didn't 'hop into' this thread, I started it.

e) best wishes to you.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> _What are your qualifications for deciding what works and what doesn't?
> 
> What if someone looking at you and what you do decides you are wrong and you are misleading students etc?
> 
> Is an instructor who genuinely believes what he was taught works and so teaches his students a fraud then?
> 
> How do you prove what others teach doesn't work?_



You are defending the establishment here.

The onus is on them to prove their stuff works. You buy a crash helmet. It is not for you to prove it doesn't work. You get cancer treatment you buy toothpaste. Anything. It is their duty to sell you a product that works.

If we don't have this then martial arts is mysticism and I don't have to be qualified in voodo. To know voodo is bunk.

Which is why you keep having to regurgitate arguments used religion.


----------



## drop bear

ShortBridge said:


> If your argument is that classical martial arts training doesn't properly prepare you for combat sports. I agree. As a matter of fact, that's been proven a million times over. I can't imagine any rational person at this point disagreeing.
> 
> But, "combat sports" didn't actually prepare Colin McGreggor for boxing the way that he was sure they did.
> 
> The thing about the internet is that you have no idea who you are criticizing. Combat veterans and LEO (for example) find your assertiveness that combat sports equates in any way to what they have seen and done in the world as absurd as you seem to think everyone who isn't you is.
> 
> You and a couple of other trolls are convinced that you know best and hop into every thread and even start your own to say, as you did at the beginning of this, that it's your obligation to expose everyone who doesn't think like you as a fake and you don't see how lovely ridiculous that is.
> 
> I'm done. I'll just grow my ignore list a bit and take a break from trying to contribute to these fora. The kudzu has taken over the garden.



Go look up jokko Wilson, Williams? Something like that. You will see in the arena of special forces the exact same progression from voodo to evidence based training is occurring. And for the same reasons. They see and use what works.

People who actually have to use their systems Need a system that works.

People who don't can train any old thing because it doesn't really matter.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> the defintion of combat doesnt require you to be in the army



This is less the case these days anyway. You can't just kick doors down and kill everyone. They are not all enemy soldiers.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. This is an area where vocabulary sometimes causes some conflict. When I hear "self-defense", I think of the physical defense once an attack happens. Self-preservation (or personal safety, or self-protection - the term I usually use) is IMO a larger topic, which can include self-defense. When someone asks if I teach self-defense, then asks how much time I spend on home safety, I tell them that's not the same topic. I don't claim to be highly knowledgeable about the techniques of home security. I do have significant knowledge about physical defensive tactics and techniques, and that's what I (mostly) teach. I also cover some of the closely related areas of the larger topic - things like threat avoidance, threat recognition, basic target hardening (personal more than home), etc.
> 
> Of course, others use the terms differently, and I'm okay with that, so long as they don't accuse me of making claims I don't make. I've never had a student think I was promising other than what I teach.
> 
> None of that is black-and-white to me. There's grey areas in that, which it's hard to draw a distinction.



And the idea that you should be some sort of savant versed in all things defensive is asking a bit much. Which is why people are spread too thin on the subject when they try to do it all.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When you say that Bagua guys should not "cross legs", is that "style basing"?


----------



## psilent child

I think every style have those made for Hollywood only moves. Does this mean it won't work? That's where sparring helps. Try it out. I call it style bashing if you only point out flaws in other arts and not your own cause there are flaws in every art.  It like someone said earlier. It's about what you looking for in an art. I think BJJ is a great art. I would never use it in the street. Does it mean it sucks or doesn't work? No


----------



## Gerry Seymour

psilent child said:


> I think every style have those made for Hollywood only moves. Does this mean it won't work? That's where sparring helps. Try it out. I call it style bashing if you only point out flaws in other arts and not your own cause there are flaws in every art.  It like someone said earlier. It's about what you looking for in an art. I think BJJ is a great art. I would never use it in the street. Does it mean it sucks or doesn't work? No


I'd amend that statement: I would never use it on the street if I can stay standing.


----------



## drop bear

psilent child said:


> I think every style have those made for Hollywood only moves. Does this mean it won't work? That's where sparring helps. Try it out. I call it style bashing if you only point out flaws in other arts and not your own cause there are flaws in every art.  It like someone said earlier. It's about what you looking for in an art. I think BJJ is a great art. I would never use it in the street. Does it mean it sucks or doesn't work? No



Depends why you wouldn't use it. Most of the arguments against are bloody silly to be honest.


