Another Self defence system

[Kung Fu Wang]

Your words are an inspiration, John. My Dad is tough like that. He still loves snow skiing at age 92. His dad was the same. Hard as nails till a stoke laid him low at 94. He fought his way back and lived to 97. His wife, my grandmother, lived to be 102. But we are each different, and have different genes. Willpower alone isn't enough!

We can always encourage each other and not to give up too soon. This clip is what my teacher did when he was 72 years old. I hope in 2 years, I can still have his balance, strength, and flexibility. That's my goal.

The following 2 clips show why my teacher used to call me a "human bouncing ball". It's the Chinese wrestling spirit that the moment you get down, you try to get back up ASAP. Sorry, I'm bragging about myself again. It's very sad that when you get old, the only thing left is "your past".

 

[jobo]

So now they're only famous if you bothered to follow their sport? Think highly of yourself, do you?

no they are only famous if i have heard of them, otherwise by defintion they are not.
tiger woods ( and i hate golf) i have heard of- famous
some obscure ausy mma fighter I've never heard of--, not famous
CM, who i have heard of--- infamous,
easy really

 

[Danny T]

boxing is bad enough, but there are limited to the violence that hopefully stops short of it just being a blood bath. Those controls are a lot laxer in mma and the,amount of damaged caused much greater.

Actually it is the opposite.
There are more controls and fights are stopped much quicker in MMA than Boxing. No standing 8 counts like boxing where the fighter get concussed and continues. MMA where if the ref stops the contest it is over. If a fighter gets cut and is bleeding badly the ref will call in the doctor long before that will happen in boxing. One of the biggest is in boxing if a fighter quits due to injury or from punch damage he is booed and considered a quitter and promoters won't use them. In MMA a fighter can quit anytime.

 

[drop bear]

no they are only famous if i have heard of them, otherwise by defintion they are not.
tiger woods ( and i hate golf) i have heard of- famous
some obscure ausy mma fighter I've never heard of--, not famous
CM, who i have heard of--- infamous,
easy really

Tiger who? Sorry don't know the guy. If you are going to use a sports person you can't just pull out obscure ones.

 

[hoshin1600]

Tiger who? Sorry don't know the guy. If you are going to use a sports person you can't just pull out obscure ones.

yeah im with you on this one...Tiger...Tiger??? oh !! i think i know...... Tigress,,, she was a character on kung fu panda...

 

[Buka]

I really do.

 

[FighterTwister]

LoL peoples .......... Kung -Fu Panda - Tiger Hahahaha

Nah c'mon LoL

But honestly Karambit blade work is nasty stuff and not to my liking but can be fun with dummy knives in group sessions for fun to enjoy the movement and speed drills, thats all in my books.

Watch.................

In reality its not for the faint hearted, its very quick and deadly, its murder in the most vicious of ways.

It only makes sense in the defense force, in my books.

Look online and you see some really bad people doing it with massive lacerations yikes evil stuff.

Nah not for me but Kali Escrima Arnis stick fighting yes I love this and still do it till this day................ watch

Thats allot of fun pretty harmless as well.

I'm actually now teaching my son who is only 11 just started so no much to show.

One day he wants to learn the next his not interested at all so slowly I just enjoy things with him.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no they are only famous if i have heard of them, otherwise by defintion they are not.
tiger woods ( and i hate golf) i have heard of- famous
some obscure ausy mma fighter I've never heard of--, not famous
CM, who i have heard of--- infamous,
easy really

So you are the arbiter of "famous". Interesting.

 

[jobo]

So you are the arbiter of "famous". Interesting.

well yes as the average man in the,street, it's good test, to be famous you need to be known and recognised outside of a few obsessives that follow,a particular sport to the nth degree.
for instance i follow snooker, i can identify any one of a 100 players. I. You and very nearly all of the rest of the 7 billion people in the world wouldn't be able to name them if you were offered a thousand pound to do so.

it would be,wrong to claim that the fact that a few thousand people who follow snooker could do so means that they are famous, two or three of those players are well enough know, that the average person in this,country could pick them out at a,super market queue, . You could make a claim that they are famous, at least in this country

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well yes as the average man in the,street, it's good test, to be famous you need to be known and recognised outside of a few obsessives that follow,a particular sport to the nth degree.
for instance i follow snooker, i can identify any one of a 100 players. I. You and very nearly all of the rest of the 7 billion people in the world wouldn't be able to name them if you were offered a thousand pound to do so.

it would be,wrong to claim that the fact that a few thousand people who follow snooker could do so means that they are famous, two or three of those players are well enough know, that the average person in this,country could pick them out at a,super market queue, . You could make a claim that they are famous, at least in this country

No, it's not a good test. By that measure, if anyone is not known by a single average person, they are not famous. That would mean all boxers, football, cricket, basketball, soccer, baseball, and tennis players are not famous, because at least one common person won't know them. Same for all actors, politicians, fighters, etc. In other words, there is at least one common person who is not aware of every person, so nobody is famous - according to your measure. Someone could be known by 7.44 billion people, but if you don't know who they are, they aren't famous. Thing pretty highly of yourself, do you?

 

[jobo]

No, it's not a good test. By that measure, if anyone is not known by a single average person, they are not famous. That would mean all boxers, football, cricket, basketball, soccer, baseball, and tennis players are not famous, because at least one common person won't know them. Same for all actors, politicians, fighters, etc. In other words, there is at least one common person who is not aware of every person, so nobody is famous - according to your measure. Someone could be known by 7.44 billion people, but if you don't know who they are, they aren't famous. Thing pretty highly of yourself, do you?

no that's not what i said, i said an average person, someone who doesn't follow that sport, but can't help to know who say CM, because he is FAMOUS.

if 99 people know him and you don't then you are not by defintion average

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Oh pur-lees, they weren't even princesses.

Drag ladies-in-waiting?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The instructor is undoubtedly skilled, but much of what he's doing in the video is showing off. In order to judge the value of the art for self-defense I'd need to watch a typical class.

Some thoughts on what is shown ...

1. A flurry of knife cuts against an unarmed, passive opponent. If this was to demonstrate the danger a knife can pose to an unarmed defender, then good job. If it's a recommended tactic for a knife-wielding defender to use against an unarmed attacker, then there are potential legal consequences to consider. If he's recommending it as a tactic against an opponent who is also armed with a knife, then it's likely to lead to a double kill since he's at point blank range focused only on offense.
2. The kick being shown in the second technique isn't actually a roundhouse. The foot is actually rotating around the knee joint perpendicular to the normal plane of motion via the hip rotators. I've mostly only seen it in movie choreography, since it isn't very powerful or good for the knee. He's showing it as a reliable one shot knockout? Please.
3. The punches look good. The takedown is unreliable at best, and he turns his back to the opponent in range with his hands down to apply it? Not a good idea unless it's a movie and the choreographer is on your side.
4. The knife disarm can work. It can also get you killed. Admittedly this is true of all knife disarms, but this one is riskier than average.
5. Once again, he's assuming the knife wielder is passive and incompetent. Do you notice how when he's holding the knife, the knife is capable of lighting fast combinations, but when his uke holds the knife he just stands with the weapon outstretched and doesn't move or react?
6. More of the same.
7. Not awful. A bit showy and not high-percentage against a tough opponent, but potentially workable.
8. The next techniques or so all show pre-emptive techniques against an opponent standing in arms reach with his hands down who has not yet started to fight. There is certainly a place for this sort of pre-emptive approach in self-defense, but you better be able to correctly judge when it is required or you may be the one going to prison for assault. In any case, lots of stuff can work when you get to hit someone who isn't expecting it from point blank range. These techniques look fine for that purpose, although I might do some things differently. In the last one he appears to be drawing a knife and using lethal force against a wrist grab. In some cases this may be legally and morally defensible, but I hope he makes it clear when this would and would not be appropriate.
9. Using the shoulder to clear an advancing two hand choke. Fine.
10. Knee tap takedown from an over-under clinch. Works because the opponent has his feet out of correct position. Okay if he's using it as an example of why not to put your feet like that or if he shows a setup to get the opponent there. Otherwise not worth the bother against someone who knows what they're doing.
11. Arm crank from side control. Legit, but there are ways to do it which maintain better control.
12. Next few techniques are mostly more pre-emptive techniques against opponents standing close with their hands down. See my comments above. I do like the way he chains techniques efficiently. I don't like the way he keeps his hands down once the fight begins. A real opponent may not always be instantly stunned or knocked down the way his demo dummy is.
13. A demo of how someone with a knife standing in arms reach can cut you before you react, especially if you start with your hands down and wait for the knife wielder to initiate. Action beats reaction, especially at that range and especially with a weapon that doesn't require much force generation to be effective. Good demo as to why you should respect the knife, but doesn't fit with his casual approach to defending against the knife earlier in the video.
14. Some more pre-emptive hits. See above.
15. Pinned against a wall with a choke, and he instantly drops his attacker with an arm-powered double slap to the ribs. This only works if your physical attributes are so far above your opponent that you should never be in that position to begin with.
16. More defenses from the wall. The elbow is good, although a competent opponent won't make it so easy to land. The little hammer kick is unusual, but legit. The knee is good. As usual, the demo dummy is selling the shots like stuntmen playing the bad guy minions in a kung fu movie. Watch some MMA to see how many of those shots a tough fighter can take and still maintain control and offense.
17. Slap to the arm-entanglement shoulder crank. Legit, but not high-percentage against a competent opponent.
18. Wrist-lock flow. Legit if you are highly skilled, although he's showing off rather than responding to actual cues which require the flow. Also, standing wristlocks mostly work when you get to apply them pre-emptively against someone who is not already trying to hit you. (Sort of a grappling equivalent of a sucker punch.)
19. If you can instantly drop an opponent by punching his thigh, then your physical attributes are so far beyond his that you could use almost any technique to win the fight.