----------



## psilent child

drop bear said:


> Depends why you wouldn't use it. Most of the arguments against are bloody silly to be honest.


I wouldnt use it on the street because I don't know all the variables. I seen a video where guy A had guy B in an arm bar. Guy B pulls out a knife with his free arm and stabs guy A. I'm not saying you can't get stabbed standing up. I'm just saying I don't want to be going for a limb on the ground and something worse happens. I would prefer to stay standing and move around as needs be. I had a buddy had a guy in a Guillotine. The guys friend came and kicked a field goal in my buddies face. My buddy had to have surgery because he couldn't breathe out of his nose. I can't remember the injury.


----------



## psilent child

gpseymour said:


> I'd amend that statement: I would never use it on the street if I can stay standing.


That sounds better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

psilent child said:


> I wouldnt use it on the street because I don't know all the variables. I seen a video where guy A had guy B in an arm bar. Guy B pulls out a knife with his free arm and stabs guy A. I'm not saying you can't get stabbed standing up. I'm just saying I don't want to be going for a limb on the ground and something worse happens. I would prefer to stay standing and move around as needs be. I had a buddy had a guy in a Guillotine. The guys friend came and kicked a field goal in my buddies face. My buddy had to have surgery because he couldn't breathe out of his nose. I can't remember the injury.


Most of those arguments could be made about any grappling. The question is how possible is it to remain standing. The argument that a huge proportion of fights go to the ground doesn't hold up against any evidence I can find, except perhaps for LEO. But there is a lot of evidence that fights/attacks go to the ground often, and often without the consent of at least one of the involved parties. Now, with standing grappling experience, I'm less likely to end up on the ground than someone without standing grappling experience. But that still doesn't help once I end up there. I'm not interested in the full range of BJJ groundwork, but the basics of control and escape are well suited to defensive use, IMO.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You are defending the establishment here.
> 
> The onus is on them to prove their stuff works. You buy a crash helmet. It is not for you to prove it doesn't work. You get cancer treatment you buy toothpaste. Anything. It is their duty to sell you a product that works.
> 
> If we don't have this then martial arts is mysticism and I don't have to be qualified in voodo. To know voodo is bunk.
> 
> Which is why you keep having to regurgitate arguments used religion.



People sell stuff all the time with little or no proof of effectiveness and especially where the benefits are subjective (the heaĺth and beauty industry for example) it takes experts to test and disprove claims of effectiveness.

Also I stand by my earlier comment that a few months of genuine serious research would probably be enough to at least give a valid answer to the "what qualifies you to say this?" question.

So a different question. If your not willing to put the work in, the definition why should anyone who is listen to you?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

psilent child said:


> I think BJJ is a great art. I would never use it in the street. Does it mean it sucks or doesn't work? No





psilent child said:


> I wouldnt use it on the street because I don't know all the variables. I seen a video where guy A had guy B in an arm bar. Guy B pulls out a knife with his free arm and stabs guy A. I'm not saying you can't get stabbed standing up. I'm just saying I don't want to be going for a limb on the ground and something worse happens. I would prefer to stay standing and move around as needs be. I had a buddy had a guy in a Guillotine. The guys friend came and kicked a field goal in my buddies face. My buddy had to have surgery because he couldn't breathe out of his nose. I can't remember the injury.



I think you have a limited idea of what BJJ encompasses. Street application is different from sport application.

Would I pull guard in a street fight and start hunting for armbars? No.

Would I throw an attacker and then control him on the ground with knee mount, tying up his arms so he can't punch or draw a weapon, and keep an eye on my surroundings while I decide whether to punch out my opponent, break his arm, hold him for the police, or get up and run if I see he has buddies coming to help him out? Yes. That's BJJ.

If I'm knocked down by a sucker punch and my attacker tries to kick or punch me while I'm down, would I use an open guard to protect myself from his attacks until I recovered my equilibrium enough to sweep him and get to my feet safely? Yes. That's BJJ.

If I'm tackled to the ground by a larger opponent who wants to sit on my chest and punch my face in, would I use my fundamental skills to prevent his strikes, reverse him, and get back to my feet? Yes. That's BJJ.

I will admit there are BJJ schools that don't teach the tactical requirements of using the art in a street context, but I try to make sure my students understand the difference between a tournament match and a mugging.


----------



## psilent child

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you have a limited idea of what BJJ encompasses. Street application is different from sport application.
> 
> Would I pull guard in a street fight and start hunting for armbars? No.
> 
> Would I throw an attacker and then control him on the ground with knee mount, tying up his arms so he can't punch or draw a weapon, and keep an eye on my surroundings while I decide whether to punch out my opponent, break his arm, hold him for the police, or get up and run if I see he has buddies coming to help him out? Yes. That's BJJ.
> 
> If I'm knocked down by a sucker punch and my attacker tries to kick or punch me while I'm down, would I use an open guard to protect myself from his attacks until I recovered my equilibrium enough to sweep him and get to my feet safely? Yes. That's BJJ.
> 
> If I'm tackled to the ground by a larger opponent who wants to sit on my chest and punch my face in, would I use my fundamental skills to prevent his strikes, reverse him, and get back to my feet? Yes. That's BJJ.
> 
> I will admit there are BJJ schools that don't teach the tactical requirements of using the art in a street context, but I try to make sure my students understand the difference between a tournament match and a mugging.


I know exactly what BJJ consists of and I still would prefer to stand in a fight. I don't to get up and run when I see his buddies coming. I want to already be on my feet moving. Like I said though that's my opinion. I still think it's a great art. I would love to do a competition one day.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> Most of those arguments could be made about any grappling. The question is how possible is it to remain standing. The argument that a huge proportion of fights go to the ground doesn't hold up against any evidence I can find, except perhaps for LEO. But there is a lot of evidence that fights/attacks go to the ground often, and often without the consent of at least one of the involved parties. Now, with standing grappling experience, I'm less likely to end up on the ground than someone without standing grappling experience. But that still doesn't help once I end up there. I'm not interested in the full range of BJJ groundwork, but the basics of control and escape are well suited to defensive use, IMO.


My main argument against BJJ and ground fighting in general (not all BJJ is all ground fighting) is I would never engage in a "jujitsu match" in a barroom or any other similarly crowed area (concert, outdoor festival, etc.).  While I was bar tending, I noticed a disturbing trend...

Others would tend to watch and let people fight it out when both people were on their feet.  Once it went to the ground, it turned into a free for all with one or the other guy usually getting a foot or bottle to their head.

My theory is people tended to let it be a "fair fight" when both guys were on their feet, and then feel like someone's had enough when it goes to the ground and feel like they have to jump in.  I haven't been to those bars in 15 years or so, so maybe things changed since. Maybe that's how it goes where I live and I'm living in some odd bubble.  Most likely not to either one of those though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

psilent child said:


> I know exactly what BJJ consists of and I still would prefer to stand in a fight. I don't to get up and run when I see his buddies coming. I want to already be on my feet moving. Like I said though that's my opinion. I still think it's a great art. I would love to do a competition one day.


That's a legitimate preference, although there are times when keeping your opponent down is a good tactic. Nevertheless, 2/3 of my examples were concerned with how to safely get back to your feet when you end up on the ground _involuntarily_. When I'm teaching BJJ from a self-defense standpoint, those skills are my first priority. Going to the ground voluntarily (if appropriate in the given situation) comes later.


----------



## Buka

I would prefer to stand in an altercation, too. Sometimes, in a BJJish way.

Flight passenger filmed getting aggressive man in choke hold


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> how to safely get back to your feet when you end up on the ground _involuntarily_.


I can't find any BJJ clip that address in this area. Do you know any?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can't find any BJJ clip that address in this area. Do you know any?


I'll try to look some up when I get back from class tonight. Shoot me a reminder if I forget.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> My main argument against BJJ and ground fighting in general (not all BJJ is all ground fighting) is I would never engage in a "jujitsu match" in a barroom or any other similarly crowed area (concert, outdoor festival, etc.).  While I was bar tending, I noticed a disturbing trend...
> 
> Others would tend to watch and let people fight it out when both people were on their feet.  Once it went to the ground, it turned into a free for all with one or the other guy usually getting a foot or bottle to their head.
> 
> My theory is people tended to let it be a "fair fight" when both guys were on their feet, and then feel like someone's had enough when it goes to the ground and feel like they have to jump in.  I haven't been to those bars in 15 years or so, so maybe things changed since. Maybe that's how it goes where I live and I'm living in some odd bubble.  Most likely not to either one of those though.