Personally I prefer to teach techniques that don't rely on being massively stronger and faster with the advantage of surprise and superior weaponry. Obviously those are all good advantages to have in a fight, but if you are in a legitimate self-defense situation you don't get to choose whether you have them.

To reiterate my initial point, I haven't seen any footage of regular class instruction in this art. Perhaps they do a really good job of teaching techniques in a way which is useful to the average student. I'm just commenting on the posted video, which seems much more like a demo for "look how awesome I am."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no that's not what i said, i said an average person, someone who doesn't follow that sport, but can't help to know who say CM, because he is FAMOUS.

if 99 people know him and you don't then you are not by defintion average

For that one person, I'm not average. But that makes "famous" self-affirming. A famous person is known by average people. If an "average" person knows them, then that person is average, if not they're not average.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

its really not a "sport"in the true meaning of that concept. its just gross violence to satisfy a blood lust in people who like that sort of thing.

So ... like Rugby, then?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So ... like Rugby, then?

And significant portions of Hockey.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The teacher can offer to spar/wrestle with his students. The students should not ask their teacher to spar/wrestle with them. That's "MA tradition" and everybody should protect it, We will all get old or get sick some day. It makes no sense for a 20 years old student to beat up a 90 years old teacher in any MA system.

A: Dear master! May I have the honor to spar with you?
B: If you don't mind to help me to get up from my wheelchair, I don't mind to spar with you for 15 rounds.

Disagree. If I'm on the mat when it's time for sparring, anyone is welcome to ask me to spar. I can always say no if I don't feel like it. Admittedly I'm only 53. When I get to be 90 I probably will only spar under very limited circumstances if at all.

Again for MA tradition, a student should never ask his teacher to spar/wrestle with him. Some teacher don't like to teach his students how to counter his best techniques for the reason as I have described.

I definitely don't like the idea of holding back info from a student to maintain an advantage. This sort of approach not only hurts the student, but it also hurts me. If my students know how to counter what I do, then it forces me to improve my technique.

May be it's only the Chinese MA thing.

- My teacher's teacher told my teacher.
- My teacher told me.
- I told my students.
- My students told their students.
- ...

I've seen it in some BJJ schools as well, the idea that etiquette forbids lower ranks from asking higher ranks (or sometimes just black belts) to spar. I don't agree with that at all. Sparring is for learning, and I can learn from sparring with anyone, regardless of their level.

 

[FighterTwister]

The instructor is undoubtedly skilled, but much of what he's doing in the video is showing off. In order to judge the value of the art for self-defense I'd need to watch a typical class.

Some thoughts on what is shown ...

1. A flurry of knife cuts against an unarmed, passive opponent. If this was to demonstrate the danger a knife can pose to an unarmed defender, then good job. If it's a recommended tactic for a knife-wielding defender to use against an unarmed attacker, then there are potential legal consequences to consider. If he's recommending it as a tactic against an opponent who is also armed with a knife, then it's likely to lead to a double kill since he's at point blank range focused only on offense.
2. The kick being shown in the second technique isn't actually a roundhouse. The foot is actually rotating around the knee joint perpendicular to the normal plane of motion via the hip rotators. I've mostly only seen it in movie choreography, since it isn't very powerful or good for the knee. He's showing it as a reliable one shot knockout? Please.
3. The punches look good. The takedown is unreliable at best, and he turns his back to the opponent in range with his hands down to apply it? Not a good idea unless it's a movie and the choreographer is on your side.
4. The knife disarm can work. It can also get you killed. Admittedly this is true of all knife disarms, but this one is riskier than average.
5. Once again, he's assuming the knife wielder is passive and incompetent. Do you notice how when he's holding the knife, the knife is capable of lighting fast combinations, but when his uke holds the knife he just stands with the weapon outstretched and doesn't move or react?
6. More of the same.
7. Not awful. A bit showy and not high-percentage against a tough opponent, but potentially workable.
8. The next techniques or so all show pre-emptive techniques against an opponent standing in arms reach with his hands down who has not yet started to fight. There is certainly a place for this sort of pre-emptive approach in self-defense, but you better be able to correctly judge when it is required or you may be the one going to prison for assault. In any case, lots of stuff can work when you get to hit someone who isn't expecting it from point blank range. These techniques look fine for that purpose, although I might do some things differently. In the last one he appears to be drawing a knife and using lethal force against a wrist grab. In some cases this may be legally and morally defensible, but I hope he makes it clear when this would and would not be appropriate.
9. Using the shoulder to clear an advancing two hand choke. Fine.
10. Knee tap takedown from an over-under clinch. Works because the opponent has his feet out of correct position. Okay if he's using it as an example of why not to put your feet like that or if he shows a setup to get the opponent there. Otherwise not worth the bother against someone who knows what they're doing.
11. Arm crank from side control. Legit, but there are ways to do it which maintain better control.
12. Next few techniques are mostly more pre-emptive techniques against opponents standing close with their hands down. See my comments above. I do like the way he chains techniques efficiently. I don't like the way he keeps his hands down once the fight begins. A real opponent may not always be instantly stunned or knocked down the way his demo dummy is.
13. A demo of how someone with a knife standing in arms reach can cut you before you react, especially if you start with your hands down and wait for the knife wielder to initiate. Action beats reaction, especially at that range and especially with a weapon that doesn't require much force generation to be effective. Good demo as to why you should respect the knife, but doesn't fit with his casual approach to defending against the knife earlier in the video.
14. Some more pre-emptive hits. See above.
15. Pinned against a wall with a choke, and he instantly drops his attacker with an arm-powered double slap to the ribs. This only works if your physical attributes are so far above your opponent that you should never be in that position to begin with.
16. More defenses from the wall. The elbow is good, although a competent opponent won't make it so easy to land. The little hammer kick is unusual, but legit. The knee is good. As usual, the demo dummy is selling the shots like stuntmen playing the bad guy minions in a kung fu movie. Watch some MMA to see how many of those shots a tough fighter can take and still maintain control and offense.
17. Slap to the arm-entanglement shoulder crank. Legit, but not high-percentage against a competent opponent.
18. Wrist-lock flow. Legit if you are highly skilled, although he's showing off rather than responding to actual cues which require the flow. Also, standing wristlocks mostly work when you get to apply them pre-emptively against someone who is not already trying to hit you. (Sort of a grappling equivalent of a sucker punch.)
19. If you can instantly drop an opponent by punching his thigh, then your physical attributes are so far beyond his that you could use almost any technique to win the fight.

Personally I prefer to teach techniques that don't rely on being massively stronger and faster with the advantage of surprise and superior weaponry. Obviously those are all good advantages to have in a fight, but if you are in a legitimate self-defense situation you don't get to choose whether you have them.

To reiterate my initial point, I haven't seen any footage of regular class instruction in this art. Perhaps they do a really good job of teaching techniques in a way which is useful to the average student. I'm just commenting on the posted video, which seems much more like a demo for "look how awesome I am."

Doug Marcaida BIO

• Doug Marcaida - Bio, Height, Nationality
• About | Doug Marcaida
  
• Forged in Fire (TV series) - Wikipedia

Just Google..............

• doug marcaida wiki - Google Search

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I definitely don't like the idea of holding back info from a student to maintain an advantage. This sort of approach not only hurts the student, but it also hurts me. If my students know how to counter what I do, then it forces me to improve my technique.

IMO, it also hurts the art. If every instructor holds back a bit of what he knows, each successive generation may know a bit less. It would be preferable that each successive generation know a bit more, instead. To paraphrase what you've said before, the aim of the instructor should be for his students to be better than he was at any given point in his training. Not always possible, but it should be the aim.

 

[Danny T]

well yes as the average man in the,street, it's good test, to be famous you need to be known and recognised outside of a few obsessives that follow,a particular sport to the nth degree.
for instance i follow snooker, i can identify any one of a 100 players. I. You and very nearly all of the rest of the 7 billion people in the world wouldn't be able to name them if you were offered a thousand pound to do so.

it would be,wrong to claim that the fact that a few thousand people who follow snooker could do so means that they are famous, two or three of those players are well enough know, that the average person in this,country could pick them out at a,super market queue, . You could make a claim that they are famous, at least in this country

One can be famous within a particular group or particular groups. One may not be famous world wide but can be within a smaller group. Famous simply means to be known or recognized by many persons. There is no specificity as to what constitutes many. So within your example of 100 players if one is know by many within the group who follow snooker that one is famous...within the particular group.

Your opinion on the definition of famous is a good opinion...it is wrong but a good opinion...as far as opinions go.