My review of videos of fights (and attacks that turned into fights) on the street saw some of the same. Often, once a dominant position was created, an interested third party (and occasionally an uninterested one who didn't understand what was going on) stepped in and grabbed, punched, or kicked (or in some cases beat with a purse). That being the case, I want my dominant position to be standing, if at all possible, where I have a better chance of dealing with those.

I teach ground pins and locks, because sometimes they are the best answer. I teach ground grappling because sometimes we end up on the ground and need to control things there. I teach ground escapes because who wants to stay there?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> People sell stuff all the time with little or no proof of effectiveness and especially where the benefits are subjective (the heaĺth and beauty industry for example) it takes experts to test and disprove claims of effectiveness.
> 
> Also I stand by my earlier comment that a few months of genuine serious research would probably be enough to at least give a valid answer to the "what qualifies you to say this?" question.
> 
> So a different question. If your not willing to put the work in, the definition why should anyone who is listen to you?



Hey man just try it. Maybe you will like it.

If claims of I have tried it with no other qualification of authenticity apply then I am qualified. An expectation of providing actual evidence shoot me in the foot as much as anyone.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Most of those arguments could be made about any grappling. The question is how possible is it to remain standing. The argument that a huge proportion of fights go to the ground doesn't hold up against any evidence I can find, except perhaps for LEO. But there is a lot of evidence that fights/attacks go to the ground often, and often without the consent of at least one of the involved parties. Now, with standing grappling experience, I'm less likely to end up on the ground than someone without standing grappling experience. But that still doesn't help once I end up there. I'm not interested in the full range of BJJ groundwork, but the basics of control and escape are well suited to defensive use, IMO.



You finish people easier on the ground. If you are worried about multiple attackers. You have to be able to finish guys.

If you are handing ko,s out like candy. Stay standing. If you are not at some point the fight will get turned around.

Me I don't hand out ko,s like candy and my self defence method reflects that. I put a guy on the ground I get free shots. But I don't use a hits method I use a MMA one which has a different order of priorities.

The thing is the order of priorities rely on being able to out grapple the other guy. So hoping the bjjer has not had a ten minute discussion discussing situational priorities is pretty ambitious.

So I do the BJJ to gain the skill set to have more than hope on my side.


----------



## Axiom

JR 137 said:


> My main argument against BJJ and ground fighting in general (not all BJJ is all ground fighting) is I would never engage in a "jujitsu match" in a barroom or any other similarly crowed area (concert, outdoor festival, etc.).  While I was bar tending, I noticed a disturbing trend...
> 
> Others would tend to watch and let people fight it out when both people were on their feet.  Once it went to the ground, it turned into a free for all with one or the other guy usually getting a foot or bottle to their head.
> 
> My theory is people tended to let it be a "fair fight" when both guys were on their feet, and then feel like someone's had enough when it goes to the ground and feel like they have to jump in.  I haven't been to those bars in 15 years or so, so maybe things changed since. Maybe that's how it goes where I live and I'm living in some odd bubble.  Most likely not to either one of those though.



A seasoned BJJ guy can simply grab a persons neck and choke him while standing, so I think the groundfighting part is a bit misunderstood.


----------



## JR 137

Axiom said:


> A seasoned BJJ guy can simply grab a persons neck and choke him while standing, so I think the groundfighting part is a bit misunderstood.


In my original post, I said "...(not all BJJ is all ground fighting)"  I know many BJJers can apply a lot of things on their feet.

To be honest, and yes, I'm a karate guy; the most effective defense for a guy who's outsized and outstrengthed (is that a word?) in a fight is probably standing grappling/choking.  That's assuming he/she's very proficient in it.  It takes far less strength to blood choke out an attacker than a KO by punching or kicking.  But both are highly skilled, um... skills.

For the reasons @Tony Dismukes stated, it's obviously very advantageous to be versed in BJJ.  He said what I was thinking, only he's far more articulate and experienced with it. 

I spent from 3rd grade all through high school wrestling, and another 10 years on and off coaching it on the mat (not just standing around barking orders).   I know the benefits of being able to fight on the ground quite well.  I also know it's limitations.  I'd never willingly "roll" in the middle of the pub, concert floor, etc.  An intruder in my home where I knew I wasn't going to get someone else coming in, I'd most likely use my wrestling skill set and "ground & pound" or try for a choke than use my karate skill set and take my chances going toe to toe.  I'd probably do the same if I was outsized in an MMA match and knew my opponent wasn't a proficient BJJer or judoka.  

An appropriate time and place for everything.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JR 137 said:


> It takes far less strength to blood choke out an attacker than a KO by punching or kicking.


If you

- beak your opponent's nose by your punch, or
- break his ribs by your kick,

your opponent will never be your friend again. You may have to go to jail, or pay his medical bill.

If you tap him out by your "head lock", you and him can still be friend after that. The reason is simple. Your opponent knows that you can kill him but you didn't. That can make a big difference.

A: Can we stop here and be friendly?
B: Yes! Please stop right here. Thanks for not killing me.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'll try to look some up when I get back from class tonight. Shoot me a reminder if I forget.



MMA For self defence explained.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> MMA For self defence explained.


Where is Hankou? This thread is too quite without him.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Where is Hankou? This thread is too quite without him.



Probably choosing life.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Probably choosing life.


What can be more fun than style bashing?

- SC has no ground game.
- Long fist has too many forms.
- Baji has no speed training.
- Preying mantis has no power training.
- WC doesn't have body rotation.
- Taiji is too slow.
- XingYi is too linear.
- Bagua circle walking is all wrong.
- Boxing has no kick.
- MT has no throw.
- BJJ has no punch.
- ...


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What can be more fun than style bashing?
> 
> - SC has no ground game.
> - Long fist has too many forms.
> - Baji has no speed training.
> - Preying mantis has no power training.
> - WC doesn't have body rotation.
> - Taiji is too slow.
> - XingYi is too linear.
> - Bagua circle walking is all wrong.
> - Boxing has no kick.
> - MT has no throw.
> - BJJ has no punch.
> - ...



Exactly.


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you
> 
> - beak your opponent's nose by your punch, or
> - break his ribs by your kick,
> 
> your opponent will never be your friend again. You may have to go to jail, or pay his medical bill.
> 
> If you tap him out by your "head lock", you and him can still be friend after that. The reason is simple. Your opponent knows that you can kill him but you didn't. That can make a big difference.
> 
> A: Can we stop here and be friendly?
> B: Yes! Please stop right here. Thanks for not killing me.


If I break an intruder's nose or jaw, I highly doubt I'll have problems justifying my actions.  After all, someone I don't know broke into my home.

Most other circumstances, you're absolutely correct.  Or I absolutely agree, and we're both wrong


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'd amend that statement: I would never use it on the street if I can stay standing.


I'd amend that statement:. I would use it on the street to stay standing, or to stand back up if I cannot stay standing.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can't find any BJJ clip that address in this area. Do you know any?


Google technical stand up.   Combine that with improving position and controlling space on the ground and you have it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'd amend that statement:. I would use it on the street to stay standing, or to stand back up if I cannot stay standing.


Agreed. I have those tools (to stay standing) from NGA, for the most part. If I didn't, I'd use BJJ for that, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can't find any BJJ clip that address in this area. Do you know any?


It's harder to find clips of the actual transition to standing, though there are some. But every escape/sweep gains position for a move to standing, and takedowns to side control are good training for keeping position when you're going down so you can get up.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I'd amend that statement:. I would use it on the street to stay standing, or to stand back up if I cannot stay standing.



I will use it to beat up fools. But only then.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can't find any BJJ clip that address in this area. Do you know any?


Here is a really basic introduction to the topic:






Here's another basic, getting out from the bottom of mount. Once the defender is on top, he can stand up and get free.






Here's something a little more advanced:






Drop bear's link above shows some super-advanced application of these principles. Admittedly, the fighters in his post probably learned most of that from wrestling rather than BJJ, but in my opinion any BJJ practitioner with a self-defense focus should be working on those same skills.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Here is a really basic introduction to the topic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another basic, getting out from the bottom of mount. Once the defender is on top, he can stand up and get free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something a little more advanced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop bear's link above shows some super-advanced application of these principles. Admittedly, the fighters in his post probably learned most of that from wrestling rather than BJJ, but in my opinion any BJJ practitioner with a self-defense focus should be working on those same skills.



Learning wrestling only helps your BJJ though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> Here is a really basic introduction to the topic:


Thanks for showing those clips. I'm more interested in "human bouncing ball" approach that you can get back up on your feet in fast speed.

For example in the following clip at 0.19, 0.23, 0.26, ....






In this short clip, he uses

- a right outside crescent kick, followed by
- a left inside crescent kick.
- rotate his body to his right, and then
- bounce back up on his feet.

It's my favor move. The reason is simple. Those 2 kicks can force your opponent to move back before you get back up.






This clip, he bounced back up without using hand.






This clip, he used his hand to help him to bounce back up.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Learning wrestling only helps your BJJ though.


I haven't tried BJJ, but I know a few former collegiate wrestlers who made the switch.  Wrestling has some ingrained habits that are counterproductive in BJJ.  Going to your stomach is a seriously bad habit and can be hard to change/unlearn.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JR 137 said:


> I haven't tried BJJ, but I know a few former collegiate wrestlers who made the switch.  Wrestling has some ingrained habits that are counterproductive in BJJ.  Going to your stomach is a seriously bad habit and can be hard to change/unlearn.


Having a wrestling background is about 95% helpful with about 5% unhelpful habits which have to be changed. It's a lot quicker and easier to change those habits than it is to develop the positive skills and attributes which wrestling can give you.


----------



## JR 137

Tony Dismukes said:


> Having a wrestling background is about 95% helpful with about 5% unhelpful habits which have to be changed. It's a lot quicker and easier to change those habits than it is to develop the positive skills and attributes which wrestling can give you.


Absolutely.  I just remember a friend/coworker who was relatively getting started in BJJ.  He was a Div 1 wrestler, started when he was about 5 years old (he grew up in Iowa, so he started late  ), and wrestled in clubs for a while afterwards.

We had a lot of great conversations about it.  He got very frustrated about 3 months in.  He started working with higher (than him) ranked guys and was constantly getting choked and tapped because of his wrestling habits.  A memorable line was "it's pretty hard breaking a habit I spent 25 years trying to perfect (staying off your back).  He a a good 2-3 month period of struggling with it.  He caught on quick, but his competitive (with himself) nature drove him crazy.  He adapted the hard way.

A few of his wrestling club buddies that I knew through him all said they had the same issue, but they weren't as hard on themselves about it.

Edit: It was the 5% that got him caught by guys with more experience than him.  But he was able to hang with those guys far better/longer than other newbies without any wrestling experience.


----------



## Tarrycat

Martial D said:


> One point of view - You are bashing my style!
> 
> My point of view - it is harmful and fraudulent to instill in people a false sense of confidence based on nonfunctional BS that will and has gotten many people hurt or killed. It is my duty as a martial artist to dispel these myths wherever I find them.




I believe that it's one thing to have an opinion & another trying to change the destiny of an individual. In trying to persuade them, you may not realise it, but you're trying to influence their sense of self, & by doing that, you take away their free will. 

Yes, a lot of the time people make unwise choices. All you can really do is raise your opinion if you disagree, but it ends there. 

You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink the water. People learn best from their own mistakes, not from the mistakes of others. If they're wise, they might listen, if not, give them the freedom to make mistakes. They are human after all. 

If they made no mistakes, they would never learn, grow, or value anything.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> I haven't tried BJJ, but I know a few former collegiate wrestlers who made the switch.  Wrestling has some ingrained habits that are counterproductive in BJJ.  Going to your stomach is a seriously bad habit and can be hard to change/unlearn.



Better for standing up than the back. Sorta, kinda.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Better for standing up than the back. Sorta, kinda.


I see where you're going with that.  I agree.

Turning to your stomach while your opponent is throwing you and maintaining control is a great skill to have in wrestling.  In BJJ, that'll get you choked out pretty easily.

Is there realistically ever a good time to be in "referee's position" in BJJ?


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> I see where you're going with that.  I agree.
> 
> Turning to your stomach while your opponent is throwing you and maintaining control is a great skill to have in wrestling.  In BJJ, that'll get you choked out pretty easily.
> 
> Is there realistically ever a good time to be in "referee's position" in BJJ?


Not really. Sometimes if you are transitioning in to turtle.

Quite often you can choose between going in to turtle. Or re guarding from your back. With punches involved because they suck and they come fast you generally don't want to be inactive off your back.

There are rules of BJJ you can break for MMA. So for example if I am in guard I pretty much have to pass it to get you in a submission. So re guarding is super high priority and super safe.

I don't have to pass your guard to hit you. So it becomes less safe and potentially exposing my back to a choke becomes more safe

Now having said that if they are in turtle. I don't need to muck around taking someone's back to then go for a submission. I just punch them in turtle.

And with all of these concepts is the idea if they are wrestling you for position. They are not hitting you.


----------

